Zucatti, Kelly PKelly PZucattiTeixeira, Paula PPaula PTeixeiraWayerbacher, Laura FLaura FWayerbacherPiccoli, Giovana FGiovana FPiccoliCorreia, Poliana EPoliana ECorreiaFonseca, Natasha K ONatasha K OFonsecaMoresco, Karla SKarla SMorescoGuerra, Bruno ABruno AGuerraMaduré, Michelle GMichelle GMaduréFarenzena, Laura PLaura PFarenzenaFrankenberg, Anize DAnize DFrankenbergBrietzke, ElisaElisaBrietzkeHalpern, BrunoBrunoHalpernFranco Duran, Oscar HoracioOscar HoracioFranco DuranColpani, VerônicaVerônicaColpaniGerchman, FernandoFernandoGerchman2024-10-112024-10-112022-11-01https://boris-portal.unibe.ch/handle/20.500.12422/88596BACKGROUND Lifestyle interventions improve the metabolic control of individuals with hyperglycemia. PURPOSE We aimed to determine the effect of lifestyle interventions on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in this population. DATA SOURCES Searches were made through MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and Web of Science (no date/language restriction, until 15 May 2022). STUDY SELECTION We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of subjects with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, comparing intensive lifestyle interventions with usual care, with a minimum of 2 years of active intervention. DATA EXTRACTION Data from the 11 RCTs selected were extracted in duplicate. A frequentist and arm-based meta-analysis was performed with random-effects models to estimate relative risk (RR) for mortality, and heterogeneity was assessed through I2 metrics. A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was used to confirm the findings. DATA SYNTHESIS Lifestyle interventions were not superior to usual care in reducing cardiovascular (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.79-1.23) or all-cause (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.85-1.03) mortality. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses showed no influence of type of intervention, mean follow-up, age, glycemic status, geographical location, risk of bias, or weight change. All of these results were confirmed with the GLMM. Most studies had a low risk of bias according to the RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence was moderate for both outcomes. LIMITATIONS Most studies had a low risk of bias according to the RoB 2.0 tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach resulted in moderate certainty of evidence for both outcomes. Differences in lifestyle programs and in usual care between the studies should be considered in the interpretation of our results. CONCLUSIONS Intensive lifestyle interventions implemented so far did not show superiority to usual care in reducing cardiovascular or all-cause mortality for subjects with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.en600 - Technology::610 - Medicine & health300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology::360 - Social problems & social servicesarticle10.48350/1744123631867410.2337/dc22-0642