Antibiotics for treatment of sore throat in children and adults

Outcomes of antibiotic treatment for respiratory infections in children an observational study in primary care

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic resistance is an increasing global threat, accelerated by both misuse and overuse of antibiotics. Most antibiotics to humans are prescribed in primary care, commonly for respiratory symptoms, and there is a need for research on the usage of and outcomes after antibiotic treatment to counteract antibiotic resistance.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate symptom duration, treatment length, and adverse events of antibiotic treatment in children.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Observational study at four out-of-hours services and one paediatric emergency clinic in Norwegian emergency primary care.

SUBJECTS

266 children aged 0 to 6 years with fever or respiratory symptoms.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Duration of symptoms and absenteeism from kindergarten/school, treatment length, and reported adverse events.

RESULTS

There were no differences in duration of symptoms, fever or absenteeism when comparing the groups prescribed (30.8%) and not prescribed (69.2%) antibiotics. This lack of difference remained when analysing the subgroup with otitis media.In the group prescribed antibiotics, 84.5% of parents reported giving antibiotics for 5-7 days, and 50.7% reported no difficulties. Adverse events of antibiotics were reported in 42.3% of the cases, the vast majority being gastrointestinal disturbances.

CONCLUSION

Children with fever or respiratory symptoms experience similar duration of symptoms and absenteeism regardless of antibiotic treatment. A substantial number of parents reported adverse events when the child received antibiotics. Several parents experienced additional difficulties with the treatment, some ending treatment within day 4.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02496559; Results.

Symptoms predictive of Fusobacterium necrophorum pharyngotonsillitis - an observational study of cases presenting to hospitals in Southern Sweden

OBJECTIVES

Fusobacterium necrophorum is a common cause of pharyngotonsillitis. However, no guidelines exist on when to diagnose or treat it. We aimed to investigate associations between clinical criteria and F. necrophorum-positivity in pharyngotonsillitis and assess the predictive potential of a simple scoring system.

METHODS

Pharyngotonsillitis patients who were tested for F. necrophorum (PCR) and presented to hospitals in the Skåne Region, Sweden, between 2013-2020 were eligible. Data were retrieved from electronic chart reviews and registries. By logistic regression we investigated associations between F. necrophorum-positivity and pre-specified criteria: age 13-30 years, symptom duration ≤ 3 days, absence of viral symptoms (e.g. cough, coryza), fever, tonsillar swelling/exudate, lymphadenopathy and CRP ≥ 50 mg/L. In secondary analyses, associated variables were weighted by strength of association into a score and its predictive accuracy of F. necrophorum was assessed.

RESULTS

Among 561 cases included, 184 (33%) had F. necrophorum, which was associated with the following criteria: age 13-30, symptom duration ≤ 3 days, absence of viral symptoms, tonsillar swelling/exudate and CRP ≥ 50 mg/L. Age 13-30 had the strongest association (OR5.7 95%CI 3.7-8.8). After weighting, these five variables had a sensitivity and specificity of 68% and 71% respectively to predict F. necrophorum-positivity at the proposed cut-off.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that F. necrophorum cases presenting to hospitals might be better distinguished from other pharyngotonsillitis cases by a simple scoring system presented, with age 13-30 being the strongest predictor for F. necrophorum. Prospective studies, involving primary care settings, are needed to evaluate generalisability of findings beyond cases presenting to hospitals.

Exploring general practitioners' perception of the value of natural history information and their awareness and use of guidelines' resources to support antibiotic prescribing for self-limiting infections: a qualitative study in Australian general practice

BACKGROUND

The newest version of the Therapeutic Guidelines' antibiotic chapter introduced patient- and clinician-facing resources to support decision-making about antibiotic use for self-limiting infections. It is unclear whether general practitioners (GPs) are aware of and use these resources, including the natural history information they contain. We explored GPs' perceptions of the value and their use of natural history information, and their use of the Therapeutic Guidelines' resources (summary table, discussion boxes, decision aids) to support antibiotic decision-making.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with 21 Australian GPs were conducted. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed by two independent researchers.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged: (1) GPs perceive natural history information as valuable in consultations for self-limiting conditions and use it for a range of purposes, but desire specific information for infectious and non-infectious conditions; (2) GPs' reasons for using patient-facing resources were manifold, including managing patients' expectations for antibiotics, legitimising the decision not to provide antibiotics and as a prescription substitute; (3) the guidelines are a useful and important educational resource, but typically not consulted at the time of deciding whether to prescribe antibiotics; and (4) experience and attitude towards shared decision-making and looking up information during consultations influenced whether GPs involved patients in decision-making and used a decision aid.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs perceived natural history information to be valuable in discussions about antibiotic use for self-limiting conditions. Patient and clinician resources were generally perceived as useful, although reasons for use varied, and a few barriers to use were reported.

Acute pharyngitis in children and adults: descriptive comparison of current recommendations from national and international guidelines and future perspectives

This study aims to provide a comparison of the current recommendations about the management of acute pharyngitis. A literature search was conducted from January 2009 to 2023. Documents reporting recommendations on the management of acute pharyngitis were included, pertinent data were extracted, and a descriptive comparison of the different recommendations was performed. The quality of guidelines was assessed through the AGREE II instrument. Nineteen guidelines were included, and an overall moderate quality was found. Three groups can be distinguished: one group supports the antibiotic treatment of group A β-hemolytic Streptococcus (GABHS) to prevent acute rheumatic fever (ARF); the second considers acute pharyngitis a self-resolving disease, recommending antibiotics only in selected cases; the third group recognizes a different strategy according to the ARF risk in each patient. An antibiotic course of 10 days is recommended if the prevention of ARF is the primary goal; conversely, some guidelines suggest a course of 5-7 days, assuming the symptomatic cure is the goal of treatment. Penicillin V and amoxicillin are the first-line options. In the case of penicillin allergy, first-generation cephalosporins are a suitable choice. In the case of beta-lactam allergy, clindamycin or macrolides could be considered according to local resistance rates.    Conclusion: Several divergencies in the management of acute pharyngitis were raised among guidelines (GLs) from different countries, both in the diagnostic and therapeutic approach, allowing the distinction of 3 different strategies. Since GABHS pharyngitis could affect the global burden of GABHS disease, it is advisable to define a shared strategy worldwide. It could be interesting to investigate the following issues further: cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic strategies in different healthcare systems; local genomic epidemiology of GABHS infection and its complications; the impact of antibiotic treatment of GABHS pharyngitis on its complications and invasive GABHS infections; the role of GABHS vaccines as a prophylactic measure. The related results could aid the development of future recommendations. What is Known: • GABHS disease spectrum ranges from superficial to invasive infections and toxin-mediated diseases. • GABHS accounts for about 25% of sore throat in children and its management is a matter of debate. What is New: • Three strategies can be distinguished among current GLs: antibiotic therapy to prevent ARF, antibiotics only in complicated cases, and a tailored strategy according to the individual ARF risk. • The impact of antibiotic treatment of GABHS pharyngitis on its sequelae still is the main point of divergence; further studies are needed to achieve a global shared strategy.

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although their effectiveness increases in people with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. This is an update of a review first published in 2010, and updated in 2013, 2016, and 2021.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing clinical relapse (i.e. recurrence of symptoms after initial resolution); and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2023, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Elsevier, and Web of Science (Clarivate) up to 19 March 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics, and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications and/or adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias in the included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes. We reported the intention-to-treat analysis, and also performed an analysis of evaluable participants to explore the robustness of the intention-to-treat results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials reported in 18 publications (5839 randomised participants): six trials compared penicillin with cephalosporins; six compared penicillin with macrolides; three compared penicillin with carbacephem; one compared penicillin with sulphonamides; one compared clindamycin with ampicillin; and one compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All participants had confirmed acute GABHS tonsillopharyngitis, and ages ranged from one month to 80 years. Nine trials included only, or predominantly, children. Most trials were conducted in an outpatient setting. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both, heterogeneity, and wide confidence intervals. Cephalosporins versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference in symptom resolution (at 2 to 15 days) for cephalosporins versus penicillin (odds ratio (OR) for absence of symptom resolution 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12; 5 trials, 2018 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results of the sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants differed (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 5 trials, 1660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Based on an analysis of evaluable participants, we are uncertain if clinical relapse may be lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; 4 trials, 1386 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence showed no difference in reported adverse events. Macrolides versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference between macrolides and penicillin for resolution of symptoms (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; 6 trials, 1728 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants resulted in an OR of 0.79 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.09; 6 trials, 1159 participants). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be different (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.03; 6 trials, 802 participants; low-certainty evidence). Children treated with macrolides seemed to experience more adverse events than those treated with penicillin (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.15; 1 trial, 489 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the test for subgroup differences between children and adults was not significant. Azithromycin versus amoxicillin Based on one unpublished trial in children, we are uncertain if resolution of symptoms is better with azithromycin in a single dose versus amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; 1 trial, 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis for per-protocol analysis resulted in an OR of 0.29 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; 1 trial, 482 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain if there was a difference in relapse between groups (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; 1 trial, 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were more common with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; 1 trial, 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Carbacephem versus penicillin There is low-certainty evidence that compared with penicillin, carbacephem may provide better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14.3; 3 trials, 795 participants). Studies did not report on long-term complications, so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better at preventing serious but rare complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if there are clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Low-certainty evidence in children suggests that carbacephem may be more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the other comparisons in this review. Data on complications were too scarce to draw conclusions. Antibiotics have a limited effect in the treatment of GABHS pharyngitis and the results do not demonstrate that other antibiotics are more effective than penicillin. In the context of antimicrobial stewardship, penicillin can be used if treatment with an antibiotic is indicated. All studies were conducted in high-income countries with a low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is a need for trials in low-income countries and disadvantaged populations, where the risk of complications remains high.

Treatment of recurrent acute tonsillitis-a systematic review and clinical practice recommendations

Background

There is an ongoing debate on the indications for tonsil surgery in both children and adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis. The aim is to provide practical recommendations for diagnostics and treatment for recurrent acute tonsillitis including evidence-based decision making for tonsillectomy.

Methods

A systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect from 2014 until April 2023 resulted in 68 articles. These were the basis for the review and a comprehensive series of consensus statements on the most important diagnostics and indications for both non-surgical and surgical therapy. A consensus paper was circulated among the authors and members of the International Head and Neck Scientific Group until a final agreement was reached for all recommendations.

Results

The differentiation between sore throat and tonsillitis patient episodes is mostly not feasible and hence is not relevant for diagnostic decision making. Diagnostics of a tonsillitis/sore throat episode should always include a classification with a scoring system (Centor, McIssac, FeverPAIN score) to estimate the probability of a bacterial tonsillitis, mainly due to group A streptococcus (GAS). In ambiguous cases, a point-of-care test GAS swab test is helpful. Consecutive counting of the tonsillitis/sore throat episodes is important. In addition, a specific quality of life score (Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory 14 or Tonsil and Adenoid Health Status Instrument) should be used for each episode. Conservative treatment includes a combination of paracetamol and/or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In case of high probability of bacterial tonsillitis, and only in such cases, especially in patients at risk, standard antibiotic treatment is initiated directly or by delayed prescription. Tonsillectomy is indicated and is highly effective if the patient has had ≥7 adequately treated episodes in the preceding year, ≥5 such episodes in each of the preceding 2 years, or ≥3 such episodes in each of the preceding 3 years. An essential part of surgery is standardized pain management because severe postoperative pain can be expected in most patients.

Conclusion

It is necessary to follow a stringent treatment algorithm for an optimal and evidence-based treatment for patients with recurrent acute tonsillitis. This will help decrease worldwide treatment variability, antibiotic overuse, and avoid ineffective tonsillectomy.

Modalities of group A streptococcal prevention and treatment and their economic justification

Infection by group A Streptococcus (Strep A) results in a diverse range of clinical conditions, including pharyngitis, impetigo, cellulitis, necrotising fasciitis, and rheumatic heart disease. In this article, we outline the recommended strategies for Strep A treatment and prevention and review the literature for economic evaluations of competing treatment and prevention strategies. We find that most economic evaluations focus on reducing the duration of illness or risk of rheumatic fever among people presenting with sore throat through diagnostic and/or treatment strategies. Few studies have evaluated strategies to reduce the burden of Strep A infection among the general population, nor have they considered the local capacity to finance and implement strategies. Evaluation of validated costs and consequences for a more diverse range of Strep A interventions are needed to ensure policies maximise patient outcomes under budget constraints. This should include attention to basic public health strategies and emerging strategies such as vaccination.

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.