In this study, pColD157, a 6.7-kb colicinogenic plasmid of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) O157:H7 strain CL40cu, was characterized by restriction mapping and determination of its complete nucleotide sequence. The sequence consists of 6,675 bp and shows a high degree of similarity to the nucleotide sequence of colicinogenic plasmids pColD-CA23 and pColK. Seven potential genes were located on pColD157, three of which were closely related (>97.9%) to the colicin D structural gene and the corresponding immunity and lysis genes of plasmid pColD-CA23, and these were therefore designatedcda, cdi, and cdl, respectively, using the reference extension -CL40 for differentiation. The adjacent 3′ region is related to the origin of replication of pColD-CA23. In contrast, the remaining part of the plasmid harbors a cluster of genes, closely related to the mobilization genes of pColK, which is followed by a 0.3-kb stretch homologous to the pColK resolution function. These determinants were designated mbdA, mbdB,mbdC, and mbdD and cdr, respectively. Southern blot analysis was performed with a probe specific for the cda gene of pColD157 and two groups of EHEC O157:H7 isolates from patients with diarrhea or hemolytic-uremic syndrome resident in Germany. Whereas 16 of 46 E. coli O157 strains isolated between 1987 and 1991 harbored plasmid pColD157, only 1 of 50 strains isolated during 1996 carried this plasmid. In addition, all strains harboring plasmid pColD157 were shown to have colicinogenic activity.

Background PCR testing is considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis but its results are earliest available hours to days after testing. Rapid antigen tests represent a diagnostic tool enabling testing at the point of care. Rapid antigen tests have mostly been validated by the manufacturer or in controlled laboratory settings only. External validation at the point of care, particularly in general practice where the test is frequently used, is needed. Furthermore, it is unclear how well point of care tests are accepted by the practice staff. Methods In this prospective multicenter validation study in primary care, general practitioners included adult individuals presenting with symptoms suggesting COVID-19. Each patient was tested by the general practitioner, first with a nasopharyngeal swab for the point of care test (Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test) and then with a second swab for PCR testing. Using the RT-PCR result as a reference, we calculated specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, with their 95% confidence intervals. General practitioners and medical assistants completed a survey to assess feasibility and usefulness of the point of care tests. Results In 40 practices in Würzburg, Germany, 1518 patients were recruited between 12/2020 and 06/2021. The point of care test achieved a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 99.5% compared to RT-PCR. With a prevalence of 9.5%, the positive predictive value was 93.9% and the negative predictive value was 97.8%. General practitioners rated the point of care test as a helpful tool to support diagnostics in patients with signs and symptoms suggestive for infection, particularly in situations where decision on further care is needed at short notice. Conclusion The point of care test used in this study showed a sensitivity below the manufacturer’s specification (Sensitivity 96.25%) in the practice but high values for specificity and high positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Although widely accepted in the practice, measures for further patient management require a sensitive interpretation of the point of care test results.

Background PCR testing is considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis but its results are earliest available hours to days after testing. Rapid antigen tests represent a diagnostic tool enabling testing at the point of care. To date, most rapid antigen tests were validated by the manufacturer or in controlled laboratory settings only. External validation at the point of care, particularly in general practice where the test is frequently used, is needed. Furthermore, it is unclear how well point of care tests are accepted by the practice staff. Methods In this prospective multicenter validation study in primary care, general practitioners included adult individuals presenting with symptoms suggesting COVID-19. Each patient was tested first with a nasopharyngeal swab for the point of care test and then with a second swab for PCR testing. Using the RT-PCR result as a reference, we calculated specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, with their 95% confidence intervals. General practitioners and medical assistants completed a survey to assess feasibility and usefulness of the point of care tests. Results In 40 practices in Würzburg, Germany, 1518 patients were recruited between 12/2020 and 06/2021. The point of care test achieved a sensitivity of 78.3% and a specificity of 99.5% compared to RT-PCR. With a prevalence of 9.5%, the positive predictive value was 93.9% and the negative predictive value was 97.8%. General practitioners rated the point of care test as a helpful tool to support diagnostics in patients with signs and symptoms suggestive for infection, particularly in situations where decision on further care is needed at short notice. Conclusion The point of care test used in this study showed a sensitivity below the manufacturer's specification (Sensitivity 96.25%) in the practice but high values for specificity and high positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Although widely accepted in the practice, measures for further patient management require a sensitive interpretation of the point of care test results.