Scent dogs in detection of COVID-19: triple-blinded randomised trial and operational real-life screening in airport setting.
COVID-19
Clinical trial
Infections, diseases, disorders, injuries
Public Health
Journal
BMJ global health
ISSN: 2059-7908
Titre abrégé: BMJ Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101685275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2022
05 2022
Historique:
received:
16
11
2021
accepted:
14
03
2022
entrez:
16
5
2022
pubmed:
17
5
2022
medline:
20
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To estimate scent dogs' diagnostic accuracy in identification of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 in comparison with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We conducted a randomised triple-blinded validation trial, and a real-life study at the Helsinki-Vantaa International Airport, Finland. Four dogs were trained to detect COVID-19 using skin swabs from individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Our controlled triple-blinded validation study comprised four identical sets of 420 parallel samples (from 114 individuals tested positive and 306 negative by RT-PCR), randomly presented to each dog over seven trial sessions. In a real-life setting the dogs screened skin swabs from 303 incoming passengers all concomitantly examined by nasal swab SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Our main outcomes were variables of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value) for scent dog identification in comparison with RT-PCR. Our validation experiments had an overall accuracy of 92% (95% CI 90% to 93%), a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 89% to 94%) and a specificity of 91% (95% CI 89% to 93%) compared with RT-PCR. For our dogs, trained using the wild-type virus, performance was less accurate for the alpha variant (89% for confirmed wild-type vs 36% for alpha variant, OR 14.0, 95% CI 4.5 to 43.4). In the real-life setting, scent detection and RT-PCR matched 98.7% of the negative swabs. Scant airport prevalence (0.47%) did not allow sensitivity testing; our only SARS-CoV-2 positive swab was not identified (alpha variant). However, ad hoc analysis including predefined positive spike samples showed a total accuracy of 98% (95% CI 97% to 99%). This large randomised controlled triple-blinded validation study with a precalculated sample size conducted at an international airport showed that trained scent dogs screen airport passenger samples with high accuracy. One of our findings highlights the importance of continuous retraining as new variants emerge. Using scent dogs may present a valuable approach for high-throughput, rapid screening of large numbers of people.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35577391
pii: bmjgh-2021-008024
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-008024
pmc: PMC9108438
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Références
Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 Dec;27(12):3137-3141
pubmed: 34708686
Viruses. 2021 Jan 20;13(2):
pubmed: 33498157
BMC Infect Dis. 2021 Mar 5;21(1):243
pubmed: 33673823
BMC Infect Dis. 2021 Jul 27;21(1):707
pubmed: 34315418
J Travel Med. 2022 May 31;29(3):
pubmed: 35325195
Front Public Health. 2017 Nov 20;5:307
pubmed: 29209603
Stat Med. 2010 Apr 30;29(9):1037-57
pubmed: 20087875
Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2021;3:100155
pubmed: 34127961
PLoS One. 2021 Apr 14;16(4):e0250158
pubmed: 33852639
BMC Bioinformatics. 2021 Jul 17;22(1):373
pubmed: 34273961
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Dec;8(12):1167-1168
pubmed: 33007240
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 May 26;58(6):
pubmed: 32245835
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2016 Mar 09;3(2):ofw051
pubmed: 27186578
Biomed Chromatogr. 2015 Dec;29(12):1783-90
pubmed: 26033043
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 10;15(12):e0243122
pubmed: 33301539
N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 6;383(6):e38
pubmed: 32502334
J Travel Med. 2020 Dec 23;27(8):
pubmed: 32789466
BMJ. 2012 Dec 13;345:e7396
pubmed: 23241268
Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2014 Dec;10(4):570-82
pubmed: 25351882
Front Vet Sci. 2016 Jun 24;3:47
pubmed: 27446935
Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 Jun;19(6):578-580
pubmed: 31122774
BMJ. 1994 Jul 9;309(6947):102
pubmed: 8038641
Front Vet Sci. 2016 Jan 08;2:79
pubmed: 26779494
BMC Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 23;20(1):536
pubmed: 32703188
Lancet. 2021 Jan 9;397(10269):93-94
pubmed: 33347812