Recent evidence demonstrating an increased fracture risk among obese individuals suggests that adipose tissue may negatively impact bone health, challenging the traditional paradigm of fat mass playing a protective role towards bone health. White adipose tissue, far from being a mere energy depot, is a dynamic tissue actively implicated in metabolic reactions, and in fact secretes several hormones called adipokines and inflammatory factors that may in turn promote bone resorption. More specifically, Visceral Adipose Tissue (VAT) may potentially prove detrimental. It is widely acknowledged that obesity is positively associated to many chronic disorders such as metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes, conditions that could themselves affect bone health. Although aging is largely known to decrease bone strength, little is yet known on the mechanisms via which obesity and its comorbidities may contribute to such damage. Given the exponentially growing obesity rate in recent years and the increased life expectancy of western countries it appears of utmost importance to timely focus on this topic.

Aim: To assess the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) lockdown on glycaemic control in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Materials and Methods: In this observational, multicentre, retrospective study conducted in the Lazio region, Italy, we compared the differences in the HbA1c levels of 141 subjects with T2D exposed to lockdown with 123 matched controls with T2D who attended the study centres 1 year before. Basal data were collected from 9 December to 9 March and follow‐up data from 3 June to 10 July in 2020 for the lockdown group, and during the same timeframes in 2019 for the control groups. Changes in HbA1c (ΔHbA1c) and body mass index (ΔBMI) during lockdown were compared among patients with different psychological well‐being, as evaluated by tertiles of the Psychological General Well‐Being Index (PGWBS). Results: No difference in ΔHbA1c was found between the lockdown and control groups (lockdown group −0.1% [−0.5%−0.3%] vs. control group −0.1% [−0.4%−0.2%]; p = .482). Also, no difference was found in ΔBMI ( p = .316) or ΔGlucose ( p = .538). In the lockdown group, subjects with worse PGWBS showed a worsening of HbA1c ( p = .041 for the trend among PGWBS tertiles) and BMI ( p = .022). Conclusions: The COVID‐19 lockdown did not significantly impact glycaemic control in people with T2D. People with poor psychological well‐being may experience a worsening a glycaemic control because of restrictions resulting from lockdown. These findings may aid healthcare providers in diabetes management once the second wave of COVID‐19 has ended.