SARS-CoV-2 is not found in the sweat of COVID-19 positive patients

Canine detection of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in laboratory and field settings

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a fatal transmissible spongiform encephalopathy that affects both free-ranging and farmed cervid species, including mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk (Odocoileus hemionus, Odocoileus virginianus, and Cervus canadensis). Due to the long incubation period and variability of clinical signs, CWD can expand and spread to new areas before they reach diagnostically detectable levels. Antemortem testing methods currently available can be difficult to obtain and to be applied to the large numbers required for adequate surveillance. However, key volatile biomarkers could be harnessed for non-invasive antemortem surveillance. Detection dogs are the most effective tool currently available for volatile detection; dogs can effectively complete wildlife surveys at rates surpassing that of humans. This study is the first to demonstrate that trained detection dogs can be used as an antemortem test for CWD. First, we trained three dogs to differentiate between CWD-positive and CWD-negative white-tailed deer faeces in a laboratory setting. Dogs spent significantly more time at the positive sample than the negative samples, suggesting that they differentiated between the positive and negative volatile signatures. We then trained the same dogs to search for CWD-positive faecal samples in a more naturalistic field setting. In the field, dogs found 8/11 CWD-positive samples and had an average false detection rate of 13%. These results suggest that dogs can be trained to differentiate CWD-positive faeces from CWD-negative faeces in both laboratory and field settings. Future studies will compare canine accuracy to other antemortem methods, as well as improved canine training methods.

Canine olfactory detection of SARS-CoV-2-infected humans-a systematic review

PURPOSE

To complement conventional testing methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 infections, dogs' olfactory capability for true real-time detection has been investigated worldwide. Diseases produce specific scents in affected individuals via volatile organic compounds. This systematic review evaluates the current evidence for canine olfaction as a reliable coronavirus disease 2019 screening tool.

METHODS

Two independent study quality assessment tools were used: the QUADAS-2 tool for the evaluation of laboratory tests' diagnostic accuracy, designed for systematic reviews, and a general evaluation tool for canine detection studies, adapted to medical detection. Various study design, sample, dog, and olfactory training features were considered as potential confounding factors.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies from 15 countries were evaluated. Respectively, four and six studies had a low risk of bias and high quality: the four QUADAS-2 nonbiased studies resulted in ranges of 81%-97% sensitivity and 91%-100% specificity. The six high-quality studies, according to the general evaluation system, revealed ranges of 82%-97% sensitivity and 83%-100% specificity. The other studies contained high bias risks and applicability and/or quality concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardization and certification procedures as used for canine explosives detection are needed for medical detection dogs for the optimal and structured usage of their undoubtful potential.

Sensitivity and specificity of in vivo COVID-19 screening by detection dogs: Results of the C19-Screendog multicenter study

Trained dogs can recognize the volatile organic compounds contained in biological samples of patients with COVID-19 infection. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of in vivo SARS-CoV-2 screening by trained dogs. We recruited five dog-handler dyads. In the operant conditioning phase, the dogs were taught to distinguish between positive and negative sweat samples collected from volunteers' underarms in polymeric tubes. The conditioning was validated by tests involving 16 positive and 48 negative samples held or worn in such a way that the samples were invisible to the dog and handler. In the screening phase the dogs were led by their handlers to a drive-through facility for in vivo screening of volunteers who had just received a nasopharyngeal swab from nursing staff. Each volunteer who had already swabbed was subsequently tested by two dogs, whose responses were recorded as positive, negative, or inconclusive. The dogs' behavior was constantly monitored for attentiveness and wellbeing. All the dogs passed the conditioning phase, their responses showing a sensitivity of 83-100% and a specificity of 94-100%. The in vivo screening phase involved 1251 subjects, of whom 205 had a COVID-19 positive swab and two dogs per each subject to be screened. Screening sensitivity and specificity were respectively 91.6-97.6% and 96.3-100% when only one dog was involved, whereas combined screening by two dogs provided a higher sensitivity. Dog wellbeing was also analyzed: monitoring of stress and fatigue suggested that the screening activity did not adversely impact the dogs' wellbeing. This work, by screening a large number of subjects, strengthen recent findings that trained dogs can discriminate between COVID-19 infected and healthy human subjects and introduce two novel research aspects: i) assessement of signs of fatigue and stress in dogs during training and testing, and ii) combining screening by two dogs to improve detection sensitivity and specificity. Using some precautions to reduce the risk of infection and spillover, in vivo COVID-19 screening by a dog-handler dyad can be suitable to quickly screen large numbers of people: it is rapid, non-invasive and economical, since it does not involve actual sampling, lab resources or waste management, and is suitable to screen large numbers of people.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace: Key findings from a rapid review of the literature

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the primary route of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was not well understood. Research gathered from other respiratory infectious diseases, including other coronaviruses, was the basis for the initial perceptions for transmission of SARS-CoV-2. To better understand transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a rapid literature review was conducted from literature generated March 19, 2020, through September 23, 2021. 18,616 unique results were identified from literature databases and screened. Of these, 279 key articles were reviewed and abstracted covering critical topics such as environmental/workplace monitoring, sampling and analytical method evaluation, and the ability of the virus to remain intact and infectious during sampling. This paper describes the results of the rapid literature review, which evaluated pathways that contribute to transmission as well as the strengths and limitations of current sampling approaches. This review also evaluates how different factors, including environmental conditions and surface characteristics, could impact the transmission potential of SARS-CoV-2. A continual rapid review in the midst of a pandemic proved particularly useful for quickly understanding the transmission parameters of the virus and enabled us to comprehensively assess literature, respond to workplace questions, and evaluate our understanding as the science evolved. Air and surface sampling with the accompanying analytical methods were not generally effective in recovering SARS-CoV-2 viable virus or RNA in many likely contaminated environments. In light of these findings, the development of validated sampling and analysis methods is critical for determining worker exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and to assess the impact of mitigation efforts.

The Use of Biological Sensors and Instrumental Analysis to Discriminate COVID-19 Odor Signatures

The spread of SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease COVID-19, is difficult to control as some positive individuals, capable of transmitting the disease, can be asymptomatic. Thus, it remains critical to generate noninvasive, inexpensive COVID-19 screening systems. Two such methods include detection canines and analytical instrumentation, both of which detect volatile organic compounds associated with SARS-CoV-2. In this study, the performance of trained detection dogs is compared to a noninvasive headspace-solid phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (HS-SPME-GC-MS) approach to identifying COVID-19 positive individuals. Five dogs were trained to detect the odor signature associated with COVID-19. They varied in performance, with the two highest-performing dogs averaging 88% sensitivity and 95% specificity over five double-blind tests. The three lowest-performing dogs averaged 46% sensitivity and 87% specificity. The optimized linear discriminant analysis (LDA) model, developed using HS-SPME-GC-MS, displayed a 100% true positive rate and a 100% true negative rate using leave-one-out cross-validation. However, the non-optimized LDA model displayed difficulty in categorizing animal hair-contaminated samples, while animal hair did not impact the dogs' performance. In conclusion, the HS-SPME-GC-MS approach for noninvasive COVID-19 detection more accurately discriminated between COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative samples; however, dogs performed better than the computational model when non-ideal samples were presented.

Canine real-time detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the context of a mass screening event

Introduction

Previous research demonstrated that medical scent detection dogs have the ability to distinguish SARS-CoV-2 positive from negative samples with high diagnostic accuracy. To deploy these dogs as a reliable screening method, it is mandatory to examine if canines maintain their high diagnostic accuracy in real-life screening settings. We conducted a study to evaluate the performance of medical scent detection dogs under real-life circumstances.

Methods

Eight dogs were trained to detect SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR-positive samples. Four concerts with a total of 2802 participants were held to evaluate canines’ performance in screening individuals for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Sweat samples were taken from all participants and presented in a line-up setting. In addition, every participant had been tested with a SARS-CoV-2 specific rapid antigen test and a RT-qPCR and they provided information regarding age, sex, vaccination status and medical disease history. The participants’ infection status was unknown at the time of canine testing. Safety measures such as mask wearing and distance keeping were ensured.

Results

The SARS-CoV-2 detection dogs achieved a diagnostic specificity of 99.93% (95% CI 99.74% to 99.99%) and a sensitivity of 81.58% (95% CI 66.58% to 90.78%), respectively. The overall rate of concordant results was 99.68%. The majority of the study population was vaccinated with varying vaccines and vaccination schemes, while several participants had chronic diseases and were under chronic medication. This did not influence dogs’ decisions.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 scent detection dogs achieved high diagnostic accuracy in a real-life scenario. The vaccination status, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, chronic disease and medication of the participants did not influence the performance of the dogs in detecting the acute infection. This indicates that dogs provide a fast and reliable screening option for public events in which high-throughput screening is required.