Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by canine olfaction.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, testing individuals remains a key action. One approach to rapid testing is to consider the olfactory capacities of trained detection dogs.

Methods

Prospective cohort study in two community COVID-19 screening centers. Two nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), one saliva and one sweat samples were simultaneously collected. The dog handlers (and the dogs…) were blinded with regards to the Covid status. The diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by canine olfaction was assessed as compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR as the reference standard, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing.

Results

335 ambulatory adults (143 symptomatic and 192 asymptomatic) were included. Overall, 109/335 participants tested positive on nasopharyngeal RT-PCR either in symptomatic (78/143) or in asymptomatic participants (31/192). The overall sensitivity of canine detection was 97% (95% CI, 92 to 99) and even reached 100% (95% CI, 89 to 100) in asymptomatic individuals compared to NPS RT-PCR. The specificity was 91% (95% CI, 72 to 91), reaching 94% (95% CI, 90 to 97) for asymptomatic individuals. The sensitivity of canine detection was higher than that of nasopharyngeal antigen testing (97% CI: 91 to 99 versus 84% CI: 74 to 90, p = 0.006), but the specificity was lower (90% CI: 84 to 95 versus 97% CI: 93 to 99, p = 0.016).

Conclusions

Non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by canine olfaction could be one alternative to NPS RT-PCR when it is necessary to obtain a result very quickly according to the same indications as antigenic tests in the context of mass screening.

SUBMITTER: Grandjean D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9159600 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by canine olfaction.

Grandjean Dominique D Elie Caroline C Gallet Capucine C Julien Clotilde C Roger Vinciane V Desquilbet Loïc L Alvergnat Guillaume G Delarue Séverine S Gabassi Audrey A Minier Marine M Choupeaux Laure L Kerneis Solen S Delaugerre Constance C LE Goff Jérôme J Treluyer Jean-Marc JM

PloS one 20220601 6

<h4>Background</h4>Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, testing individuals remains a key action. One approach to rapid testing is to consider the olfactory capacities of trained detection dogs.<h4>Methods</h4>Prospective cohort study in two community COVID-19 screening centers. Two nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), one saliva and one sweat samples were simultaneously collected. The dog handlers (and the dogs…) were blinded with regards to the Covid status. The diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive detecti ...[more]

PMID: 35648737

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe hypothesised that host-response biomarkers of viral infections might contribute to early identification of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is critical to breaking the chains of transmission. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of existing candidate whole-blood transcriptomic signatures for viral infection to predict positivity of nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing.MethodsWe did a nested case-control diagnostic accuracy study among a prospective cohort of health-care workers (aged ≥18 years) at St Bartholomew's Hospital (London, UK) undergoing weekly blood and nasopharyngeal swab sampling for whole-blood RNA sequencing and SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing, when fit to attend work. We identified candidate blood transcriptomic signatures for viral infection through a systematic literature search. We searched MEDLINE for articles published between database inception and Oct 12, 2020, using comprehensive MeSH and keyword terms for "viral infection", "transcriptome", "biomarker", and "blood". We reconstructed signature scores in blood RNA sequencing data and evaluated their diagnostic accuracy for contemporaneous SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with the gold standard of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing, by quantifying the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivities, and specificities at a standardised Z score of at least 2 based on the distribution of signature scores in test-negative controls. We used pairwise DeLong tests compared with the most discriminating signature to identify the subset of best performing biomarkers. We evaluated associations between signature expression, viral load (using PCR cycle thresholds), and symptom status visually and using Spearman rank correlation. The primary outcome was the AUROC for discriminating between samples from participants who tested negative throughout the study (test-negative controls) and samples from participants with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (test-positive participants) during their first week of PCR positivity.FindingsWe identified 20 candidate blood transcriptomic signatures of viral infection from 18 studies and evaluated their accuracy among 169 blood RNA samples from 96 participants over 24 weeks. Participants were recruited between March 23 and March 31, 2020. 114 samples were from 41 participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 55 samples were from 55 test-negative controls. The median age of participants was 36 years (IQR 27-47) and 69 (72%) of 96 were women. Signatures had little overlap of component genes, but were mostly correlated as components of type I interferon responses. A single blood transcript for IFI27 provided the highest accuracy for discriminating between test-negative controls and test-positive individuals at the time of their first positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result, with AUROC of 0·95 (95% CI 0·91-0·99), sensitivity 0·84 (0·70-0·93), and specificity 0·95 (0·85-0·98) at a predefined threshold (Z score >2). The transcript performed equally well in individuals with and without symptoms. Three other candidate signatures (including two to 48 transcripts) had statistically equivalent discrimination to IFI27 (AUROCs 0·91-0·95).InterpretationOur findings support further urgent evaluation and development of blood IFI27 transcripts as a biomarker for early phase SARS-CoV-2 infection for screening individuals at high risk of infection, such as contacts of index cases, to facilitate early case isolation and early use of antiviral treatments as they emerge.FundingBarts Charity, Wellcome Trust, and National Institute of Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundRapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are the most widely used point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Since the accuracy may have altered by changes in SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, indications for testing, sampling and testing procedures, and roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination, we evaluated the performance of three prevailing SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we consecutively enrolled individuals aged >16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three Dutch public health service COVID-19 test sites. In the first phase, participants underwent either BD-Veritor System (Becton Dickinson), PanBio (Abbott), or SD-Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) testing with routine sampling procedures. In a subsequent phase, participants underwent SD-Biosensor testing with a less invasive sampling method (combined oropharyngeal-nasal [OP-N] swab). Diagnostic accuracies were assessed against molecular testing.ResultsSix thousand nine hundred fifty-five of 7005 participants (99%) with results from both an Ag-RDT and a molecular reference test were analysed. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and overall sensitivities were 13% (188/1441) and 69% (129/188, 95% CI 62-75) for BD-Veritor, 8% (173/2056) and 69% (119/173, 61-76) for PanBio, and 12% (215/1769) and 74% (160/215, 68-80) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling and 10% (164/1689) and 75% (123/164, 68-81) for SD-Biosensor with OP-N sampling. In those symptomatic or asymptomatic at sampling, sensitivities were 72-83% and 54-56%, respectively. Above a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities were 86% (125/146, 79-91) for BD-Veritor, 89% (108/121, 82-94) for PanBio, and 88% (160/182, 82-92) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling and 84% (118/141, 77-89) with OP-N sampling. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. Sixty-one per cent of false-negative Ag-RDT participants returned for testing within 14 days (median: 3 days, interquartile range 3) of whom 90% tested positive.ConclusionsOverall sensitivities of three SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs were 69-75%, increasing to ≥86% above a viral load cut-off. The decreased sensitivity among asymptomatic participants and high positivity rate during follow-up in false-negative Ag-RDT participants emphasise the need for education of the public about the importance of re-testing after an initial negative Ag-RDT should symptoms develop. For SD-Biosensor, the diagnostic accuracy with OP-N and deep nasopharyngeal sampling was similar; adopting the more convenient sampling method might reduce the threshold for professional testing.

Project description:Seasonal increase of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), influenza virus A/B (Flu A/B), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) require rapid diagnostic test methods for the management of respiratory tract infections. In this study, we compared the diagnostic accuracy of Savanna RVP4 (RVP4, QuidelOrtho) with Xpert Xpress Plus SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV (Xpert, Cepheid). Nasopharyngeal swabs from patients treated at a tertiary care hospital (Germany) were tested for SARS-CoV-2, Flu A/B, and RSV by RVP4 to assess diagnostic accuracy (reference standard: Xpert). The intra and inter assay precision of Ct-values was assessed by repeated test in triplicates (on day 1) and duplicates (days 2-3). All patients with a physician's order for a multiplex test for SARS-CoV-2, Flu, and RSV test were included. Duplicate swabs from the same patient, samples with a total volume ≤1 mL, or inappropriate shipment/storage were excluded. In total, 229 swabs were included between September 2023 and February 2024. The concordance between both tests was 96.5% (SARS-CoV-2), 98.7% (Flu A), and 99.6% (RSV). Flu B was not detected by both tests. The RVP4 test had a sensitivity of 85%-95% and a specificity of 100% for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, Flu A, and RSV. The intra and inter assay precision of Ct-values from RVP4 was 3% and 2% (SARS-CoV-2), 5% and 4% (Flu A), and 0% and 3% (RSV), respectively. The Savanna RVP4 has a favorable diagnostic accuracy for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, Flu A, and RSV.ImportanceWe assessed the diagnostic accuracy of a new point-of-care test for the rapid detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), influenza virus A/B (Flu A/B), and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The new test has a concordance with the reference standard of 96.5% (SARS-CoV-2), 98.7% (Flu A), and 99.1% (RSV). The sensitivity of 85%-95% and specificity of 100% for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, Flu A, and RSV is comparable with similar nucleic acid amplification-based point of care tests but at lower costs.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by canine olfaction.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by canine olfaction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets