These data indicate that several strategies prevent T2DM, making it possible to make a choice for the individual subject.

Aim of this review is to compare visceral and subcutaneous fat loss with all available strategies (diet and exercise, weight-loss promoting agents and bariatric surgery). Eighty-nine studies, all full papers, were analyzed to evaluate visceral and subcutaneous fat changes, measured through ultrasound, computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and expressed as thickness, weight, area and volume. Studies were included in a meta-analysis (random-effects model). Intervention effect (absolute and percent changes of visceral and subcutaneous fat) was expressed as standardized mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals. Publication bias was formally assessed. The result was that subcutaneous fat was greater than visceral fat when measured as area, volume and weight, not as thickness; decrease of subcutaneous fat was greater than visceral fat when measured as area, volume and weight, not as thickness; percent decrease of visceral fat was always greater than percent decrease of subcutaneous fat, with no differences between different strategies. No intervention preferentially targets visceral fat. Basal visceral fat depots are smaller than basal subcutaneous fat depots. Visceral fat loss is linked to subcutaneous fat loss. With all strategies, percent decrease of visceral fat prevails on subcutaneous fat loss.

Different intervention strategies can prevent new cases of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in obese subjects. The present systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of different strategies in prevention of type 2 diabetes in obese subjects. Studies were grouped into five different strategies: (1) physical activity ± diet; (2) anti-diabetic drugs (glitazones, metformin, glinides, alfa-glucosidase inhibitors); (3) antihypertensive drugs (ACE inhibitors, ARB); (4) weight loss-promoting drugs and lipid-lowering drugs (orlistat, bezafibrate, phentermine/topiramate controlled release); and (5) bariatric surgery. Only controlled studies, dealing with subjects BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2), were included in the analysis, whether randomized or non-randomized studies. Appropriate methodology (PRISMA statement) was adhered to. Publication bias was formally assessed. Eighteen studies (43,669 subjects, 30,774 with impaired glucose tolerance and/or impaired fasting glucose), published in English language as full papers, were analyzed to identify predictors of new cases of T2DM and were included in a meta-analysis (random-effects model) to study the effect of different strategies. Intervention effect (new cases of diabetes) was expressed as odds ratio (OR), with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). In obese subjects, non-surgical strategies were able to prevent T2DM, with different effectiveness [OR from 0.44 (0.36-0.52) to 0.86 (0.80-0.92)]; in morbidly obese subjects, bariatric surgery was highly effective [OR = 0.10 (0.02-0.49)]. At meta-regression analysis, factors associated with effectiveness were weight loss, young age and fasting insulin levels. Publication bias was present only when considering all studies together. These data indicate that several strategies, with different effectiveness, can prevent T2DM in obese subjects.

Summary Background Uncontrolled studies have indicated appearance or progression of diabetic retinopathy in obese diabetic patients after bariatric surgery. The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to compare the rate of appearance, as well as progression or regression of diabetic retinopathy in studies comparing medical and surgical treatment of obese type 2 diabetes. Methods and findings Intervention effect (new cases of retinopathy, and cases with any change of diabetic retinopathy score) was expressed as odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); change of diabetic retinopathy score was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD), with 95% CIs. Meta‐analyses were performed by a random‐effects model according to DerSimonian and Laird. Heterogeneity was assessed through Q and I2 statistics for each comparison, and potential sources of heterogeneity were discussed where appropriate. Appropriate methodology [preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) statement] was used. Seven studies were analyzed, and incident cases of retinopathy were fewer with bariatric surgery than with medical treatment; change of retinopathy score (three studies) was not different, while only two studies were available on numbers of patients showing progression or regression of retinopathy. Heterogeneity was not significant, and publication bias was not present. Conclusions Bariatric surgery seems to prevent new cases of diabetic retinopathy, but available studies are not sufficient to support progression or regression of retinopathy. Further studies are needed to draw firm conclusions on the effect of bariatric surgery on diabetic retinopathy.