The development of immunity sequelae or the carrier state following streptococcal pharyngitis

What is the optimal strategy for managing primary care patients with an uncomplicated acute sore throat? Comparing the consequences of nine different strategies using a compilation of previous studies

OBJECTIVE

Identifying optimal strategies for managing patients of any age with varying risk of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) attending for an apparently uncomplicated acute sore throat, also clarifying the role of point-of-care testing (POCT) for presence of group A beta-haemolytic Streptococcus (GABHS) in these settings.

DESIGN

We compared outcomes of adhering to nine different strategies for managing these patients in primary healthcare.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The nine strategies, similar to guidelines from several countries, were tested against two validation data sets being constructs from seven prior studies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The proportion of patients requiring a POCT, prescribed antibiotics, prescribed antibiotics having GABHS and finally having GABHS not prescribed antibiotics, if different strategies had been adhered to.

RESULTS

In a scenario with high risk of ARF, adhering to existing guidelines would risk many patients ill from GABHS left without antibiotics. Hence, using a POCT on all of these patients minimised their risk. For low-risk patients, it is reasonable to only consider antibiotics if the patient has more than low pain levels despite adequate analgesia, 3-4 Centor scores (or 2-3 FeverPAIN scores or 3-4 McIsaac scores) and a POCT confirming the presence of GABHS. This would require testing only 10%-15% of patients and prescribing antibiotics to only 3.5%-6.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with high or low risk for ARF needs to be managed very differently. POCT can play an important role in safely targeting the use of antibiotics for patients with an apparently uncomplicated acute sore throat.

Systematic review of factors contributing to penicillin treatment failure in Streptococcus pyogenes pharyngitis

Objective

Review the evidence for various explanations for microbiologic treatment failure following use of penicillin in group A streptococcal (GAS) tonsillopharyngitis.

DATA SOURCE

Systematic review of the literature based on Medline and EMBASE searches, and review of reference lists of included studies.

RESULTS

The explanations for penicillin treatment failure in GAS tonsillopharyngitis include 1) carrier state, 2) lack of compliance, 3) recurrent exposure, 4) in vivo copathogenicity of β-lactamase–producing normal pharyngeal flora, 5) in vivo bacterial coaggregation, 6) poor antibiotic penetration to tonsillopharyngeal tissue, 7) in vivo eradication of normal protective flora, 8) early initiation of antibiotic therapy resulting in suppression of an adequate host immune response, 9) intracellular localization of GAS, 10) GAS tolerance to penicillin, 11) contaminated toothbrushes or orthodontic appliances, and 12) transmission from the family pet. There is very little type I or II evidence to support any of the above-cited explanations for treatment failure in GAS tonsillopharyngitis; available studies are mostly observational (in patients) or laboratory-based without clinical confirmation.

CONCLUSION

Multiple explanations have been offered by investigators to explain penicillin treatment failures in GAS tonsillopharyngitis, but the evidence base to support the proposed explanations is generally weak by current standards. Further research is needed to better understand the mechanism(s) of penicillin treatment failure in GAS tonsillopharyngitis.