loading page

EVALUATION OF CANINE DETECTION OF COVID-19 INFECTED INDIVIDUALS UNDER CONTROLLED SETTINGS
  • +4
  • Anne-Lise Chaber,
  • Susan Hazel,
  • Brett Matthews,
  • Alexander Withers,
  • Guillaume Alvergnat,
  • Dominique Grandjean,
  • Charles Caraguel
Anne-Lise Chaber
The University of Adelaide School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences
Author Profile
Susan Hazel
The University of Adelaide School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences
Author Profile
Brett Matthews
Detector Dog Program Operational Strategy and Coordination Australian Border Force Bulla 3428 Australia
Author Profile
Alexander Withers
The University of Adelaide School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences
Author Profile
Guillaume Alvergnat
International Affairs Bureau Ministry of Interior of the UAE POBox 389 United Arab Emirates
Author Profile
Dominique Grandjean
Ecole Nationale Veterinaire d'Alfort
Author Profile
Charles Caraguel
The University of Adelaide School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences
Author Profile

Abstract

RT-PCR is currently the standard diagnostic method to detect symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, RT-PCR results are not immediate and may falsely be negative before an infected individual sheds viral particle in the upper airway where swabs are collected. Infected individuals emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 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 and non-cases. 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 95.6% (95%CI: 93.6%-97.6%) and diagnostic specificity (DSp) was 98.1% (95%CI: 96.3%-100.0%). The DSp decreased significantly with non-case specimens sourced from UAE ( P-value < 0.001). 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 = 0.003). The potential and limitations of this alternative detection tool are discussed.
30 Apr 2021Submitted to Transboundary and Emerging Diseases
30 Apr 2021Submission Checks Completed
30 Apr 2021Assigned to Editor
09 May 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
20 Jun 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
23 Jun 2021Editorial Decision: Revise Major
26 Oct 20211st Revision Received
26 Oct 2021Assigned to Editor
26 Oct 2021Submission Checks Completed
28 Oct 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
04 Jan 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
04 Jan 2022Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
22 Feb 20222nd Revision Received
22 Feb 2022Submission Checks Completed
22 Feb 2022Assigned to Editor
01 Mar 2022Reviewer(s) Assigned
17 Mar 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
20 Mar 2022Editorial Decision: Accept
05 Apr 2022Published in Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 10.1111/tbed.14529