Real-world UK data on the pregnancy 'artificial pancreas'
New UK audit data on the pregnancy hybrid closed loop (artificial pancreas): what it found for time in range and glucose control in type 1 pregnancy.
If you have type 1 and are pregnant or planning to be, here is some encouraging news grounded in real UK data. A national audit of pregnancies looked at women using the CamAPS FX closed loop, the only such system licensed for use in pregnancy in the UK, and found they had better glucose control, spending more of the day in the target range, than women on other treatments. That matters because pregnancy asks for tighter glucose than usual and it is genuinely hard work. This is real-world evidence rather than a promise about your own pregnancy, and what suits you is decided with your maternity diabetes team.
- A closed loop (or artificial pancreas) is a pump and glucose sensor that adjust your background insulin automatically, while you still handle meals.
- CamAPS FX is the algorithm running this system, and it is the only hybrid closed loop licensed for pregnancy in the UK.
- The loop users had better glucose control, spending more of the day in the target range, which is the measure that matters most in pregnancy.
- This is a real-world NHS audit, which shows a pattern across many pregnancies, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Whether this system fits you and your pregnancy is a decision for your maternity diabetes team.
What the numbers actually say
The National Pregnancy in Diabetes audit collects outcomes from pregnancies across the UK, so it reflects everyday NHS care rather than a tightly controlled trial. In the reported analysis, women using CamAPS FX had better glucose control through pregnancy, spending more of the day in the target range than those on other therapies. In pregnancy that time in range, the share of the day your glucose sits in the target band, is usually the measure that matters most. HbA1c, which sums up your glucose over roughly the previous two to three months in a single number, is less reliable in late pregnancy, because glucose shifts quickly and the faster turnover of red blood cells changes the reading. That is why teams lean on time in range here, and why pregnancy targets are set deliberately tight, since steadier glucose is linked with safer pregnancies for both mother and baby.
Encouraging, and still not the whole story
Real-world data like this is valuable precisely because it comes from ordinary care, not a study where everything is optimised. It suggests that, across many pregnancies, this system helped women hold steadier glucose, with more time in the target range, during one of the most demanding stretches of type 1. For anyone who has found pregnancy targets exhausting, that is genuinely hopeful.
It is worth reading it for what it is, though. An audit shows a pattern across a group; it cannot tell you how your own pregnancy would go, and the women using the loop are not identical in every other way to those who were not, so some of the difference may come from elsewhere. It is also not a rule that everyone should be on this system. What it does do is strengthen the case that a pregnancy-licensed closed loop is a serious option worth discussing, and the practical step is to ask your maternity diabetes team what your service offers and whether it fits you.