A qualitative study of GP, NP and patient views about the use of rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests (RADTs) in primary care: 'swamped with sore throats?'

Objective: To explore patient and healthcare professionals’ (HCP) views of clinical scores and rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests (RADTs) for acute sore throat. Design: Qualitative semistructured interview study. Setting: UK primary care. Participants: General practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and patients from general practices across Hampshire, Oxfordshire and the West Midlands who were participating in the Primary Care Streptococcal Management (PRISM) study. Method: Semistructured, face-to-face and phone interviews were conducted with GPs, NPs and patients from general practices across Hampshire, Oxfordshire and the West Midlands. Results: 51 participants took part in the study. Of these, 42 were HCPs (29 GPs and 13 NPs) and 9 were patients. HCPs could see a positive role for RADTs in terms of reassurance, as an educational tool for patients, and for aiding inexperienced practitioners, but also had major concerns about RADT use in clinical practice. Particular concerns included the validity of the tests (the role of other bacteria, and carrier states), the tension and possible disconnect with clinical assessment and intuition, the issues of time and resource use and the potential for medicalisation of self-limiting illness. In contrast, however, experience of using RADTs over time seemed to make some participants more positive about using the tests. Moreover, patients were much more positive about the place of RADTs in providing reassurance and in limiting their antibiotic use. Conclusions: It is unlikely that RADTs will have a (comfortable) place in clinical practice in the near future until health professionals’ concerns are met, and they have direct experience of using them. The routine use of clinical scoring systems for acute upper respiratory illness also face important barriers related to clinicians’ perceptions of their utility in the face of clinician experience and intuition

PRImary care Streptococcal Management (PRISM) study: identifying clinical variables associated with Lancefield group A β-haemolytic streptococci and Lancefield non-Group A streptococcal throat infections from two cohorts of patients presenting with an acute sore throat

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between features of acute sore throat and the growth of streptococci from culturing a throat swab. DESIGN: Diagnostic cohort. SETTING: UK general practices. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 5 or over presenting with an acute sore throat. Patients were recruited for a second cohort (cohort 2, n=517) consecutively after the first (cohort 1, n=606) from similar practices. MAIN OUTCOME: Predictors of the presence of Lancefield A/C/G streptococci. RESULTS: The clinical score developed from cohort 1 had poor discrimination in cohort 2 (bootstrapped estimate of area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve (0.65), due to the poor validity of the individual items in the second data set. Variables significant in multivariate analysis in both cohorts were rapid attendance (prior duration 3 days or less; multivariate adjusted OR 1.92 cohort, 1.67 cohort 2); fever in the last 24 h (1.69, 2.40); and doctor assessment of severity (severely inflamed pharynx/tonsils (2.28, 2.29)). The absence of coryza or cough and purulent tonsils were significant in univariate analysis in both cohorts and in multivariate analysis in one cohort. A five-item score based on Fever, Purulence, Attend rapidly (3 days or less), severely Inflamed tonsils and No cough or coryza (FeverPAIN) had moderate predictive value (bootstrapped area under the ROC curve 0.73 cohort 1, 0.71 cohort 2) and identified a substantial number of participants at low risk of streptococcal infection (38% in cohort 1, 36% in cohort 2 scored ≤1, associated with a streptococcal percentage of 13% and 18%, respectively). A Centor score of ≤1 identified 23% and 26% of participants with streptococcal percentages of 10% and 28%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Items widely used to help identify streptococcal sore throat may not be the most consistent. A modified clinical scoring system (FeverPAIN) which requires further validation may be clinically helpful in identifying individuals who are unlikely to have major pathogenic streptococci

Clinical score and rapid antigen detection test to guide antibiotic use for sore throats: randomised controlled trial of PRISM (primary care streptococcal management).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of clinical scores that predict streptococcal infection or rapid streptococcal antigen detection tests compared with delayed antibiotic prescribing. DESIGN: Open adaptive pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care in United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Patients aged ≥ 3 with acute sore throat. INTERVENTION: An internet programme randomised patients to targeted antibiotic use according to: delayed antibiotics (the comparator group for analyses), clinical score, or antigen test used according to clinical score. During the trial a preliminary streptococcal score (score 1, n=1129) was replaced by a more consistent score (score 2, n=631; features: fever during previous 24 hours; purulence; attends rapidly (within three days after onset of symptoms); inflamed tonsils; no cough/coryza (acronym FeverPAIN). OUTCOMES: Symptom severity reported by patients on a 7 point Likert scale (mean severity of sore throat/difficulty swallowing for days two to four after the consultation (primary outcome)), duration of symptoms, use of antibiotics. RESULTS: For score 1 there were no significant differences between groups. For score 2, symptom severity was documented in 80% (168/207 (81%) in delayed antibiotics group; 168/211 (80%) in clinical score group; 166/213 (78%) in antigen test group). Reported severity of symptoms was lower in the clinical score group (-0.33, 95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.02; P=0.04), equivalent to one in three rating sore throat a slight versus moderate problem, with a similar reduction for the antigen test group (-0.30, -0.61 to -0.00; P=0.05). Symptoms rated moderately bad or worse resolved significantly faster in the clinical score group (hazard ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.63) but not the antigen test group (1.11, 0.88 to 1.40). In the delayed antibiotics group, 75/164 (46%) used antibiotics. Use of antibiotics in the clinical score group (60/161) was 29% lower (adjusted risk ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.95; P=0.02) and in the antigen test group (58/164) was 27% lower (0.73, 0.52 to 0.98; P=0.03). There were no significant differences in complications or reconsultations. CONCLUSION: Targeted use of antibiotics for acute sore throat with a clinical score improves reported symptoms and reduces antibiotic use. Antigen tests used according to a clinical score provide similar benefits but with no clear advantages over a clinical score alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN32027234

PRImary care Streptococcal Management (PRISM) study: in vitro study, diagnostic cohorts and a pragmatic adaptive randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative study and cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are still prescribed to most patients attending primary care with acute sore throat, despite evidence that there is modest benefit overall from antibiotics. Targeting antibiotics using either clinical scoring methods or rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) could help. However, there is debate about which groups of streptococci are important (particularly Lancefield groups C and G), and uncertainty about the variables that most clearly predict the presence of streptococci. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare clinical scores or RADTs with delayed antibiotic prescribing. DESIGN: The study comprised a RADT in vitro study; two diagnostic cohorts to develop streptococcal scores (score 1; score 2); and, finally, an open pragmatic randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative and cost-effectiveness studies. SETTING: The setting was UK primary care general practices. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were patients aged ≥ 3 years with acute sore throat. INTERVENTIONS: An internet program randomised patients to targeted antibiotic use according to (1) delayed antibiotics (control group), (2) clinical score or (3) RADT used according to clinical score. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were self-reported antibiotic use and symptom duration and severity on seven-point Likert scales (primary outcome: mean sore throat/difficulty swallowing score in the first 2-4 days). RESULTS: The IMI TestPack Plus Strep A (Inverness Medical, Bedford, UK) was sensitive, specific and easy to use. Lancefield group A/C/G streptococci were found in 40% of cohort 2 and 34% of cohort 1. A five-point score predicting the presence of A/C/G streptococci [FeverPAIN: Fever; Purulence; Attend rapidly (≤ 3 days); severe Inflammation; and No cough or coryza] had moderate predictive value (bootstrapped estimates of area under receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.73 cohort 1, 0.71 cohort 2) and identified a substantial number of participants at low risk of streptococcal infection. In total, 38% of cohort 1 and 36% of cohort 2 scored ≤ 1 for FeverPAIN, associated with streptococcal percentages of 13% and 18%, respectively. In an adaptive trial design, the preliminary score (score 1; n = 1129) was replaced by FeverPAIN (n = 631). For score 1, there were no significant differences between groups. For FeverPAIN, symptom severity was documented in 80% of patients, and was lower in the clinical score group than in the delayed prescribing group (-0.33; 95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.02; p = 0.039; equivalent to one in three rating sore throat a slight rather than moderately bad problem), and a similar reduction was observed for the RADT group (-0.30; -0.61 to 0.00; p = 0.053). Moderately bad or worse symptoms resolved significantly faster (30%) in the clinical score group (hazard ratio 1.30; 1.03 to 1.63) but not the RADT group (1.11; 0.88 to 1.40). In the delayed group, 75/164 (46%) used antibiotics, and 29% fewer used antibiotics in the clinical score group (risk ratio 0.71; 0.50 to 0.95; p = 0.018) and 27% fewer in the RADT group (0.73; 0.52 to 0.98; p = 0.033). No significant differences in complications or reconsultations were found. The clinical score group dominated both other groups for both the cost/quality-adjusted life-years and cost/change in symptom severity analyses, being both less costly and more effective, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated the clinical score to be the most likely to be cost-effective from an NHS perspective. Patients were positive about RADTs. Health professionals' concerns about test validity, the time the test took and medicalising self-limiting illness lessened after using the tests. For both RADTs and clinical scores, there were tensions with established clinical experience. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting antibiotics using a clinical score (FeverPAIN) efficiently improves symptoms and reduces antibiotic use. RADTs used in combination with FeverPAIN provide no clear advantages over FeverPAIN alone, and RADTs are unlikely to be incorporated into practice until health professionals' concerns are met and they have experience of using them. Clinical scores also face barriers related to clinicians' perceptions of their utility in the face of experience. This study has demonstrated the limitation of using one data set to develop a clinical score. FeverPAIN, derived from two data sets, appears to be valid and its use improves outcomes, but diagnostic studies to confirm the validity of FeverPAIN in other data sets and settings are needed. Experienced clinicians need to identify barriers to the use of clinical scoring methods. Implementation studies that address perceived barriers in the use of FeverPAIN are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32027234. SOURCE OF FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information