Salivary cortisol and cortisone in diagnosis of Cushing's syndrome - a comparison of six different analytical methods

Salivary Cortisol and Cortisone Can Circumvent Confounding Effects of Oral Contraceptives in the Short Synacthen Test

CONTEXT

Adrenal insufficiency (AI) is usually diagnosed by low plasma cortisol levels following a short Synacthen test (SST). Most plasma cortisol is bound to corticosteroid-binding globulin, which is increased by estrogen in combined estrogen-progestin oral contraceptives (COCs). Women with AI using COCs are therefore at risk of having an apparently normal plasma cortisol level during SST, which would not adequately reflect AI.

OBJECTIVE

This work aimed to test whether salivary cortisol or cortisone during SST is more robust against the COC effect and to calculate the lower reference limits (LRLs) for these to be used as tentative diagnostic cutoffs to exclude AI.

METHODS

Forty-one healthy women on COCs and 46 healthy women without exogenous estrogens underwent an SST with collection of plasma and salivary samples at 0, 30, and 60 minutes after Synacthen injection. The groups were compared using regression analysis with age as covariate and the LRLs were calculated parametrically.

RESULTS

SST-stimulated plasma cortisol levels were significantly higher in the COC group vs controls, while mean salivary cortisol and cortisone levels were slightly lower in the COC group. Importantly, COC use did not significantly alter LRLs for salivary cortisol or cortisone. The smallest LRL difference between groups was seen for salivary cortisone.

CONCLUSION

Salivary cortisol and especially salivary cortisone are considerably less affected by COC use than plasma cortisol during SST. Due to similar LRLs, a common cutoff for salivary cortisol and cortisone during SST can be used to exclude AI in premenopausal women irrespective of COC use.

Comparative analysis of salivary cortisol measurements using different assay methods in relation to serum-free cortisol measurement

Objectives

Salivary cortisol reflects the biologically active form of serum cortisol, offering a noninvasive evaluation method for the diurnal rhythm of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. While liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is known for its specificity, immunoassays (IA) are commonly used because of their simplicity. This study aimed to assess the performance of salivary cortisol measurement using both IA and LC-MS/MS in comparison to serum-free cortisol measurement.

Methods

Assay results for 188 saliva and 94 serum samples from 47 participants were analyzed. Salivary samples collected at different time points were analyzed using IA and LC-MS/MS. Serum samples were analyzed for cortisol, cortisol-binding globulin, and free cortisol. The statistical analyses included correlations and method comparisons.

Results

The diurnal salivary cortisol profiles exhibited a comparable circadian rhythm pattern; however, the concentrations measured using IA were consistently higher than those measured using LC-MS/MS. The correlation analysis revealed robust associations among salivary cortisol (IA), salivary cortisol (LC-MS/MS), and serum-free cortisol levels (LC-MS/MS). However, the method comparison revealed a systematic bias between IA and LC-MS/MS in salivary cortisol measurement.

Conclusions

This study contributes to the ongoing debate on assay techniques by affirming the suitability of IA and LC-MS/MS for salivary cortisol measurement to assess dynamic changes in HPA axis activity. The identified systematic bias emphasizes the importance of selecting methods based on specific research or clinical requirements.

Extensive comparison of salivary collection, transportation, preparation, and storage methods: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Human saliva as a bodily fluid-similar to blood-is utilized for diagnostic purposes. Unlike blood sampling, collecting saliva is non-invasive, inexpensive, and readily accessible. There are no previously published systematic reviews regarding different collection, transportation, preparation, and storage methods for human saliva.

DESIGN

This study has been prepared and organized according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD42023415384). The study question according to the PICO format was as followed: Comparison of the performance (C) of different saliva sampling, handling, transportation, and storage techniques and methods (I) assessed for analyzing stimulated or unstimulated human saliva (P and O). An electronic search was executed in Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three descriptive human clinical studies published between 1995 and 2022 were included. Eight categories of salivary features and biomarkers were investigated (i.e., salivary flow rate, total saliva quantity, total protein, cortisol, testosterone, DNA quality and quantity, pH and buffering pH). Twenty-two saliva sampling methods/devices were utilized. Passive drooling, Salivette®, and spitting were the most utilized methods. Sampling times with optimum capabilities for cortisol, iodine, and oral cancer metabolites are suggested to be 7:30 AM to 9:00 AM, 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM, and 14:00 PM to 20:00 PM, respectively. There were 6 storage methods. Centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C was the most utilized storage method. For DNA quantity and quality, analyzing samples immediately after collection without centrifuging or storage, outperformed centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C. Non-coated Salivette® was the most successful method/device for analyzing salivary flow rate.

CONCLUSION

It is highly suggested that scientists take aid from the reported categorized outcomes, and design their study questions based on the current voids for each method/device.