Cargando…

Evaluation of canine detection of COVID‐19 infected individuals under controlled settings

Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) is currently the standard diagnostic method to detect symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals infected with Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). However, RT‐PCR results are not immediate and may falsely be negative be...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chaber, Anne‐Lise, Hazel, Susan, Matthews, Brett, Withers, Alexander, Alvergnat, Guillaume, Grandjean, Dominique, Caraguel, Charles
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9115492/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35316576
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14529
_version_ 1784709936902569984
author Chaber, Anne‐Lise
Hazel, Susan
Matthews, Brett
Withers, Alexander
Alvergnat, Guillaume
Grandjean, Dominique
Caraguel, Charles
author_facet Chaber, Anne‐Lise
Hazel, Susan
Matthews, Brett
Withers, Alexander
Alvergnat, Guillaume
Grandjean, Dominique
Caraguel, Charles
author_sort Chaber, Anne‐Lise
collection PubMed
description Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) is currently the standard diagnostic method to detect symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals infected with Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). However, RT‐PCR results are not immediate and may falsely be negative before an infected individual sheds viral particles in the upper airways where swabs are collected. Infected individuals emit volatile organic compounds in their breath and sweat that are detectable by trained dogs. Here, we evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dog detection against SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Fifteen dogs previously trained at two centres in Australia were presented to axillary sweat specimens collected from known SARS‐CoV‐2 human cases (n = 100) and non‐cases (n = 414). The true infection status of the cases and non‐cases were confirmed based on RT‐PCR results as well as clinical presentation. Across dogs, the overall diagnostic sensitivity (DSe) was 95.3% (95%CI: 93.1–97.6%) and diagnostic specificity (DSp) was 97.1% (95%CI: 90.7–100.0%). The DSp decreased significantly when non‐case specimens were collected over 1 min rather than 20 min (p value = .004). The location of evaluation did not impact the detection performances. The accuracy of detection varied across dogs and experienced dogs revealed a marginally better DSp (p value = .016). The potential and limitations of this alternative detection tool are discussed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9115492
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91154922022-05-18 Evaluation of canine detection of COVID‐19 infected individuals under controlled settings Chaber, Anne‐Lise Hazel, Susan Matthews, Brett Withers, Alexander Alvergnat, Guillaume Grandjean, Dominique Caraguel, Charles Transbound Emerg Dis Original Articles Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) is currently the standard diagnostic method to detect symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals infected with Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). However, RT‐PCR results are not immediate and may falsely be negative before an infected individual sheds viral particles in the upper airways where swabs are collected. Infected individuals emit volatile organic compounds in their breath and sweat that are detectable by trained dogs. Here, we evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dog detection against SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Fifteen dogs previously trained at two centres in Australia were presented to axillary sweat specimens collected from known SARS‐CoV‐2 human cases (n = 100) and non‐cases (n = 414). The true infection status of the cases and non‐cases were confirmed based on RT‐PCR results as well as clinical presentation. Across dogs, the overall diagnostic sensitivity (DSe) was 95.3% (95%CI: 93.1–97.6%) and diagnostic specificity (DSp) was 97.1% (95%CI: 90.7–100.0%). The DSp decreased significantly when non‐case specimens were collected over 1 min rather than 20 min (p value = .004). The location of evaluation did not impact the detection performances. The accuracy of detection varied across dogs and experienced dogs revealed a marginally better DSp (p value = .016). The potential and limitations of this alternative detection tool are discussed. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-04-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9115492/ /pubmed/35316576 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14529 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Chaber, Anne‐Lise
Hazel, Susan
Matthews, Brett
Withers, Alexander
Alvergnat, Guillaume
Grandjean, Dominique
Caraguel, Charles
Evaluation of canine detection of COVID‐19 infected individuals under controlled settings
title Evaluation of canine detection of COVID‐19 infected individuals under controlled settings
title_full Evaluation of canine detection of COVID‐19 infected individuals under controlled settings
title_fullStr Evaluation of canine detection of COVID‐19 infected individuals under controlled settings
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of canine detection of COVID‐19 infected individuals under controlled settings
title_short Evaluation of canine detection of COVID‐19 infected individuals under controlled settings
title_sort evaluation of canine detection of covid‐19 infected individuals under controlled settings
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9115492/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35316576
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14529
work_keys_str_mv AT chaberannelise evaluationofcaninedetectionofcovid19infectedindividualsundercontrolledsettings
AT hazelsusan evaluationofcaninedetectionofcovid19infectedindividualsundercontrolledsettings
AT matthewsbrett evaluationofcaninedetectionofcovid19infectedindividualsundercontrolledsettings
AT withersalexander evaluationofcaninedetectionofcovid19infectedindividualsundercontrolledsettings
AT alvergnatguillaume evaluationofcaninedetectionofcovid19infectedindividualsundercontrolledsettings
AT grandjeandominique evaluationofcaninedetectionofcovid19infectedindividualsundercontrolledsettings
AT caraguelcharles evaluationofcaninedetectionofcovid19infectedindividualsundercontrolledsettings