Biomedical detection dogs for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 infections from axillary sweat and breath samples **

Abstract

Abstract A Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test of a nasal swab is still the ‘gold standard’ for detecting a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, PCR testing could be usefully complemented by non-invasive, fast, reliable, cheap methods for detecting infected individuals in busy areas (e.g. airports and railway stations) or remote areas. Detection of the volatile, semivolatile and non-volatile compound signature of SARS-CoV-2 infection by trained sniffer dogs might meet these requirements. Previous studies have shown that well-trained dogs can detect SARS-CoV-2 in sweat, saliva and urine samples. The objective of the present study was to assess the performance of dogs trained to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in axillary-sweat-stained gauzes and on expired breath trapped in surgical masks. The samples were provided by individuals suffering from mild-to-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), asymptomatic individuals, and individuals vaccinated against COVID-19. Results: Seven trained dogs tested on 886 presentations of sweat samples from 241 subjects and detected SARS-CoV-2 with a diagnostic sensitivity (relative to the PCR test result) of 89.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 86.4%–92.2%) and a specificity of 83.9% (95% CI: 80.3%–87.0%)—even when people with a low viral load were included in the analysis. When considering the 207 presentations of sweat samples from vaccinated individuals, the sensitivity and specificity were respectively 85.7% (95% CI: 68.5%–94.3%) and 86.0% (95% CI: 80.2%–90.3%). The likelihood of a false-positive result was greater in the two weeks immediately after COVID-19 vaccination. Four of the seven dogs also tested on 262 presentations of mask samples from 98 subjects; the diagnostic sensitivity was 83.1% (95% CI: 73.2%–89.9%) and the specificity was 88.6% (95% CI: 83.3%–92.4%). There was no difference (McNemar’s test P = 0.999) in the dogs’ abilities to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in paired samples of sweat-stained gauzes vs surgical masks worn for only 10 min. Conclusion: Our findings confirm the promise of SARS-CoV-2 screening by detection dogs and broaden the method’s scope to vaccinated individuals and easy-to-obtain face masks, and suggest that a ‘dogs + confirmatory rapid antigen detection tests’ screening strategy might be worth investigating.