RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF NON-INVASIVE DETECTION OF SARS-COV-2 INFECTION BY CANINE OLFACTION
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.03.07.22271219
DO 10.1101/2022.03.07.22271219
A1 Grandjean, Dominique
A1 Elie, Caroline
A1 Gallet, Capucine
A1 Julien, Clotilde
A1 Roger, Vinciane
A1 Desquilbet, Loïc
A1 Alvergnat, Guillaume
A1 Delarue, Séverine
A1 Gabassi, Audrey
A1 Minier, Marine
A1 Choupeaux, Laure
A1 Kerneis, Solen
A1 Delaugerre, Constance
A1 Le Goff, Jérôme
A1 Treluyer, Jean-Marc
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/08/2022.03.07.22271219.abstract
AB 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.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe trial was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health, Region Ile de France and Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris FoundationAuthor 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:This research is part of the SALICOV-APHP study (Evaluation of a strategy of SARS-CoV-2 infection testing on a general population, based on the utilization of new detection or diagnostic orientation approaches), promoted by Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, France. The SALICOV-APHP study was approved the Protection of Persons Committee (CPP) Ile-de France III (number 3840-NI) and is registered on clinicaltrial.gov (NCT04578509). The protocol was approved for the dogs by the committee on the ethics of animal experiments of the Ecole Nationale Veterinaire d Alfort. All research procedures were employed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors