Efficacy and safety of rapid tests to guide antibiotic prescriptions for sore throat.

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a common condition caused by viruses or bacteria, and is a leading cause of antibiotic prescription in primary care. The most common bacterial species is group A streptococcus ('strep throat'). Between 50% to 70% of pharyngitis cases are treated with antibiotics, despite the majority of cases being viral in origin. One strategy to reduce antibiotics is to use rapid tests for group A streptococcus to guide antibiotic prescriptions. Rapid tests can be used alone or in combination with a clinical scoring system. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of strategies based on rapid tests to guide antibiotic prescriptions for sore throat in primary care settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and LILACS, as well as the trial registries ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP on 5 June 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid tests with management based on clinical grounds to guide the prescription of antibiotics for people with a sore throat in ambulatory care settings. We included trials that randomised individuals, as well as cluster-RCTs in which individual practitioners (or practices) or emergency departments were randomised. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data on the primary outcomes (number of participants provided with an antibiotic prescription; number of participants with an antibiotic dispensed) and secondary outcomes (duration of sore throat symptoms; duration of other symptoms; quality of life measures; number of participants with a complication attributed to the index infection; number of participants in need of re-consultation by the end of follow-up; number of participants in need of hospital admission by the end of follow-up; number of satisfied participants; number of participants with an adverse event attributed to the rapid test). We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We performed meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses when feasible. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (2891 children and adult participants in total; 2545 participants after adjusting for clustering). Management in the intervention group was as follows: in three trials rapid tests were used in combination with a clinical scoring system; in one trial, some physicians were asked to use rapid tests alone, while others were asked to use rapid tests in combination with a clinical scoring system; in one trial, rapid tests were used alone. Based on data from five trials (2545 participants), a large reduction in prescribed antibiotics was found in the rapid test group (481/1197) versus management based on clinical grounds (865/1348), for a summary risk difference (RD) of -25%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -31% to -18%; I2 = 62%; moderate-certainty evidence. Estimates of effect on antibiotic prescription rates were stable in various sensitivity analyses. Based on data from two trials (900 people) originating from the same overarching study, the evidence suggests that rapid tests may not reduce dispensed antibiotic treatments: rapid test group (156/445) versus management based on clinical grounds (197/455); summary RD -7%, 95% CI -17% to 2%; I2 = 53%; low-certainty evidence. Four trials (2075 participants) reported data on the number of participants with a complication attributed to the index infection; the summary odds ratio (OR) was 0.85, 95% CI 0.03 to 26.65; P = 0.93; I2 = 62%; very low-certainty evidence, which means that people in the rapid testing group were less likely to develop complications of the index infection, but the evidence is very uncertain. Two trials (1161 participants) reported on the number of participants in need of re-consultation by the end of follow-up; the summary OR was 1.12, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.21; P = 0.74; I2 = 59%; low-certainty evidence, which means that participants in the rapid testing group were more likely to be in need of re-consultation by the end of the study follow-up, but the evidence is uncertain. Lack of data impeded assessment of other secondary outcomes (including safety outcomes) and of sources of heterogeneity.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Rapid testing to guide antibiotic treatment for sore throat in primary care probably reduces antibiotic prescription rates by 25% (absolute risk difference), but may have little or no impact on antibiotic dispensing. More studies are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of rapid test-guided antibiotic prescribing, notably to evaluate patient-centred outcomes and variability across subgroups (e.g. adults versus children).

Survey highlights important discrepancies between definitions of paediatric abnormal growth taught to medical students in 23 European countries.

AIM: This study compared the definitions of abnormal growth that are taught across Europe to explain previously reported variations in growth-monitoring practices. METHODS: We developed two online surveys in 2016 to obtain the definitions of abnormal growth in European countries and approached the national chairs of the European Confederation of Primary Care Paediatricians in 18 countries and the International Federation of Medical Students' Associations in 33 countries. RESULTS: We obtained definitions from 10 of 18 paediatricians and 18 of 33 students, covering 23 of the 33 European countries surveyed. Abnormal faltering growth was always defined, either by a single parameter (24%) or combined parameters (76%). Four static parameters were used: standardised height (100%), standardised weight (60%), standardised body mass index (12%) and distance to target height (20%). Two dynamic parameters were used: growth deflection (28%) and growth velocity (32%). The thresholds used to define abnormal faltering growth varied slightly in some cases and widely in others. Abnormal accelerated growth appeared in 52% of the definitions, with important variations in parameters and thresholds. CONCLUSION: There were important between-country discrepancies in the definitions of paediatric abnormal growth that were taught in 23 European countries. Standardisation is vital.

Symptomatic Management of Febrile Illnesses in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Parents' Knowledge and Behaviors and Their Evolution Over Time.

Recommendations to guide parents' symptomatic management of febrile illnesses in children have been published in many countries. The lack of systematic appraisal of parents' knowledge and behaviors and their evolution over time precludes an analysis of their impact and identification of targets for future educational messages. We systematically searched for studies published between 1980 and 2016 that reported a quantitative evaluation of knowledge and behaviors of >50 parents for managing fever in children. We used MEDLINE and tracked related articles, citations and co-authors personal files. Study selection and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. For each item of knowledge and behaviors, we calculated mean frequencies during the first and last quinquennials of the studied period and assessed temporal trends with inverse-variance weighted linear regression of frequencies over years. We observed substantial methodological heterogeneity among the 62 included articles (64 primary studies, 36,791 participants, 30 countries) that met inclusion criteria. Statistically significant changes over time were found in the use of rectal (98 to 4%) and axillary temperature measurement (1-19%), encouraging fluid intake (19-62%), and use of acetylsalicylic acid (60 to 1%). No statistically significant change was observed for the accurate definition of fever (38-55%), or the use of acetaminophen (91-92%) or ibuprofen (20-43%). Parents' knowledge and behaviors have changed over time but continue to show poor concordance with recommendations. Our study identified future targets for educational messages, including basic ones such as the definition of fever.