Early worsening of diabetic retinopathy following initiation of hybrid closed‐loop/automated insulin delivery systems in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and structured study‐level synthesis

Background Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems achieve rapid, algorithm-driven improvements in glycaemia in type 1 diabetes (T1D). Paradoxically, rapid improvement in glycaemic control is associated with early worsening of diabetic retinopathy (EWDR), a phenomenon established in the intensive insulin therapy era. Whether HCL initiation carries a clinically meaningful EWDR risk is unknown. No systematic review has previously addressed this question.

Methods A systematic review and structured quantitative synthesis was performed using study-level estimates only (PROSPERO CRD:420261391951). MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Web of Science were searched to 14th May 2026. Studies reporting retinal outcomes in people with T1D initiating any HCL system were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. EWDR incidence was summarised using study-level proportions, and comparative studies were summarised using study-specific risk ratios for HCL versus control therapy. Given substantial heterogeneity in EWDR definitions, retinal assessment timing, follow-up duration, and comparator groups, no pooled or meta-analytic estimates were derived.

Results Eight studies (n = 1487 participants; 860 HCL users) were included; all were observational and six were retrospective. EWDR varied markedly with the timing of retinal assessment. In studies assessing the retina within ≤ 12 months of HCL initiation, EWDR rates ranged from 8.9% to 26.5%. Studies with longer follow-up reported lower rates of retinal worsening or incident DR, 6.7% at 24 months and 6.1% over a mean follow-up of 4.9 years, suggesting that these studies may capture background DR progression rather than true early worsening. Three comparative studies included 177 HCL users and 315 controls; EWDR study-specific risk ratios were directionally inconsistent, ranging from 0.32 to 1.51, and were therefore not pooled. The most consistently identified risk factors were higher baseline HbA1c and older age. The magnitude of HbA1c reduction was not a consistent predictor of EWDR in the HCL context, in contrast to pre-HCL era evidence. Risk of bias ranged from moderate to critical and certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes.

Conclusions Study-defined retinal worsening was reported in a minority of participants. The current evidence base is dominated by retrospective studies, variable retinal assessment timing, and inconsistent EWDR definitions. Well-designed prospective studies with protocol-specified retinal surveillance anchored to HCL initiation are required to generate reliable incidence estimates, identify risk factors, determine visual consequences, and inform standardised screening guidance.