Following the revision of the French dietary guidelines in 2017, the Programme National Nutrition Santé – guidelines score (PNNS-GS), built upon previous recommendations released in 2001, needed to be updated. This cross-sectional study thus aimed to develop and validate the PNNS-GS2, a predefined food-based dietary index based on the 2017-revised French nutritional guidelines. A total of 80 965 participants recruited among French adults (≥18 years old) in the NutriNet-Santé web-based prospective cohort were included. Collected data included repeated 24 h-dietary records over a 2-year period, sociodemographic and, for 16 938 subjects, clinical and biological data. Weighting and cut-offs of the PNNS-GS2 components were collegially arbitrated by nutrition experts who participated in the 2017 revision of the guidelines. Sociodemographic, nutritional and clinical and biological factors were investigated according to quintiles (Q) of PNNS-GS2 (theoretical ranging −17 to +13·5). Mean PNNS-GS2 was 2·1 (sd 3·1) in women and −0·3 (sd 3·6) in men. Higher PNNS-GS2 (higher adherence to 2017 dietary guidelines) was positively associated with (mean difference between Q5 and Q1 in women/men) age (+8·4/+4·7 years), education (+3·9/+7·4 % of university level), physical activity (+13·3/+3·5 % of ≥60 min/d) and non-smoking (+9·7/+13·7 %), and was negatively associated with mean blood pressure (−3·0/−2·8 mmHg), plasma LDL-cholesterol (−0·07/−0·06 g/l) and TAG (−0·10/−0·16 g/l) concentrations. Higher PNNS-GS2 was also associated with higher intake of favourable nutrients, e.g. n-3 PUFA (+0·2/+0·2 % of energy intake), fibres (+8·7/+10·7 g) and vitamin C (+36·6/+43·8 mg). Associations between PNNS-GS2 and sociodemographic and nutritional factors arguing for its validation are coherent. Further studies are needed to evaluate its association with mortality and morbidity.

No abstract

Background Diagnosis of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients and screening of populations for SARS-CoV-2 infection require access to straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput testing. The recommended nasopharyngeal swab tests are limited by the need of trained professionals and specific consumables and this procedure is poorly accepted as a screening method In contrast, saliva sampling can be self-administered. Methods In order to compare saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, we designed a meta-analysis searching in PubMed up to December 29th, 2020 with the key words “(SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19 OR COVID19) AND (salivary OR saliva OR oral fluid)) NOT (review[Publication Type]) NOT (PrePrint[Publication Type])” applying the following criteria: records published in peer reviewed scientific journals, in English, with at least 15 nasopharyngeal/orapharyngeal swabs and saliva paired samples tested by RT-PCR, studies with available raw data including numbers of positive and negative tests with the two sampling methods. For all studies, concordance and sensitivity were calculated and then pooled in a random-effects model. Findings A total of 377 studies were retrieved, of which 50 were eligible, reporting on 16,473 pairs of nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal and saliva samples. Meta-analysis showed high concordance, 92.5% (95%CI: 89.5–94.7), across studies and pooled sensitivities of 86.5% (95%CI: 83.4–89.1) and 92.0% (95%CI: 89.1–94.2) from saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs respectively. Heterogeneity across studies was 72.0% for saliva and 85.0% for nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs. Interpretation Our meta-analysis strongly suggests that saliva could be used for frequent testing of COVID-19 patients and “en masse” screening of populations.