Evaluation of canine detection of COVID-19 infected individuals under controlled settings
Evaluation of canine detection of COVID-19 infected individuals under controlled settings
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/tbed.14529
复制
发表时间：
2022-04-05
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Caraguel, Charles
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chaber, Anne-Lise;Hazel, Susan;Caraguel, Charles
逆转录聚合酶链反应 (RT-PCR) 是目前检测严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2 (SARS-CoV-2) 有症状和无症状个体的标准诊断方法。然而，RT-PCR 的结果并不是立竿见影的，并且在感染者在收集拭子的上呼吸道中释放病毒颗粒之前，可能会出现假阴性结果。感染者的呼吸和汗液中会释放出挥发性有机化合物，经过训练的狗可以检测到这些化合物。在这里，我们评估了狗检测 SARS-CoV-2 感染的诊断准确性。先前在澳大利亚两个中心训练过的 15 只狗接受了从已知 SARS-CoV-2 人类病例 (n = 100) 和非病例 (n = 414) 中收集的腋窝汗液样本。根据RT-PCR结果和临床表现确认病例和非病例的真实感染状况。在狗中，总体诊断敏感性 (DSe) 为 95.3% (95%CI: 93.1-97.6%)，诊断特异性 (DSp) 为 97.1% (95%CI: 90.7-100.0%)。当非病例标本采集时间超过 1 分钟而不是 20 分钟时，DSp 显着下降（p 值 = .004）。评估位置不影响检测性能。不同狗的检测准确度各不相同，经验丰富的狗的 DSp 稍好一些（p 值 = .016）。讨论了这种替代检测工具的潜力和局限性。
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.