Article

Predicting streptococcal pharyngitis in adults in primary care: a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms and signs and validation of the Centor score

HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, RCSI Medical School, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
BMC Medicine (Impact Factor: 7.28). 06/2011; 9:67. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-67
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Stratifying patients with a sore throat into the probability of having an underlying bacterial or viral cause may be helpful in targeting antibiotic treatment. We sought to assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms and validate a clinical prediction rule (CPR), the Centor score, for predicting group A β-haemolytic streptococcal (GABHS) pharyngitis in adults (> 14 years of age) presenting with sore throat symptoms.
A systematic literature search was performed up to July 2010. Studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms and/or validated the Centor score were included. For the analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms and the Centor score, studies were combined using a bivariate random effects model, while for the calibration analysis of the Centor score, a random effects model was used.
A total of 21 studies incorporating 4,839 patients were included in the meta-analysis on diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms. The results were heterogeneous and suggest that individual signs and symptoms generate only small shifts in post-test probability (range positive likelihood ratio (+LR) 1.45-2.33, -LR 0.54-0.72). As a decision rule for considering antibiotic prescribing (score ≥ 3), the Centor score has reasonable specificity (0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.88) and a post-test probability of 12% to 40% based on a prior prevalence of 5% to 20%. Pooled calibration shows no significant difference between the numbers of patients predicted and observed to have GABHS pharyngitis across strata of Centor score (0-1 risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.06; 2-3 RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.17; 4 RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.37).
Individual signs and symptoms are not powerful enough to discriminate GABHS pharyngitis from other types of sore throat. The Centor score is a well calibrated CPR for estimating the probability of GABHS pharyngitis. The Centor score can enhance appropriate prescribing of antibiotics, but should be used with caution in low prevalence settings of GABHS pharyngitis such as primary care.

0 Followers
 · 
91 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although most cases of acute pharyngitis are viral in origin, antibiotics are overused in its treatment. Streptococcus pyogenes (group A streptococcus, GAS), the principal bacterial pathogen of acute sore throat, is responsible for merely 5–30% of cases. Moreover, GAS pharyngitis is currently the only commonly occurring form of acute pharyngitis for which antibiotic therapy is definitely indicated. Therefore the differentiation between GAS pharyngitis and that of viral etiology is crucial. Accordingly, scientific societies as well as respected advisory bodies in Europe and North America, issued guidelines for the management of acute pharyngitis with the aim of minimizing unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions in its treatment. The aim of this review work is to confront the state of the art in acute GAS pharyngitis diagnosis and treatment with different approaches to its management represented by current European and North American guidelines. Although based on scientific evidence, international guidelines differ substantially in opinions whether GAS pharyngitis diagnosis should be based on microbiological testing, clinical algorithm or a combination of both. On the other hand, some European guidelines consider GAS pharyngitis to be a mild, self-limiting disease that does not require a specific diagnosis or antimicrobial treatment except in high-risk patients. There is an agreement among guidelines that if antibiotic therapy is indicated, phenoxymethyl penicillin should be the drug of choice to treat GAS pharyngitis.
    Central European Journal of Medicine 12/2013; 8(6):713-719. DOI:10.2478/s11536-013-0216-z · 0.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. To explore how a group of Swedish general practitioners (GPs) manage patients with a sore throat in relation to current guidelines as expressed in interviews. Design. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse semi-structured interviews. Setting. Swedish primary care. Subjects. A strategic sample of 25 GPs. Main outcome measures. Perceived management of sore throat patients. Results. It was found that nine of the interviewed GPs were adherent to current guidelines for sore throat and 16 were non-adherent. The two groups differed in terms of guideline knowledge, which was shared within the team for adherent GPs while idiosyncratic knowledge dominated for the non-adherent GPs. Adherent GPs had no or low concerns for bacterial infections and differential diagnosis whilst non-adherent GPs believed that in patients with a sore throat any bacterial infection should be identified and treated with antibiotics. Patient history and examination was mainly targeted by adherent GPs whilst for non-adherent GPs it was often redundant. Non-adherent GPs reported problems getting patients to abstain from antibiotics, whilst no such problems were reported in adherent GPs. Conclusion. This interview study of sore throat management in a strategically sampled group of Swedish GPs showed that while two-thirds were non-adherent and had a liberal attitude to antibiotics one-third were guideline adherent with a restricted view on antibiotics. Non-adherent GPs revealed significant knowledge gaps. Adherent GPs had discussed guidelines within the primary care team while non-adherent GPs had not. Guideline implementation thus seemed to be promoted by knowledge shared in team discussions.
    Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care 11/2014; 32(4):1-7. DOI:10.3109/02813432.2014.972046 · 1.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Diagnosing group A streptococcus (Strep A) throat infection by clinical examination is difficult, and misdiagnosis may lead to inappropriate antibiotic use. Most patients with sore throat seek symptom relief rather than antibiotics, therefore, therapies that relieve symptoms should be recommended to patients. We report two clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of flurbiprofen 8.75 mg lozenge in patients with and without streptococcal sore throat.Methods The studies enrolled adults with moderate-to-severe throat symptoms (sore throat pain, difficulty swallowing and swollen throat) and a diagnosis of pharyngitis. The practitioner assessed the likelihood of Strep A infection based on historical and clinical findings. Patients were randomised to flurbiprofen 8.75 mg or placebo lozenges under double-blind conditions and reported the three throat symptoms at baseline and at regular intervals over 24 h.ResultsA total of 402 patients received study medication (n = 203 flurbiprofen, n = 199 placebo). Throat culture identified Strep A in 10.0% of patients and group C streptococcus (Strep C) in a further 14.0%. The practitioners' assessments correctly diagnosed Strep A in 11/40 cases (sensitivity 27.5%, and specificity 79.7%). A single flurbiprofen lozenge provided significantly greater relief than placebo for all three throat symptoms, lasting 3-4 h for patients with and without Strep A/C. Multiple doses of flurbiprofen lozenges over 24 h also led to symptom relief, although not statistically significant in the Strep A/C group. There were no serious adverse events.Conclusions The results highlight the challenge of identifying Strep A based on clinical features. With the growing problem of antibiotic resistance, non-antibiotic treatments should be considered. As demonstrated here, flurbiprofen 8.75 mg lozenges are an effective therapeutic option, providing immediate and long-lasting symptom relief in patients with and without Strep A/C infection.
    International Journal of Clinical Practice 10/2014; 69(1). DOI:10.1111/ijcp.12536 · 2.54 Impact Factor

Full-text (4 Sources)

Download
23 Downloads
Available from
May 27, 2014