Obesity is a multifactorial disease resulting in excessive accumulation of adipose tissue. Over the last decade, growing evidence has identified the gut microbiota as a potential factor in the pathophysiology of both obesity and the related metabolic disorders. The gut microbiota is known to protect gastrointestinal mucosa permeability and to regulate the fermentation and absorption of dietary polysaccharides, perhaps explaining its importance in the regulation of fat accumulation and the resultant obesity. The proposed mechanisms by which the gut microbiota could contribute to the pathogenesis of obesity and the related metabolic diseases include: (a) a high abundance of bacteria that ferment carbohydrates, leading to increased rates of short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) biosynthesis, providing an extra source of energy for the host, that is eventually stored as lipids or glucose; (b) increased intestinal permeability to bacterial lipopolysaccharides (LPS), resulting in elevated systemic LPS levels that aggravate low-grade inflammation and insulin resistance; (c) increased activity of the gut endocannabinoid system. Fecal transplantation studies in germ-free mice have provided crucial insights into the potential causative role of the gut microbiota in the development of obesity and obesity-related disorders. Diet +/− bariatric surgery have been reported to modulate the gut microbiota, leading to lean host phenotype body composition. This review aims to report clinical evidence for a link of the gut microbiota with human obesity and obesity-related diseases, to provide molecular insights into these associations, and to address the effect of diet and bariatric surgery on the gut microbiota, including colonic microbiota, as a potential mechanism for promoting weight loss.

In a preregistered, cross-sectional study we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC=0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4<OR<10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.

Background: Olfactory training is the only evidence-based treatment for post viral olfactory dysfunction. Smell disorders after SARS-CoV-2 infection have been attributed to neuroinflammatory events within the olfactory bulb and the central nervous system. Therefore, targeting neuroinflammation is one potential strategy for promoting recovery from post-COVID-19 chronic olfactory dysfunction. Palmitoylethanolamide and luteolin (PEA-LUT) are candidate anti-inflammatory/ neuroprotective agents. Objective: To investigate recovery of olfactory function in patients treated with PEA-LUT oral supplements plus olfactory training versus olfactory training plus placebo. Methods: Multicenter double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. Eligible subjects had prior COVID-19 and persistent olfactory impairment >6 months after follow-up SARS-CoV-2 negative testing, without prior history of olfactory dysfunction sinonasal disorders. Participants were randomized to daily oral supplementation with ultramicronized PEA-LUT 770 mg plus olfactory training (intervention group) or olfactory training with placebo (control). Sniffin’ Sticks assessments were used to test the patients at baseline and 90 days. Results: A total of 185 patients, including intervention (130) and control (55) were enrolled. The intervention group showed significantly greater improvement in olfactory threshold, discrimination, and identification scores compared to controls (p=0.0001). Overall, 92% of patients in the intervention group improved versus 42% of controls. Magnitude of recovery was significantly greater in the intervention group versus control (12.8 + 8.2 versus mean 3.2 + 3), with >10-fold higher prevalence of anosmia in control versus intervention groups at the 90-day endpoint. Conclusion: Among individuals with olfactory dysfunction post COVID-19, combining PEA-LUT with olfactory training resulted in greater recovery of smell than olfactory training alone. (ITALIAN; Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT04853836)

Our data indicate that SH significantly improves patients' short-term QoL following FESS in terms of both general health and specific sinonasal status.

No abstract