Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Preprint em Inglês | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22271219

RESUMO

BACKGROUNDThroughout the COVID-19 pandemic, testing individuals remains a key action. One approach to rapid testing is to consider the olfactory capacities of trained detection dogs. METHODSProspective cohort study in two community COVID-19 screening centers. Two nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), one saliva and one sweat samples were simultaneously collected. The dog handlers (and the dogs...) were blinded with regards to the Covid status. The diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by canine olfaction was assessed as compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR as the reference standard, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing. RESULTS335 ambulatory adults (143 symptomatic and 192 asymptomatic) were included. Overall, 109/335 participants tested positive on nasopharyngeal RT-PCR either in symptomatic (78/143) or in asymptomatic participants (31/192). The overall sensitivity of canine detection was 97% (95% CI, 92 to 99) and even reached 100% (95% CI, 89 to 100) in asymptomatic individuals compared to NPS RT-PCR. The specificity was 91% (95% CI, 72 to 91), reaching 94% (95% CI, 90 to 97) for asymptomatic individuals. The sensitivity of canine detection was higher than that of nasopharyngeal antigen testing (97% CI: 91 to 99 versus 84% CI: 74 to 90, p=0.006), but the specificity was lower (90% CI: 84 to 95 versus 97% CI: 93 to 99, p=0.016). CONCLUSIONSNon-invasive detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by canine olfaction could be one alternative to NPS RT-PCR when it is necessary to obtain a result very quickly according to the same indications as antigenic tests in the context of mass screening.

2.
Preprint em Inglês | bioRxiv | ID: ppbiorxiv-427105

RESUMO

This study aimed to evaluate the sensitivity of 21 dogs belonging to different United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ministry of Interior (MOI), trained for COVID-19 olfactory detection. The study involved 17 explosives detection dogs, two cadaver detection dogs and two dogs with no previous detection training. Training lasted two weeks before starting the validation protocol. Sequential five and seven-cone line-ups were used with axillary sweat samples from symptomatic COVID-19 individuals (SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive) and from asymptomatic COVID-19 negative individuals (SARS-CoV-2 PCR negative). A total of 1368 trials were performed during validation, including 151 positive and 110 negative samples. Each line-up had one positive sample and at least one negative sample. The dog had to mark the positive sample, randomly positioned behind one of the cones. The dog, handler and data recorder were blinded to the positive sample location. The calculated overall sensitivities were between 71% and 79% for three dogs, between83% and 87% for three other dogs, and equal to or higher than 90% for the remaining 15 dogs (more than two thirds of the 21 dogs). After calculating the overall sensitivity for each dog using all line-ups, "matched" sensitivities were calculated only including line-ups containing COVID-19 positive and negative samples strictly comparable on confounding factors such as diabetes, anosmia, asthma, fever, body pain, diarrhoea, sex, hospital, method of sweat collection and sampling duration. Most of the time, the sensitivities increased after matching. Pandemic conditions in the U.A.E., associated with the desire to use dogs as an efficient mass-pretesting tool has already led to the operational deployment of the study dogs. Future studies will focus on comparatives fields-test results including the impact of the main COVID-19 comorbidities and other respiratory tract infections.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...