RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic had profound global impacts on daily lives, economic stability, and healthcare systems. Diagnosis of COVID-19 infection via RT-PCR was crucial in reducing spread of disease and informing treatment management. While RT-PCR is a key diagnostic test, there is room for improvement in the development of diagnostic criteria. Identification of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath provides a fast, reliable, and economically favorable alternative for disease detection. METHODS: This meta-analysis analyzed the diagnostic performance of VOC-based breath analysis in detection of COVID-19 infection. A systematic review of twenty-nine papers using the grading criteria from Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and PRISMA guidelines was conducted. RESULTS: The cumulative results showed a sensitivity of 0.92 (95 % CI, 90 %-95 %) and a specificity of 0.90 (95 % CI 87 %-93 %). Subgroup analysis by variant demonstrated strong sensitivity to the original strain compared to the Omicron and Delta variant in detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. An additional subgroup analysis of detection methods showed eNose technology had the highest sensitivity when compared to GC-MS, GC-IMS, and high sensitivity-MS. CONCLUSION: Overall, these results support the use of breath analysis as a new detection method of COVID-19 infection.
RESUMEN
A 23-subject feasibility study is reported to assess how UV absorbance measurements on exhaled breath samples collected from silicon microreactors can be used to detect COVID-19. The silicon microreactor technology chemoselectively preconcentrates exhaled carbonyl volatile organic compounds and subsequent methanol elution provides samples for analysis. The underlying scientific rationale that viral infection will induce an increase in exhaled carbonyls appears to be supported by the results of the feasibility study. The data indicate statistically significant differences in measured UV absorbance values between healthy and symptomatic COVID-19 positive subjects in the wavelength range from 235 nm to 305 nm. Factors such as subject age were noted as potential confounding variables.
