Martin, Judith M.

Abstract This publication represents the first part of an update to the clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis and management of group A streptococcal (GAS) pharyngitis, developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Diagnosis of GAS pharyngitis by clinician judgment alone is unreliable, and universal testing incurs cost and inconvenience for individuals at low risk of having GAS infection. Clinical scoring systems have been used to quantify the probability of a positive GAS throat culture based on standardized criteria such as the presence of fever, tonsillar enlargement or exudate, tender and enlarged anterior cervical lymph nodes, and the absence of cough. The goal of this manuscript is to review the evidence and provide a recommendation as to whether a scoring system should be used to decide which patients should have a GAS diagnostic test (ie, rapid antigen test [RADT], molecular method, and/or throat culture) performed. We performed a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized studies that compared the use of a clinical scoring system to clinician judgment alone in predicting the result of a throat culture. Evidence from studies in children and adults suggests the diagnostic accuracy is comparable or slightly higher using a scoring system compared to clinician judgment alone. Although the studies are limited due to small size, lack of uniformity in outcome measures, and incomplete data, the consensus of the panel is that the balance of benefits and harms favors incorporation of a clinical scoring system as part of the evaluation of patients with sore throat and suspected GAS pharyngitis.

Abstract This publication represents the first part of an update to the clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis and management of group A streptococcal (Streptococcus pyogenes or GAS) pharyngitis, developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Diagnosis of GAS pharyngitis by clinician judgment alone is unreliable, and unselective testing incurs cost and inconvenience for individuals at low risk of having GAS infection. Clinical scoring systems have been used to quantify the probability of a positive GAS throat culture based on standardized criteria such as the presence of fever; tonsillar enlargement or exudate; tender and enlarged anterior cervical lymph nodes; and the absence of cough. The goal of this article is to determine whether a scoring system should be used to decide which patients should have a diagnostic test performed by rapid antigen detection test, molecular methods, and/or throat culture. We performed a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized studies that compared the use of a clinical scoring system to clinician judgment alone in predicting the outcome of a throat culture. Evidence from studies in children and adults suggests the diagnostic accuracy of a clinical scoring system is comparable to or slightly higher than clinician judgment alone. However, the studies are limited due to small size, lack of uniformity in outcome measures, and incomplete data. The consensus of the panel is that the balance of benefits and harms favors use of a clinical scoring system as part of the evaluation of patients with sore throat. The principal utility of using a scoring system is to identify patients with low probability of GAS pharyngitis and to reduce unnecessary testing.

Antibiotic resistance is a major threat to public health. Treatment strategies involving shorter antibiotic courses have been proposed as a strategy to lower the potential for antibiotic resistance.

Abstract Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in children is usually treated with 10 days of antibiotics. Shorter antibiotic courses may be beneficial if proven effective, with potentially fewer antibiotic adverse effects and decreased antibiotic exposure. Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority trial (NCT02891915) compared a strategy of short vs standard course ß-lactam therapy for outpatient CAP in children ages 6–71 months. Children demonstrating clinical improvement by day 3–5 of initial therapy were considered for enrollment. Enrolled children were randomized 1:1 to receive either 5 additional days of the originally prescribed antibiotic (standard) or matching placebo (short). The Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR; PMID: 26113652) was the primary outcome, and was defined by classifying the global experience of children into an ordinal clinical response (OCR) that combined the response to CAP treatment and antibiotic adverse effects 11–15 days after the start of therapy. For those subjects with equivalent OCR, documented days of antibiotic administration was used to further rank the desirability of the outcome with the a priori assumption that shorter antibiotic exposure was more desirable. The OCR was a secondary outcome. The intention to treat population was used to estimate the probability of a more desirable outcome for the strategy of short vs. standard course therapy for both outcomes. Results 385 children were enrolled; 380 had complete data for analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two strategies. In both strategies, > 90% of children had an adequate response to CAP treatment and most antibiotic adverse effects were minor (Table). In the OCR analysis, short course therapy had a 48% probability (95% CI: 42%-53%) of a more desirable outcome. In the DOOR analysis, short course therapy was superior to standard therapy with a 69% probability (95% CI: 63%-72%; p< 0.001) of a more desirable outcome. Conclusion Among children with CAP demonstrating initial clinical improvement with outpatient therapy, both strategies had a similar response to CAP treatment and antibiotic adverse effects, but short course therapy was superior in our a priori defined outcome that incorporated decreased antibiotic exposure. Disclosures Emmanuel B. Walter, MD, MPH, Moderna (Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support) Jason Newland, MD, MEd, FPIDS, Merck (Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Other Financial or Material Support, Industry funded clinical trial) Vance G. Fowler, Jr., MD, MHS, Achaogen (Consultant)Actavis (Grant/Research Support)Advanced Liquid Logics (Grant/Research Support)Affinergy (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Affinium (Consultant)Allergan (Grant/Research Support)Ampliphi Biosciences (Consultant)Basilea (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Bayer (Consultant)C3J (Consultant)Cerexa (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Contrafect (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Cubist (Grant/Research Support)Debiopharm (Consultant)Destiny (Consultant)Durata (Consultant)Forest (Grant/Research Support)Genentech (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Integrated Biotherapeutics (Consultant)Janssen (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Karius (Grant/Research Support)Locus (Grant/Research Support)Medical Biosurfaces (Grant/Research Support)Medicines Co. (Consultant)Medimmune (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Merck (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support)Novadigm (Consultant)Novartis (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support)Regeneron (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Tetraphase (Consultant)Theravance (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Trius (Consultant)xBiotech (Consultant) W. Charles Huskins, MD, MSc, ADMA Biologics (Consultant)Pfizer, Inc (Consultant)