Saliva Testing for Hormonal Imbalances and Infectious Diseases
COVID-19 Diagnosis
For symptomatic individuals suspected of COVID-19, saliva testing is an acceptable alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs, with excellent diagnostic performance (92% sensitivity, 98% specificity) and should be collected within 5 days of symptom onset. 1
Specimen Collection Options for COVID-19
The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) suggests collecting specimens from multiple sites including saliva as a viable option for SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing 1:
- Saliva demonstrates superior sensitivity (92%) compared to oropharyngeal swabs (78%) and anterior nasal swabs (81%) 1
- Saliva without coughing maintains 91% sensitivity, while saliva with coughing shows 87% sensitivity 1
- Mouth gargle specimens achieve 90% sensitivity, approaching saliva performance 1
- Specificity remains consistently high at 98% across saliva collection methods 1
Clinical Indications for Saliva Testing in COVID-19
Symptomatic patients: IDSA recommends nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) using saliva as one of several acceptable specimen types 1
Asymptomatic exposed individuals: For those with known exposure to COVID-19, saliva testing is suggested when clinical or epidemiologic factors make testing desirable, performed at least 5 days after exposure 1
Practical Advantages
Saliva collection offers significant operational benefits 1:
- Self-collection capability, reducing healthcare worker exposure and preserving personal protective equipment 1
- Non-invasive and painless collection method 2
- Eliminates need for trained personnel during specimen collection 2
- Particularly valuable for early-stage and presymptomatic COVID-19 detection 2
Critical Limitations
Timing matters significantly: Saliva testing sensitivity relates directly to timing of symptom onset and disease stage 2
Confirmatory testing: When using rapid antigen tests on saliva, negative results in symptomatic patients with high clinical suspicion should be confirmed with standard NAAT 1
Test performance: Saliva NAAT should be performed within 5 days of symptom onset for optimal sensitivity 1
Cushing's Syndrome Diagnosis
Late-night salivary cortisol (LNSC) is recommended by the Endocrine Society as a highly sensitive (92-100%) and specific (93-100%) screening test for Cushing's syndrome, based on loss of normal circadian cortisol rhythm. 3
Testing Protocol
Multiple measurements required: Obtain at least 2-3 LNSC samples on different nights to account for variability and detect cyclic hypercortisolism 3
Timing specifications: Collection should occur at the patient's usual bedtime rather than strictly at midnight, as cortisol nadir is tightly entrained to sleep onset 3
Pre-Collection Requirements
Patients must avoid the following to ensure accurate results 3, 4:
- Vigorous exercise for at least 24-48 hours before collection 4
- Food consumption for several hours before collection, particularly sugar-rich foods 4
- Alcohol consumption for at least 12 hours before testing 4
- Night-shift work and disrupted sleep-wake cycles 3
- Topical hydrocortisone preparations 3
Physiological Basis
Salivary cortisol represents unbound (free) cortisol, the biologically active fraction 3
Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) provides superior sensitivity and avoids contamination from topical hydrocortisone by detecting both cortisol and cortisone 3
Critical Contraindication
For critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI), salivary cortisol testing is NOT recommended over serum cortisol testing 3
Interpretation
If LNSC is mildly elevated, consider mild Cushing's syndrome and repeat testing with additional confirmatory tests 3
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
COVID-19 testing: Do not rely solely on a single negative saliva test in symptomatic patients with high clinical suspicion—confirm with standard NAAT 1
Cushing's syndrome screening: Exercise-induced cortisol elevations can persist 24-48 hours, creating false positives if pre-test instructions are not followed 4
Specimen handling: Different testing laboratories may show reduced concordance (68% vs 88% when tested in same lab), emphasizing importance of consistent laboratory use 2