A controlled trial of erythromycin in adults with nonstreptococcal pharyngitis

Antibiotics for treatment of sore throat in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Sore throat is a common reason for people to present for medical care and to be prescribed antibiotics. Overuse of antibiotics in primary medicine is a concern, hence it is important to establish their efficacy in treating sore throat and preventing secondary complications.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotics for reducing symptoms of sore throat for child and adult patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL 2021, Issue 2, MEDLINE (January 1966 to April week 1, 2021), Embase (January 1990 to April 2021), and two trial registries (searched 6 April 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antibiotics versus control assessing typical sore throat symptoms or complications amongst children and adults seeking medical care for sore throat symptoms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data, resolving any differences in opinion by discussion. We contacted the trial authors from three studies for additional information. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for the efficacy of antibiotics on our primary outcomes (sore throat at day three and one week) and secondary outcomes (fever and headache symptoms and incidence of acute rheumatic fever, acute glomerulonephritis, acute otitis media, acute sinusitis, and quinsy).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 trials with 15,337 cases of sore throat. The majority of included studies were conducted in the 1950s, during which time the rates of serious complications (especially acute rheumatic fever) were much higher than today. Although clinical antibiotic trials for sore throat and respiratory symptoms are still being conducted, it is unusual for them to include placebo or 'no treatment' control arms, which is a requirement for inclusion in the review. The age of participants ranged from younger than one year to older than 50 years, but most participants across all studies were adults. Although all studies recruited patients presenting with symptoms of sore throat, few of them distinguished between bacterial and viral aetiology. Bias may have been introduced through non-clarity in treatment allocation procedures and lack of blinding in some studies. Harms from antibiotics were poorly or inconsistently reported, and were thus not quantified for this review. 1. Symptoms Throat soreness and headache at day three were reduced by using antibiotics, although 82% of participants in the placebo or no treatment group were symptom-free by one week. The reduction in sore throat symptoms at day three (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.80; 16 studies, 3730 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) was greater than at one week in absolute numbers (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.75; 14 studies, 3083 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) due to many cases in both treatment groups having resolved by this time. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent one sore throat at day three was less than six; at week one it was 18. Compared with placebo or no treatment, antibiotics did not significantly reduce fever at day three (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.07; 8 studies, 1443 participants; high-certainty evidence), but did reduce headache at day three (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70; 4 studies, 1020 participants; high-certainty evidence). 2. Suppurative complications Whilst the prevalence of suppurative complications was low, antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media within 14 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 10 studies, 3646 participants; high-certainty evidence) and quinsy within two months (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35; 8 studies, 2433 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared to those receiving placebo or no treatment, but not acute sinusitis within 14 days (Peto OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.05; 8 studies, 2387 participants; high-certainty evidence). 3. Non-suppurative complications There were too few cases of acute glomerulonephritis to determine whether there was a protective effect of antibiotics compared with placebo against this complication (Peto OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; 10 studies, 5147 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever within two months when compared to the control group (Peto OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.50; 18 studies, 12,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It should be noted that the overall prevalence of acute rheumatic fever was very low, particularly in the later studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics probably reduce the number of people experiencing sore throat, and reduce the likelihood of headache, and some sore throat complications. As the effect on symptoms can be small, clinicians must judge on an individual basis whether it is clinically justifiable to use antibiotics to produce this effect, and whether the underlying cause of the sore throat is likely to be of bacterial origin. Furthermore, the balance between modest symptom reduction and the potential hazards of antimicrobial resistance must be recognised. Few trials have attempted to measure symptom severity. If antibiotics reduce the severity as well as the duration of symptoms, their benefit will have been underestimated in this meta-analysis. Additionally, more trials are needed in low-income countries, in socio-economically deprived sections of high-income countries, as well as in children.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Antibiotics for sore throat

BACKGROUND

Sore throat is a common reason for people to present for medical care. Although it remits spontaneously, primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for it.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat for patients in primary care settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 6, MEDLINE (January 1966 to July week 1, 2013) and EMBASE (January 1990 to July 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antibiotics versus control assessing typical sore throat symptoms or complications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. We resolved differences in opinion by discussion. We contacted trial authors from three studies for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 trials with 12,835 cases of sore throat. We did not identify any new trials in this 2013 update. 1. Symptoms Throat soreness and fever were reduced by about half by using antibiotics. The greatest difference was seen at day three. The number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) to prevent one sore throat at day three was less than six; at week one it was 21. 2. Non-suppurative complications The trend was antibiotics protecting against acute glomerulonephritis but there were too few cases to be sure. Several studies found antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever by more than two-thirds within one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.60). 3. Suppurative complications Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media within 14 days (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.58); acute sinusitis within 14 days (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.08 to 2.76); and quinsy within two months (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47) compared to those taking placebo. 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction Antibiotics were more effective against symptoms at day three (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.71) if throat swabs were positive for Streptococcus, compared to RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.97 if negative. Similarly at week one the RR was 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.70) for positive and 0.73 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.07) for negative Streptococcus swabs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in high-income countries requires treating many with antibiotics for one to benefit. This NNTB may be lower in low-income countries. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by about 16 hours overall.

Antibiotics for sore throat

BACKGROUND

Sore throat is a very common reason for people to present for medical care. Although it remits spontaneously, primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for it.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2006) and EMBASE (January 1990 to December 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials of antibiotic against control with either measures of the typical symptoms (throat soreness, headache or fever), or suppurative or non-suppurative complications of sore throat.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Potential studies were screened independently by two authors for inclusion, with differences in opinion resolved by discussion. Data were then independently extracted from studies selected by inclusion by two authors. Researchers from three studies were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 27 studies with 2835 cases of sore throat. 1. Non-suppurative complications: There was a trend for antibiotics to protect against acute glomerulonephritis, but there were insufficient cases to be sure. Several studies found antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever by more than two thirds (relative risk (RR) 0.22; 95% CI 0.02 to 2.08). 2. Suppurative complications: Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.58); of acute sinusitis (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.08 to 2.76); and of quinsy (peritonsillar abscess) compared to those taking placebo (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47). 3.

SYMPTOMS

Throat soreness and fever were reduced by antibiotics by about one half. The greatest difference was seen at about 3 to 4 days (when the symptoms of about 50% of untreated patients had settled). By one week about 90% of treated and untreated patients were symptom-free. The overall number need to treat to prevent one sore throat at day 3 was just under six (95% CI 4.9 to 7.0); at week 1 it was 21 (95% CI 13.2 to 47.9). 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction: Analysis by: age; blind versus unblinded; or use of antipyretics, found no significant differences. Analysis of results of throat swabs showed that antibiotics were more effective against symptoms at day 3, RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.71) if the swabs were positive for Streptococcus, compared to RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.97) if negative. Similarly at week 1, RRs 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.70) for positive, and 0.73 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.07) for negative swabs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in modern Western society can only be achieved by treating many with antibiotics, most of whom will derive no benefit. In emerging economies (where rates of acute rheumatic fever are high, for example), the number needed to treat may be much lower for antibiotics to be considered effective. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by about sixteen hours overall.

The association of anaerobic bacteria with infectious mononucleosis

This review summarizes the information that supports the potential importance of anaerobic bacteria in the pharyngo-tonsillitis (PT) associated with infectious mononucleosis (IM). Evidence supportive of the potential of involvement of bacteria in IM was provided by several studies that showed increased recovery of bacteria on the tonsillar surfaces in IM. Several studies demonstrated that metronidazole therapy alleviated the clinical symptoms of tonsillar hypertrophy and shortened the duration of fever in IM. Metronidazole has no antimicrobial activity against aerobic bacteria and is only effective against anaerobic bacteria. A possible mechanism of its action is the suppression of the oral anaerobic flora that might contribute to the inflammatory process induced by the Epstein-Barr virus. This explanation is supported by the increased recovery of Prevotella intermedia and Fusobacterium nucleatum from the tonsillar surfaces during the acute phases of IM and an immune response against these organisms by patients with IM. Although more studies are needed, these findings support the possible pathogenicity of Gram-negative anaerobic bacteria in the PT associated with IM.

The role of anaerobic bacteria in tonsillitis

This review summarizes the information that supports the potential importance of anaerobic bacteria in tonsillitis. Some anaerobic bacteria possess interfering capability with Group A beta-hemolytic streptococci (GABHS) and other pathogens. The possible role of anaerobes in the acute inflammatory process in the tonsils is supported by several observations: anaerobes have been isolated from the cores of tonsils of patients with recurrent GABHS and non-GABHS tonsillitis (NST); the recovery of anaerobes as predominant pathogens in abscesses of tonsils, in many cases without any aerobic bacteria; their recovery as pathogens in well-established anaerobic infections of the tonsils (Vincent's angina); the increased recovery rate of encapsulated pigmented Prevotella and Porphyromonas spp. in acutely inflamed tonsils; their isolation from the cores of recurrently inflamed NST; and the response to antibiotics in patients with NST. Furthermore, immune response against Prevotella intermedia is present in patients with recurrent NST, and an immune response can also be detected against P. intermedia and Fusobacterium nucleatum in patients who recovered from peritonsillar cellulitis or abscesses, infectious mononucleosis and acute non-streptococcal and GABHS tonsillitis. Although more studies are needed, these findings support the possible pathogenicity of Gram-negative anaerobic bacilli in tonsillitis.

Antibiotics for sore throat

BACKGROUND

Sore throat is a very common reason for people to seek medical care. It is a disease that remits spontaneously, that is, 'cure' is not dependent on treatment. Nonetheless primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for sore throat and other upper respiratory tract infections.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits of antibiotics in the management of sore throat.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Systematic search of the literature from 1945 to 2003, using electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2003); MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2003); EMBASE (January 1990 to March 2003), and the reference sections of the articles identified. We applied no language restrictions. We used abstracts of identified articles to identify trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials of antibiotic against control with either measures of the typical symptoms (throat soreness, headache or fever), or suppurative complications (meaning: forming pus) and non-suppurative complications of sore throat.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened potential studies for inclusion and resolved differences in opinion by discussion. The reviewers then independently extracted the data from the selected studies. We contacted the authors of three studies to acquire additional information not available in published articles. Potential studies were screened independently by two reviewers for inclusion, with differences in opinion resolved by discussion. Data was then independently extracted from studies selected by inclusion by two reviewers. Authors of three studies were contacted to acquire additional information not available in published articles.

MAIN RESULTS

We included twenty-six studies, covering 12,669 cases of sore throat in the review.1. Non-suppurative complications There was a trend for protection against acute glomerulonephritis by antibiotics, but insufficient cases were recorded to be sure of this effect. Several studies found that antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever, to less than one third (odds ratio (OR) = 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.20 to 0.45). 2. Suppurative complications Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media to about one quarter of that in the placebo group (OR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43) and reduced the incidence of acute sinusitis to about one half of that in the placebo group (OR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.10 to 2.05). The incidence of quinsy was also reduced in relation to placebo group (OR = 0.16; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35). 3. Symptoms Symptoms of headache, throat soreness and fever were reduced by antibiotics to about one half. The greatest time for this to be evident was at about three and a half days (when the symptoms of about 50% of untreated patients had settled). About 90% of treated and untreated patients were free of symptoms by one week. The overall number needed to treat to prevent one sore throat at day three was about 5.0 (95% CI 4.5 to 5.8); and at one week was 14.2 (95% CI 11.5 to 20.6). 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction Subgroup analysis by age; blind versus unblinded; or use of antipyretics yielded no significant differences. The results of swabs of the throat for Streptococcus influenced the effect of antibiotics. If the swab was positive, antibiotics were more effective (the OR reduced to 0.16, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26) than if it was negative (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.12).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in modern Western society can be achieved only by treating with antibiotics many who will derive no benefit. In emerging economies where rates of for example acute rheumatic fever are high, the number needed to treat may be much lower. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by a mean of one day about half way through the illness (the time of maximal effect), and by about sixteen hours overall.

The effect of erythromycin on resolution of symptoms among adults with pharyngitis not caused by group A streptococcus

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of treatment with erythromycin on the resolution of symptoms among adults with pharyngitis not caused by group A streptococcus (GAS).

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Ambulatory setting (hospital-based general internal medicine practices, walk-in clinic, employee health service, and university health service).

PATIENTS

One hundred and eighty-six adults who met eligibility criteria and whose chief complaint included sore throat. Patients with positive cultures for GAS were excluded.

INTERVENTION

Ninety-three patients received erythromycin (333 mg three times daily for 10 days) and 93 control patients received placebo.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Major outcome measurements included time to improvement in sore throat, time to improvement in cough, time to improvement in activity level, and subjective sense of well-being. The average age of the patients studied was 26.6 years; 35% were men. Patients given erythromycin had more rapid resolution of sore throat symptoms (hazard ratio 1.43: 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00, 2.03: p = .049). Cough also resolved more rapidly in patients receiving erythromycin (hazard ratio 2.22: 95% CI 1.01, 4.88: p = .05). There were no differences between the two treatment groups in improvement of activity level or how sick patients felt in general. Most of the benefit in resolution of sore throat was conferred on patients who sought medical care within 2 days of onset.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the benefit of erythromycin treatment for patients with non-GAS pharyngitis is small and of borderline statistical significance. Because of the small size of the effect and because widespread use of erythromycin could promote drug resistance, we do not recommend routine use of erythromycin in adult patients with this type of pharyngitis.

Oral manifestations of selected sexually related conditions

The incidence of certain microbial infections occurring in the oropharynx is well documented, but infection by other pathogens, although highly probable, has not been established with certainty. Considerable recent interest in the incubation period of various infections and improved community surveillance programs combine to ascribe infection to specific incidents. It is prudent for health care personnel to acknowledge the presence of many sexually transmitted diseases in the oropharynx and consider them in the differential diagnosis of many well-established conditions.

Group A streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis: cost-effective diagnosis and treatment

Most patients who seek medical attention for sore throat are concerned about streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis, but fewer than 10% of adults and 30% of children actually have a streptococcal infection. Group A beta-hemolytic streptococci (GAS) are most often responsible for bacterial tonsillopharyngitis, although Neisseria gonorrhea, Arcanobacterium haemolyticum (formerly Corynebacterium haemolyticum), Chlamydia pneumoniae (TWAR agent), and Mycoplasma pneumoniae have also been suggested as possible, infrequent, sporadic pathogens. Viruses or idiopathic causes account for the remainder of sore throat complaints. Reliance on clinical impression to diagnose GAS tonsillopharyngitis is problematic; an overestimation of 80% to 95% by experienced clinicians typically occurs for adult patients. Overtreatment promotes bacterial resistance, disturbs natural microbial ecology, and may produce unnecessary side effects. Existing data suggest that rapid GAS antigen testing as an aid to clinical diagnosis can be very useful. When used appropriately, it is sensitive (79% to 88%) in detecting GAS-infected patients and is specific (90% to 96%) and cost-effective. Penicillin has been the treatment of choice for GAS tonsillopharyngitis since the 1950s; 10 days of treatment are necessary for bacterial eradication. A single IM injection of benzathine penicillin is effective and obviates compliance issues. Until the early 1970s, the bacteriologic failure rate for the treatment of GAS tonsillopharyngitis ranged from 2% to 10% and was attributed to chronic GAS carriers. Since the late 1970s, the penicillin failure rate has frequently exceeded 20% in published reports. Explanations for recurrent GAS tonsillopharyngitis include poor patient compliance; reacquisition from a family member or peer, copathogenic colonization by Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, anaerobes that inactivate penicillin with beta-lactamase, or all these organisms; suppression of natural immune response by too-early administration of antibiotics; GAS tolerance to penicillin; antibiotic eradication of normal pharyngeal flora that normally act as natural host defenses; and establishment of a true carrier state. When therapy fails, milder symptoms may occur during the relapse. Several antimicrobials have demonstrated superior efficacy compared with penicillin in eradicating GAS and are administered less frequently to enhance patient compliance. In previously untreated GAS throat infections, cephalosporins produce a 5% to 22% higher bacteriologic cure rate; after a penicillin treatment failure, these differences are greater. Amoxicillin/clavulanate and the extended-spectrum macrolides clarithromycin and azithromycin may also produce enhanced bacteriologic eradication in comparison to penicillin.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Adult bacterial nasopharyngitis: a clinical entity?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate bacterial nasopharyngitis as a cause of adult upper respiratory infection.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

SETTING

Walk-in medical clinic of a university hospital.

PATIENTS

507 patients with cold or flu symptoms, sore throat, or recent cough; 21 control subjects without symptoms of upper respiratory infection.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

After thorough history and physical examination, the patients underwent nasopharyngeal aspiration and throat culture. Nasopharyngeal specimens were cultured for both bacteria and viruses; antigens for influenza, parainfluenza, and respiratory syncytial virus were sought by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); serum antibodies to viral respiratory pathogens were determined. Group A beta-hemolytic streptococci grew from the throat specimens of 39 of the 507 patients (8%) or 38 of 334 patients (11%) who had clinical diagnoses of pharyngitis. Thirty-three cases of influenza A, 20 cases of influenza B, and seven cases of parainfluenza infections were diagnosed. Bacteria were cultured from the nasopharyngeal secretions of 284 patients (56%). In contrast to pharyngeal culture, commensal mixed flora were rarely found in nasopharyngeal culture. Nasopharyngeal culture of bacteria usually considered to be respiratory pathogens was significantly associated with the presence of leukocytes. Streptococcus pneumoniae (odds ratio 6.0, 95% confidence interval 2.6-14.2), Moraxella catarrhalis (odds ratio 12.9, 95% confidence interval 3.1-79.5), and Hemophilus influenzae (odds ratio 3.0, 95% confidence interval 1.2-7.4) were all associated with the presence of leukocytes. In contrast, nasopharyngeal culture of coagulase-negative staphylococci, mixed flora, and the documentation of a viral infection were not associated with the presence of leukocytes. For none of 21 control subjects were "pathogenic" bacteria found.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that potentially pathogenic bacteria may have a causal role in adult nasopharyngitis, although further data are needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Immune response to Prevotella intermedia in patients with recurrent nonstreptococcal tonsillitis

The role of three oral flora organisms (Prevotella intermedia, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans) was investigated in 31 children with recurrent nonstreptococcal tonsillitis. Antibody titers to the three organisms were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in the 31 patients, as well as in 32 control patients who had not suffered from recurrent tonsillitis. None of the individuals in either group suffered from periodontal or dental illness. Significantly higher antibody levels to P intermedia were found in the study group as compared to controls (median 91.0 versus 72.5; p = .02). In contrast, the antibody titers to the other two organisms were generally low (less than 0.30), and no difference was found among the two study groups. The elevated antibody levels to P intermedia, a known oral pathogen that is also isolated from most recurrently inflamed tonsils, suggest a pathogenic role for this organism in recurrent tonsillitis.

Dexamethasone as adjuvant therapy for severe acute pharyngitis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of dexamethasone as adjuvant therapy to improve pain relief in patients with severe, acute exudative pharyngitis.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

SETTING

Large, urban community hospital emergency department with an emergency medicine residency program.

TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 12 to 65 years old with exudative pharyngitis and severe dysphagia/odynophagia. Patients with cancer, AIDS, diabetes mellitus, recent steroid use, pregnancy, or suspicion of peritonsillar abscess were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients received oral penicillin (500 mg Pen VK) or erythromycin (333 mg base) three times daily for ten days in addition to either 10 mg single-dose dexamethasone or saline placebo IM injection.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients graded their initial degree of throat pain on a visual-analog scale that was 15 cm long and scored from 0 to 3.0 in 0.5-cm increments. Follow-up was obtained on 51 patients to determine their condition at 24 hours. At entry, there was no difference in age, weight, antibiotic assignment, or initial pain score between groups. Improvement in pain score (initial versus 24 hours) was 1.8 +/- 0.8 in the 26 patients of the dexamethasone group and 1.2 +/- 0.9 in the 25 patients of the placebo group (P < .05). Time to onset of pain relief was also faster in steroid-treated patients who demonstrated relief beginning at 6.3 +/- 5.3 hours, compared with 12.4 +/- 8.5 hours in the placebo group (P < .01). Of the 26 patients evaluated at seven days (13 in each group), time to complete lack of pain averaged 15.0 +/- 11.4 hours in the dexamethasone group and 35.4 +/- 17.9 hours in the placebo group (P < .02). Complications attributable to dexamethasone were not observed.

CONCLUSION

In patients with severe, acute exudative pharyngitis, single-injection dexamethasone adjuvant compared with placebo resulted in statistically and clinically significant improvement, as evidenced by more rapid onset and greater degree of pain relief.

Adult and pediatric pharyngitis: a review

Acute pharyngitis is frequently encountered in the ambulatory care setting. Although usually of viral etiology, streptococcal disease is the focus of diagnostic efforts, in light of significant suppurative and nonsuppurative sequelae. The traditional symptoms of fever, adenopathy, and pharyngeal exudate are suggestive, but not diagnostic of streptococcal pharyngitis. Thus, the importance of diagnostic testing, including Group A beta hemolytic strep antigen screen and culture, is emphasized. Recent innovations in therapy include modification of antibiotic dosing regimens and use of cephalosporins to improve patient compliance.

Diagnosis and management of anaerobic infections of the head and neck

Anaerobic bacteria are important pathogens in head and neck infections such as chronic otitis media, chronic sinusitis, chronic mastoiditis, head and neck abscesses, cervical adenitis, parotitis, and postoperative infection. Bacteroides sp (Bacteroides melaninogenicus group, Bacteroides oralis, and Bacteroides fragilis group), Peptostreptococcus sp, and Fusobacterium sp predominate. The observed recent increase in the number of beta-lactamase-producing strains of Bacteroides sp isolated in head and neck infections has been associated with increased failure rates of the penicillins in the management of these infections. The pathogenicity of these organisms is expressed through their ability not only to survive penicillin therapy but also to shield penicillin-susceptible pathogens from the drug. Because of these direct and indirect virulent characteristics of anaerobic bacteria, appropriate antimicrobial therapy must be directed against all pathogens in mixed infections.

Arcanobacterium hemolyticum infection: confused with scarlet fever and diphtheria

Arcanobacterium hemolyticum infections are a common cause of pharyngitis and rash in the 10- to 30-year-old age group. Despite its prevalence, many emergency and primary care physicians may not be aware of the pathogenic potential of this organism. We present a case that illustrates the distinctive clinical spectrum of A. hemolyticum infections that may be confused with drug allergy, group A streptococcal scarlet fever, diphtheria, and even toxic shock syndrome. Recognition of this syndrome will reduce misdiagnoses and facilitate appropriate treatment.

Rational decision making based on history: adult sore throats

Primary care physicians are often required to make preliminary evaluations based only on the patient's history, especially during telephone encounters about sore throats. The authors studied adults with sore throats to determine whether patients can be stratified into higher and lower risks of strep throat by history alone. They first obtained data from 517 patients seen in an emergency room. Providers graded symptoms on a four-point scale (absent, mild, moderate, or severe). Initial analyses showed that prediction based on history should include three variables: fever, difficulty in swallowing, and cough. For ease of computation, these were consolidated into one score, "history" (= fever history + difficulty in swallowing - cough). This score was used to develop a model that predicts the probability of infection with group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus, and the model's performance was tested in two additional patient groups. The predictive accuracy of the "history" score was confirmed in all patient groups, despite differences in providers and disease prevalences. Primary care physicians may use this model to help them make decisions in situations such as telephone encounters without using additional data.

Comparison of the microbiology of group A and non-group A streptococcal tonsillitis

We studied the microbial flora of tonsils removed from 20 children who suffered from recurrent group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal (GABHS) tonsillitis and 20 who had tonsillar hypertrophy following recurrent non-GABHS tonsillitis. Similar polymicrobial aerobic and anaerobic flora were recovered from the cores of the tonsils in each group. beta-Lactamase-producing bacteria (BLPB) were recovered more often in the group with GABHS. This difference was due mostly to the lower incidence of beta-lactamase-producing strains of Branhamella catarrhalis and Bacteroides sp in hypertrophic tonsils following non-GABHS tonsillitis. beta-Lactamase-producing Staphylococcus aureus was found with equal frequency in both groups. These findings demonstrate that although BLPB are recovered more often in recurrently inflamed tonsils following GABHS infection, BLPB also can be found in hypertrophic tonsils following non-GABHS tonsillitis.