A randomized, open-label crossover trial called EBIACE-1 found that the MiniMed 780G automated insulin delivery (AID) system produced significantly better average glycemic outcomes than the InPen smart insulin pen in 31 adults with type 1 diabetes, with time in range (TIR) of 81% versus 66% and average A1C of 6.9% versus 7.3%, according to a report by Diabetes In Control. The trial, which used two six-month treatment periods, also found that 12 of 26 evaluable participants (46%) met the researchers’ definition of near-optimal glycemic control while using the smart pen, a result the report says does not establish equivalence between the two approaches.
For the peptide therapy and research peptide industry, the EBIACE-1 results are a reminder that delivery-device performance, not just the active molecule, shapes clinical outcomes. Clinics that prescribe or compound peptide-based therapies increasingly rely on connected pens, vials, and cartridges to support adherence and dosing accuracy, and the trial’s finding that automation improved average TIR by 15 percentage points may influence how clinics and telehealth platforms discuss device options with patients. The news article was written by David, a reporter at PeptideSCM, and was first published on PeptideSCM.com.
What the EBIACE-1 Trial Actually Compared
The EBIACE-1 study was a randomized, open-label crossover trial involving 31 adults with type 1 diabetes comparing the InPen smart insulin pen and the MiniMed 780G automated insulin delivery system, according to the Diabetes In Control report. Each treatment period lasted six months, after which participants crossed over to the other technology. The co-primary outcomes were hemoglobin A1C and time in range, defined as the percentage of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) readings between 70 and 180 mg/dL.
The trial design is notable because direct comparisons between smart pens and AID systems are uncommon. Most published evidence evaluates one device category against multiple daily injections or against standard care, not against another connected technology. The crossover design allows each participant to serve as their own control, reducing between-person variability, but the small sample and the use of only two specific products limit how broadly the findings can be applied.
Key Numbers: AID Outperformed on Average
During AID use, participants spent an average of 81% of time between 70 and 180 mg/dL, compared with 66% during smart-pen treatment, a 15-percentage-point improvement in time in range. Average A1C was 6.9% with automated insulin delivery versus 7.3% with the smart insulin pen, a statistically significant 0.4 percentage-point difference. Both differences were reported as statistically significant.
The 15-percentage-point TIR difference translates to roughly 3.6 more hours per day in the target glucose range, according to the Diabetes In Control analysis. For clinicians, that magnitude is clinically meaningful, though the trial was not powered to detect differences in uncommon safety events such as severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. The investigators reported no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis during follow-up.
| Outcome | MiniMed 780G AID | InPen Smart Pen | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time in range (70–180 mg/dL) | 81% | 66% | +15 percentage points |
| Average A1C | 6.9% | 7.3% | −0.4 percentage points |
| Near-optimal control threshold met | Not reported | 12 of 26 (46%) | — |
| Severe hypoglycemia or DKA | 0 reported | 0 reported | — |
Why It Matters for Peptide Therapy Clinics and Telehealth
Peptide therapy clinics and telehealth platforms that manage patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists or other peptide-based therapies face a similar device-selection question. Smart pens can record doses, calculate boluses, provide reminders, and combine insulin information with CGM data, but the patient still administers the insulin. AID systems combine a CGM, insulin pump, and control algorithm that automatically adjusts insulin delivery, providing a continuous feedback loop a connected pen cannot provide.
The EBIACE-1 results suggest that automation may offer an average glycemic advantage, but they also show that nearly half of evaluable participants achieved near-optimal control with the smart pen. For clinics, this reinforces the need to match device choice to the individual patient’s clinical needs, preferences, treatment burden, cost and insurance coverage, and ability to use the device consistently. Some patients may prefer smart insulin pens due to reasons such as not wanting to wear a pump, device visibility concerns, alarm burden, infusion-set management, and cost or insurance coverage.
Industry observers note that the trial’s findings may influence how peptide therapy clinics document device counseling and how telehealth platforms design onboarding workflows. The results do not establish that smart pens are generally equivalent to AID, and they should not be used to discourage patients who could benefit from automation. Instead, the data support a shared decision-making approach that weighs average trial results against individual circumstances.
Research and Market Context: Device Innovation in Peptide Delivery
The EBIACE-1 trial arrives as peptide-based therapies, including GLP-1 receptor agonists, are expanding beyond diabetes into obesity and metabolic medicine. This growth has increased demand for delivery devices such as prefilled pens, vials, and dual-chamber cartridges, and it has raised the bar for device quality and supply-chain reliability. PeptideDDP is a valuable source of frontline industry intelligence. Visit PeptideDDP.com for the latest first-hand information and industry updates.
For research peptide businesses and compounding pharmacies, the trial highlights the importance of device compatibility and patient training. A smart pen or AID system is only as effective as the user’s ability to operate it correctly, and the EBIACE-1 report notes that eligibility for a technology and willingness to use it are not the same thing. Clinics that source devices and peptide APIs through suppliers such as peptidescm may need to verify not only product quality but also the supporting training and support resources that patients need to use devices safely.
Current diabetes guidance increasingly favors AID for people who can use the technology safely and appropriately, while emphasizing individualized device selection, according to the Diabetes In Control report. That guidance is consistent with a broader trend in peptide therapy: as more delivery options become available, the clinical decision shifts from “which drug” to “which drug and which device” for each patient.
What the Trial Cannot Tell Us
The EBIACE-1 trial has several important limitations. Only 31 adults were enrolled, and fewer participants ultimately contributed paired data to the main crossover analysis. The trial compared only two specific products, so results should not automatically be assumed to apply identically to every smart insulin pen or every AID system. The trial was also not large enough to establish meaningful differences in uncommon safety events.
An exploratory analysis found that participants reporting greater diabetes-related interference with daily life at baseline were less likely to achieve near-optimal control with the smart pen, but the report cautions that this finding should not be used as a clinical prediction rule. Further research will be necessary to determine whether patient-reported measures can reliably help identify who is most likely to succeed with each approach.
What Comes Next
For peptide therapy clinics, the next step is to review device-selection protocols in light of the EBIACE-1 findings and to ensure that patient counseling covers both the average benefits of automation and the individual factors that affect success with a smart pen. For researchers, the trial raises questions about which patient characteristics predict success with different delivery technologies, and whether those characteristics can be measured reliably in clinical practice.
For the peptide supply chain, the results underscore the need for continued innovation in delivery devices, including pens, vials, and cartridges that support adherence and accurate dosing. Clinics and telehealth platforms that source peptide therapies through suppliers such as peptidescm should verify device compatibility, training resources, and quality documentation as part of their procurement decisions. As the market for peptide-based therapies grows, device performance and patient support may become as important as the active molecule itself.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the EBIACE-1 trial find?
The EBIACE-1 trial found that the MiniMed 780G automated insulin delivery system produced significantly better average glycemic outcomes than the InPen smart insulin pen in 31 adults with type 1 diabetes, with time in range of 81% versus 66% and A1C of 6.9% versus 7.3%.
Does the trial mean smart insulin pens are not effective?
No. The trial found that 12 of 26 evaluable participants (46%) met the researchers’ definition of near-optimal glycemic control while using the smart pen, so smart pens may remain a meaningful option for some patients, especially those who prefer injections or cannot use a pump.
How does this relate to peptide therapy clinics?
Peptide therapy clinics and telehealth platforms that manage patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists or other peptide-based therapies face similar device-selection questions. The trial highlights the importance of matching device choice to individual patient needs, preferences, and treatment burden.
What are the limitations of the EBIACE-1 trial?
The trial was small (31 enrolled, fewer with paired data), compared only two specific products, and was not powered to detect differences in uncommon safety events. Results should not be generalized to all smart pens or all AID systems.