This review presents literature that highlights saliva’s utility as a biofluid in the diagnosis and monitoring of COVID-19. A systematic search was performed in 5 electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, and Web of Science). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they assessed the potential diagnostic value and/or other discriminatory properties of biological markers in the saliva of patients with COVID-19. As of July 22, 2020, a total of 28 studies have investigated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva. Several of those studies confirmed reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of patients with COVID-19. Saliva offered sensitivity and specificity for SARS-CoV-2 detection comparable to that of the current standard of nasopharyngeal and throat swabs. However, the utility of saliva in diagnosing COVID-19 infection remains understudied. Clinical studies with larger patient populations that measure recordings at different stages during the disease are still necessary to confirm the accuracy of COVID-19 diagnosis with saliva. Nevertheless, the utility of saliva as a diagnostic tool opens the possibility of using rapid and less invasive diagnostic strategies by targeting bioanalytes rather than the pathogen.

Since aging has been associated with increased production of inflammatory biomarkers, the ability to monitor older adults repeatedly is highly desirable, and saliva is an interesting biofluid for the search of biomarkers, as it is easily accessible in a noninvasive manner. However, given the incipient knowledge of salivary biomarkers in aging and its relationship to physical exercise, the present study is aimed at evaluating the protein expression and the levels of inflammatory and NETosis biomarkers in the saliva of practitioners (PE) and nonpractitioners (NPE) of physical exercise older adults. Six (6) practitioner and 4 nonpractitioner older adults were enrolled in this study. Unstimulated whole saliva was collected for analysis of the proteome by label-free mass spectrometry, as well as of the inflammatory status by evaluation of C-reactive protein (CRP), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and cytokines (TNF-α, interleukin- (IL-) 1β, and IL-8), while NETosis was assessed by myeloperoxidase (MPO) and neutrophil elastase. Regarding oral health, the decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMF-T) index, bleeding on probing, suppuration, and probing depth measurement (mm) were evaluated. In addition, functional capacity was investigated using the General Physical Fitness Index (GPFI). In relation to the proteome analysis, 93 and 143 proteins were found exclusively in the PE and NPE groups, respectively; 224 proteins were common to both groups. Among these proteins, 10 proteins showed statistical difference ( p < 0.05 ) between the groups: alpha-2-macroglobulin, component 3 of the complement, serotransferrin, and protein soluble in brain acid 1 were less expressed, while lactotransferrin, alpha-amylase 1, S100-A8, S100-A9, lactoperoxidase, and galectin-3 binding protein were more expressed in the PE group. No differences between groups were observed in the analysis of inflammatory and NETosis biomarkers. This study shows the potential utility of saliva for detecting protein biomarkers in a noninvasive biological sample of the elderly population.

No abstract

No abstract