Collection of triatomines from sylvatic habitats by a Trypanosoma cruzi-infected scent detection dog in Texas, USA.

BACKGROUND: Triatomine insects, vectors of the etiologic agent of Chagas disease (Trypanosoma cruzi), are challenging to locate in sylvatic habitats. Collection techniques used in the United States often rely on methods to intercept seasonally dispersing adults or on community scientists' encounters. Neither method is suited for detecting nest habitats likely to harbor triatomines, which is important for vector surveillance and control. Furthermore, manual inspection of suspected harborages is difficult and unlikely to reveal novel locations and host associations. Similar to a team that used a trained dog to detect sylvatic triatomines in Paraguay, we worked with a trained scent detection dog to detect triatomines in sylvatic locations across Texas. PRINCIPLE METHODOLOGY/FINDINGS: Ziza, a 3-year-old German Shorthaired Pointer previously naturally infected with T. cruzi, was trained to detect triatomines. Over the course of 6 weeks in the fall of 2017, the dog and her handler searched at 17 sites across Texas. The dog detected 60 triatomines at 6 sites; an additional 50 triatomines were contemporaneously collected at 1 of these sites and 2 additional sites without the assistance of the dog. Approximately 0.98 triatomines per hour were found when only humans were conducting searches; when working with the dog, approximately 1.71 triatomines per hour were found. In total, 3 adults and 107 nymphs of four species (Triatoma gerstaeckeri, Triatoma protracta, Triatoma sanguisuga, and Triatoma indictiva) were collected. PCR testing of a subset revealed T. cruzi infection, including DTUs TcI and TcIV, in 27% of nymphs (n = 103) and 66% of adults (n = 3). Bloodmeal analysis of a subset of triatomines (n = 5) revealed feeding on Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Southern plains woodrat (Neotoma micropus), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: A trained scent detection dog enhanced triatomine detections in sylvatic habitats. This approach is effective at detecting nidicolous triatomines. Control of sylvatic sources of triatomines is challenging, but this new knowledge of specific sylvatic habitats and key hosts may reveal opportunities for novel vector control methods to block the transmission of T. cruzi to humans and domestic animals.

Sniffer dogs performance is stable over time in detecting COVID-19 positive samples and agrees with the rapid antigen test in the field.

Rapid antigen diagnostic (RAD) tests have been developed for the identification of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, they require nasopharyngeal or nasal swab, which is invasive, uncomfortable, and aerosolising. The use of saliva test was also proposed but has not yet been validated. Trained dogs may efficiently smell the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in biological samples of infected people, but further validation is needed both in laboratory and in field. The present study aimed to (1) assess and validate the stability over a specific time period of COVID-19 detection in humans' armpit sweat by trained dogs thanks to a double-blind laboratory test-retest design, and (2) assess this ability when sniffing people directly. Dogs were not trained to discriminate against other infections. For all dogs (n. 3), the laboratory test on 360 samples yielded 93% sensitivity and 99% specificity, an 88% agreement with the Rt-PCR, and a moderate to strong test-retest correlation. When sniffing people directly (n. 97), dogs' (n. 5) overall sensitivity (89%) and specificity (95%) were significantly above chance level. An almost perfect agreement with RAD results was found (kappa 0.83, SE 0.05, p = 0.001). Therefore, sniffer dogs met appropriate criteria (e.g., repeatability) and WHO's target product profiles for COVID-19 diagnostics and produced very promising results in laboratory and field settings, respectively. These findings support the idea that biodetection dogs could help reduce the spread of the virus in high-risk environments, including airports, schools, and public transport.

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

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 testP= 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.

New method of screening for COVID-19 disease using sniffer dogs and scents from axillary sweat samples.

BACKGROUND: Early screening for COVID-19 is needed to limit the spread of the virus. The aim of this study is to test if the sniffer dogs can be successfully trained to identify subjects with COVID-19 for 'proof of concept' and 'non-inferiority' against PCR. We are calling this method, Dognosis (DN). METHODS: Four hundred and fifty-nine subjects were included, 256 (Group 'P') were known cases of COVID-19 (PCR positive, some with and some without symptoms) and 203 (Group 'C') were PCR negative and asymptomatic (control). Samples were obtained from the axillary sweat of each subject in a masked fashion. Two dogs trained to detect specific Volatile Organic Compounds for COVID-19 detection were used to test each sample. RESULTS: [DN] turned out positive (+) in all the cases that were PCR positive (100% sensitivity). On the other hand, [DN] turned positive (+) in an average of 12.5 cases (6.2%) that were initially PCR negative (apparent specificity of 93.8%). When the PCR was repeated, true specificity was 97.2%. These parameters varied in subgroups from 100% sensitivity and 99% specificity in symptomatic patients to 100% sensitivity and 93% specificity in asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSION: DN method shows high sensitivity and specificity in screening COVID-19 patients.

Highly sensitive scent-detection of COVID-19 patients in vivo by trained dogs.

Timely and accurate diagnostics are essential to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, but no test satisfies both conditions. Dogs can scent-identify the unique odors of volatile organic compounds generated during infection by interrogating specimens or, ideally, the body of a patient. After training 6 dogs to detect SARS-CoV-2 by scent in human respiratory secretions (in vitro diagnosis), we retrained 5 of them to search and find the infection by scenting the patient directly (in vivo screening). Then, efficacy trials were designed to compare the diagnostic performance of the dogs against that of the rRT-PCR in 848 human subjects: 269 hospitalized patients (COVID-19 prevalence 30.1%), 259 hospital staff (prevalence 2.7%), and 320 government employees (prevalence 1.25%). The limit of detection in vitro was lower than 10-12 copies ssRNA/mL. During in vivo efficacy experiments, our 5 dogs detected 92 COVID-19 positive patients among the 848 study subjects. The alert (lying down) was immediate, with 95.2% accuracy and high sensitivity (95.9%; 95% C.I. 93.6-97.4), specificity (95.1%; 94.4-95.8), positive predictive value (69.7%; 65.9-73.2), and negative predictive value (99.5%; 99.2-99.7) in relation to rRT-PCR. Seventy-five days after finishing in vivo efficacy experiments, a real-life study (in vivo effectiveness) was executed among the riders of the Metro System of Medellin, deploying the human-canine teams without previous training or announcement. Three dogs were used to examine the scent of 550 volunteers who agreed to participate, both in test with canines and in rRT-PCR testing. Negative predictive value remained at 99.0% (95% C.I. 98.3-99.4), but positive predictive value dropped to 28.2% (95% C.I. 21.1-36.7). Canine scent-detection in vivo is a highly accurate screening test for COVID-19, and it detects more than 99% of infected individuals independent of key variables, such as disease prevalence, time post-exposure, or presence of symptoms. Additional training is required to teach the dogs to ignore odoriferous contamination under real-life conditions.

COVID-19 sniffer dog experimental training: Which protocol and which implications for reliable sidentification?

The introduction of trained sniffer dogs for COVID-19 detection could be an opportunity, as previously described for other diseases. Dogs could be trained to detect volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the whiff of COVID-19. Dogs involved in the study were three, one male and two females from different breeds, Black German Shepherd, German Shepherd, and Dutch Shepherd. The training was performed using sweat samples from SARS-CoV2 positive patients and from SARS-Cov2 free patients admitted at the University Hospital Campus Bio-medico of Rome. Gauze with sweat was collected in a glass jar with a metal top and put in metal boxes used for dog training. The dog training protocol was performed in two phases: the olfactory conditioning and the olfactory discrimination research. The training planning was focused on the switch moment for the sniffer dog, the moment when the dog was able to identify VOCs specific for COVID-19. At this time, the dog was able to identify VOCs specific for COVID-19 with significant reliability, in terms of the number of correct versus incorrect (p < 0.0001) reporting. In conclusion, this protocol could provide a useful tool for sniffer dogs' training and their introduction in a mass screening context. It could be cheaper and faster than a conventional testing method.

The detection dogs test is more sensitive than real-time PCR in screening for SARS-CoV-2.

In January 2020, the coronavirus disease was declared, by the World Health Organization as a global public health emergency. Recommendations from the WHO COVID Emergency Committee continue to support strengthening COVID surveillance systems, including timely access to effective diagnostics. Questions were raised about the validity of considering the RT-PCR as the gold standard in COVID-19 diagnosis. It has been suggested that a variety of methods should be used to evaluate advocated tests. Dogs had been successfully trained and employed to detect diseases in humans. Here we show that upon training explosives detection dogs on sniffing COVID-19 odor in patients' sweat, those dogs were able to successfully screen out 3249 individuals who tested negative for the SARS-CoV-2, from a cohort of 3290 individuals. Additionally, using Bayesian analysis, the sensitivity of the K9 test was found to be superior to the RT-PCR test performed on nasal swabs from a cohort of 3134 persons. Given its high sensitivity, short turn-around-time, low cost, less invasiveness, and ease of application, the detection dogs test lends itself as a better alternative to the RT-PCR in screening for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic individuals.

Are sniffer dogs a reliable approach for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection?

OBJECTIVES: Despite inter-individual variations in their diagnostic efficiency, dogs have been trained to investigate many human pathologies, especially cancer, diabetes, migraine, seizures and even infectious diseases. To this end, we performed a critical review and pooled analysis of current scientific literature on the performance of dogs trained for identifying severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive human specimens. METHODS: We carried out an electronic search in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science with the keywords "dog(s)" AND "sniffer" OR "scent" OR "smell" AND "SARS-CoV-2" OR "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" OR "coronavirus disease 2019" OR "COVID-19" within all fields, without date or language restrictions, to identify studies describing dogs' performance for identifying SARS-CoV-2 infected material. RESULTS: Three studies could be finally included in pooled analysis, totaling 17 dogs (47% females), aged between 0.5 and 12 years. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84-0.91; I2, 85.3%), the diagnostic specificity 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99-0.99; I2, 97.4%), whilst the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was 0.979 (standard error, 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The notable performance observed in this pooled analysis would persuade us to suggest that adequately trained dogs could represent an intriguing and sustainable resource for purposes of rapid SARS-CoV-2 mass screening.

Discrimination of SARS-CoV-2 infected patient samples by detection dogs: A proof of concept study.

While the world awaits a widely available COVID-19 vaccine, availability of testing is limited in many regions and can be further compounded by shortages of reagents, prolonged processing time and delayed results. One approach to rapid testing is to leverage the volatile organic compound (VOC) signature of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Detection dogs, a biological sensor of VOCs, were utilized to investigate whether SARS-CoV-2 positive urine and saliva patient samples had a unique odor signature. The virus was inactivated in all training samples with either detergent or heat treatment. Using detergent-inactivated urine samples, dogs were initially trained to find samples collected from hospitalized patients confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, while ignoring samples collected from controls. Dogs were then tested on their ability to spontaneously recognize heat-treated urine samples as well as heat-treated saliva from hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Dogs successfully discriminated between infected and uninfected urine samples, regardless of the inactivation protocol, as well as heat-treated saliva samples. Generalization to novel samples was limited, particularly after intensive training with a restricted sample set. A unique odor associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection present in human urine as well as saliva, provides impetus for the development of odor-based screening, either by electronic, chemical, or biological sensing methods. The use of dogs for screening in an operational setting will require training with a large number of novel SARS-CoV-2 positive and confirmed negative samples.

Sniffer dogs as a screening/diagnostic tool for COVID-19: a proof of concept study.

BACKGROUND: Sniffer dogs are able to detect certain chemical particles and are suggest to be capable of helping diagnose some medical conditions and complications, such as colorectal cancer, melanoma, bladder cancer, and even critical states such as hypoglycemia in diabetic patients. With the global spread of COVID-19 throughout the world and the need to have a real-time screening of the population, especially in crowded places, this study aimed to investigate the applicability of sniffer dogs to carry out such a task. METHODS: Firstly, three male and female dogs from German shepherd (Saray), German black (Kuzhi) and Labrador (Marco) breeds had been intensively trained throughout the classical conditioning method for 7 weeks. They were introduced to human specimens obtained from the throat and pharyngeal secretions of participants who were already reported positive or negative for SARS-COV-2 infection be RT-PCR. Each dog underwent the conditioning process for almost 1000 times. In the meantime another similar condition process was conducted on clothes and masks of COVID-19 patient using another three male and female dogs from Labrador (Lexi), Border gypsy (Sami), and Golden retriever (Zhico) breeds. In verification test for the first three dogs, 80 pharyngeal secretion samples consisting of 26 positive and 54 negative samples from different medical centers who underwent RT-PCR test were in a single-blind method. In the second verification test for the other three dogs, masks and clothes of 50 RT-PCR positive and 70 RT-PCR negative cases from different medical center were used. RESULTS: In verification test using pharyngeal secretion, the sniffer dogs' detection capability was associated with a 65% of sensitivity and 89% of specificity and they amanged to identify 17 out of the 26 positive and 48 out of the 54 true negative samples. In the next verification test using patients' face masks and clothes, 43 out of the 50 positive samples were correctly identified by the dogs. Moreover, out of the 70 negative samples, 65 samples were correctly found to be negative. The sensitivity of this test was as high as 86% and its specificity was 92.9%. In addition, the positive and negative predictive values were 89.6 and 90.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Dogs are capable of being trained to identify COVID-19 cases by sniffing their odour, so they can be used as a reliable tool in limited screening.

Toward the use of medical scent detection dogs for COVID-19 screening.

Current testing for the presence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 virus), which causes the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection, is typically reliant upon collection of nasal swab samples from subjects. These tests (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR] and antigen) are intrusive, can take significant time to process, and can give deleterious false negative and false positive results. Alternative methods for COVID-19 testing and screening are being studied, including the use of trained scent detection dogs to detect volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with the COVID virus. In August 2020 and October 2020, the first author (T.D.) searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and additional news articles using keyword phrases including "COVID scent dogs," "COVID sniffer dogs," and "COVID detection dog," returning a total of 13 articles, nine of which were duplicates. Four remaining peer-reviewed studies dedicated to determining the feasibility and efficacy of detecting and screening individuals who may be infected by the COVID-19 virus with scent detection dogs were then examined. In this narrative review, the authors describe the methodologies and results of the remaining four studies, which demonstrated that the sensitivity, specificity, and overall success rates reported by the summarized scent detection studies are comparable to or better than the standard RT-PCR and antigen testing procedures, meaning that scent detection dogs can likely be effectively employed to nonintrusively screen and identify individuals infected with the COVID-19 virus in hospitals, senior care facilities, schools, universities, airports, and even large public gatherings for sporting events and concerts.

Can the detection dog alert on COVID-19 positive persons by sniffing axillary sweat samples? A proof-of-concept study.

The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to evaluate if trained dogs could discriminate between sweat samples from symptomatic COVID-19 positive individuals (SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive) and those from asymptomatic COVID-19 negative individuals. The study was conducted at 2 sites (Paris, France, and Beirut, Lebanon), followed the same training and testing protocols, and involved six detection dogs (three explosive detection dogs, one search and rescue dog, and two colon cancer detection dogs). A total of 177 individuals were recruited for the study (95 symptomatic COVID-19 positive and 82 asymptomatic COVID-19 negative individuals) from five hospitals, and one underarm sweat sample per individual was collected. The dog training sessions lasted between one and three weeks. Once trained, the dog had to mark the COVID-19 positive sample randomly placed behind one of three or four olfactory cones (the other cones contained at least one COVID-19 negative sample and between zero and two mocks). During the testing session, a COVID-19 positive sample could be used up to a maximum of three times for one dog. The dog and its handler were both blinded to the COVID-positive sample location. The success rate per dog (i.e., the number of correct indications divided by the number of trials) ranged from 76% to 100%. The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the estimated success rate was most of the time higher than the success rate obtained by chance after removing the number of mocks from calculations. These results provide some evidence that detection dogs may be able to discriminate between sweat samples from symptomatic COVID-19 individuals and those from asymptomatic COVID-19 negative individuals. However, due to the limitations of this proof-of-concept study (including using some COVID-19 samples more than once and potential confounding biases), these results must be confirmed in validation studies.