-
PDF
- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Joanne E Adaway, James M Hawley, Stephen J Lockhart, Brian G Keevil, Heat Inactivation of Saliva Samples for the Analysis of Cortisol and Cortisone during the COVID-19 Pandemic, The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine, Volume 5, Issue 6, November 2020, Pages 1413–1416, https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfaa158
- Share Icon Share
To the Editor:
The current COVID-19 pandemic is presenting many challenges for staff in clinical laboratories, not least of which is determining how to handle patient samples safely. SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in sample types such as blood, feces, respiratory tract samples (1,), and saliva (2,), with saliva and respiratory tract samples having the highest viral load. Respiratory tract samples are most often analyzed in microbiology or Public Health laboratories inside microbiological safety cabinets, however, staff in biochemistry laboratories that analyze saliva samples for analytes such as cortisol and cortisone, often do not have access to such safety cabinets and handle samples on the open bench. Heating samples at 92 °C for 15 minutes has been reported to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory tract samples (3) so we decided to investigate the effect of this on the measurement of cortisol and cortisone to enable staff to safely analyze such samples when safety cabinets are not available.
Anonymized surplus saliva samples (n = 78) collected prior to December 2019 were each split into 2 identical microcentrifuge tubes. In accordance with Trust policy, ethical approval was not required for this study. One set of samples was placed in a GenLab Mino 30AG oven at 92 °C for 30 minutes. This was to ensure the saliva was at the required temperature for a minimum of 15 minutes. The other set was left at room temperature for 30 minutes. Samples were then analyzed for salivary cortisol and cortisone by LC–MS/MS, with both the heat-treated and nonheat-treated aliquot of each sample analyzed within the same batch. Briefly, 50 µL of calibrator, QC or sample was pipetted into a 96-well plate followed by 50 µL of 0.1 mol/L zinc sulfate and 100 µL of internal standard (50 µg/L of cortisol-d4 and 50 µg/L cortisone-d7 in methanol). After vortexing and centrifugation, samples were analyzed on a Waters Xevo TQS-micro mass spectrometer with a Waters Acquity i-class UPLC system. The LOQ of the assay was 0.3 nmol/L for both analytes (0.1 µg/L) with CVs of 9.4% for cortisol and 14.1% for cortisone. The assay was linear up to 200 nmol/L for both analytes (72.5 µg/L for cortisol, 72.1 µg/L for cortisone). Statistical analysis was carried out using Analyse-it software.
The cortisol concentrations in the samples ranged from <0.3 to 19.4 nmol/L (<0.1–7 µg/L), the range of cortisone was 0.8 to 34.9 nmol/L (0.3–12.6 µg/L). Bland–Altman analysis showed a mean difference between heat-treated and nonheat-treated samples of 1.2% for cortisol (95% CI −2.4–4.7%) and 1.0% for cortisone (95% CI −2.1–4%) (Fig. 1). There was some scatter between results with an SD of differences of 15.8% for cortisol and 13.6% for cortisone. Passing–Bablock analysis gave a regression line for cortisol of heat-treated cortisol (nmol/L) = 1.08 × nonheat-treated cortisol −0.05, the regression line for cortisone was heat-treated cortisone (nmol/L) = 1.04 × nonheat-treated cortisone −0.07. The difference between the heat-treated and nonheat-treated samples was shown to be significant for both cortisol and cortisone using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with P = 0.0003 for cortisol and 0.0128 for cortisone. However, the difference was not clinically significant as the difference was well below the measurement uncertainty of the assay, which is 15.9% for cortisol and 11.6% for cortisone (coverage factor 2). An FDA and UKAS accredited temperature monitoring probes (Checkit) were used to record the temperature of artificial saliva (PBS/0.1% (v/v) BSA) under the conditions used for heat inactivation. It took 14 minutes to reach 92 °C, indicating that the samples were at the required temperature for more than the 15 minutes required to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 (Fig. 2).

Bland–Altman difference plots comparing heat-treated and nonheat-treated salivary cortisol and cortisone.

Sample temperature throughout the 30-minute heating step. The target temperature of 92 °C is shown as a dotted line.
The data shows that, although there is some scatter in the results, there is little overall bias for cortisol and cortisone between heat-treated and nonheat-treated samples. (<1.3% for both analytes). This indicates that cortisol and cortisone are stable in saliva at 92 °C for 30 minutes. One drawback of this data is the fact that the concentrations of cortisol and cortisone do not cover the full analytical ranges. This was due to the necessity of sourcing saliva samples collected prior to the current pandemic, which severely limited the range of samples available. However, the data does cover important clinical cutoffs for this assay such as the late-night reference range for cortisol and concentrations expected after a dexamethasone suppression test. The study on heat inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 (3) was carried out on cell culture supernatant and not saliva. Other recent studies have shown equal heat inactivation in cell culture supernatant and serum (4), which has a higher protein content than saliva, therefore, we feel this gives indirect evidence that SARS-CoV-2 will be inactivated in saliva under the same conditions as cell culture supernatant. Further work, however, should be carried out to prove this conclusively. In addition, laboratories should verify that saliva samples reach 92 °C for the recommended amount of time using their particular heating equipment to confirm that inactivation of the virus takes place.
This study demonstrates that heat treatment can be used to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 in saliva samples prior to analysis for cortisol and cortisone. Although the use of microbiological safety cabinets remains the first-line recommendation in all current guidelines, heat inactivation enables samples to be safely handled in laboratories without unlimited access to microbiological safety cabinets. This will be of benefit to patients with, e.g., Cushing disease or adrenal insufficiency, allowing their treatment to be monitored by posting saliva samples to the laboratory, rather than attending clinics for blood sampling with the attendant risk of contracting COVID-19.
Author Contributions: All authors confirmed they have contributed to the intellectual content of this paper and have met the following 4 requirements: (a) significant contributions to the conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (b) drafting or revising the article for intellectual content; (c) final approval of the published article; and (d) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the article thus ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the article are appropriately investigated and resolved.
J.E. Adaway, statistical analysis; B.G. Keevil, statistical analysis, administrative support.
Authors' Disclosures or Potential Conflicts of Interest: No authors declared any potential conflicts of interest.