RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Ruling out SARS-CoV-2 infection using exhaled breath analysis by electronic nose in a public health setting
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.02.14.21251712
DO 10.1101/2021.02.14.21251712
A1 Rianne de Vries
A1 René M. Vigeveno
A1 Simone Mulder
A1 Niloufar Farzan
A1 Demi R. Vintges
A1 Jelle J. Goeman
A1 Sylvia Bruisten
A1 Bianca van den Corput
A1 J.J. Miranda Geelhoed
A1 Leo G. Visser
A1 Mariken van der Lubben
A1 Peter J. Sterk
A1 Johannes C.C.M. in ’t Veen
A1 Geert H. Groeneveld
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/16/2021.02.14.21251712.abstract
AB Background Rapid and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals is crucial for taking timely measures and minimizing the risk of further SARS-CoV-2 spread. We aimed to assess the accuracy of exhaled breath analysis by electronic nose (eNose) for the discrimination between individuals with and without a SARS-CoV-2 infection.Methods This was a prospective real-world study of individuals presenting to public test facility for SARS-CoV-2 detection by molecular amplification tests (TMA or RT-PCR). After sampling of a combined throat/nasopharyngeal swab, breath profiles were obtained using a cloud-connected eNose. Data-analysis involved advanced signal processing and statistics based on independent t-tests followed by linear discriminant and ROC analysis. Data from the training set were tested in a validation, a replication and an asymptomatic set.Findings For the analysis 4510 individuals were available. In the training set (35 individuals with; 869 without SARS-CoV-2), the eNose sensors were combined into a composite biomarker with a ROC-AUC of 0.947 (CI:0.928-0.967). These results were confirmed in the validation set (0.957; CI:0.942-0.971, n=904) and externally validated in the replication set (0.937; CI:0.926-0.947, n=1948) and the asymptomatic set (0.909; CI:0.879-0.938, n=754). Selecting a cut-off value of 0.30 in the training set resulted in a sensitivity/specificity of 100/78, >99/84, 98/82% in the validation, replication and asymptomatic set, respectively.Interpretation eNose represents a quick and non-invasive method to reliably rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection in public health test facilities and can be used as a screening test to define who needs an additional confirmation test.Funding Ministry of Health, Welfare and SportEvidence before this study Electronic nose technology is an emerging diagnostic tool for diagnosis and phenotyping of a wide variety of diseases, including inflammatory respiratory diseases, lung cancer, and infections.As of Feb 13, 2021, our search of PubMed using keywords “COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” AND “eNose” OR “electronic nose” OR “exhaled breath analysis” yielded 4 articles (1-4) that have assessed test characteristics of electronic nose to diagnose COVID-19. In these small studies the obtained signals using sensor-based technologies, two-dimensional gas chromatography and time-of-flight mass spectrometry, or proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometry, provided adequate discrimination between patients with and without COVID-19.Added value of this study We prospectively studied the accuracy of exhaled breath analysis by electronic nose (eNose) to diagnose or rule out a SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals with and without symptoms presenting to a public test facility. In the training set with 904 individuals, the eNose sensors were combined into a composite biomarker with a ROC-AUC of 0.948. In three independent validation cohorts of 3606 individuals in total, eNose was able to reliably rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection in 70-75% of individuals, with a sensitivity ranging between 98-100%, and a specificity between 78-84%. No association was found between cycle thresholds values, as semi-quantitative measure of viral load, and eNose variables.Implications of all the available evidence The available findings, including those from our study, support the use of eNose technology to distinguish between individuals with and without a SARS-CoV-2 infection with high accuracy. Exhaled breath analysis by eNose represents a quick and non-invasive method to reliably rule out a SARS-CoV-2 infection in public health test facilities. The results can be made available within seconds and can therefore be used as screening instrument. The eNose can reliably rule out a SARS-CoV-2 infection, eliminating the need for additional time-consuming, stressful, and expensive diagnostic tests in the majority of individuals.Competing Interest StatementRV receives personal fees and has a substantial interest in the start-up company Breathomix BV. NF receives personal fees from the start-up company Breathomix BV. PJS is scientific adviser and has an officially non-substantial interest in the start-up company Breathomix BV. All other authors have no conflicts of interest.Clinical TrialProspective observational cohortFunding StatementThis study was funded by Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport of the Netherlands. The sponsor of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study protocol was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Leiden The Hague Delft (P20.033).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData sharing The study methods, statistical analysis plan, and detailed analysis are available in the main Article and the online supplement. Deidentified participant data and the protocol are available on reasonable request.