Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#246 Just wait a minute: Point-of-care testing for Group A Streptococcal pharyngitis


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
 In patients with sore throat, how accurate are point-of-care tests in the diagnosis of Group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal (GABHS) pharyngitis?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
Point-of-care testing, including rapid antigen detection tests and newer nucleic acid detection tests for GABHS pharyngitis are useful for ruling in a diagnosis of GABHS when positive (specificity 95%-99%). Nucleic acid detection tests may be more sensitive than rapid antigen detection tests (92% versus 85%). While immediate testing and treatment may not always be required, populations at increased risk of GABHS complications, such as Canada’s Indigenous populations, are more likely to benefit. 



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
Rapid antigen detection tests versus culture (3 systematic reviews, 43-98 studies including 18,464-101,121 patients):1-3 
  • Sensitivity consistently ~85%, specificity consistently ~95%.1-3 
  • Positive likelihood ratio (LR+) 16.8, Negative likelihood ratio (LR-) 0.16. 
Nucleic acid detection tests versus culture: 
  • 1 systematic review, 6 studies (1937 patients):3 
    • Sensitivity=92%, specificity=99%. 
    • LR+ 92, LR- 0.08. 
  • Evidence published after above reviews:4-6 
    • Sensitivity=89-100%, specificity=91-100%. 
  • No significant difference in point-of-care performance between adult and pediatric populations.1-3 
  • Limitations: included studies had high heterogeneity, rapid testing not currently funded publicly. 
Context: 
  • LR+ above 10 indicates test is a good help at ruling-in diagnosis. 
  • Clinical decision rules (i.e. CENTOR) have limited predictive value for diagnosing GABHS pharyngitis:7 
    • Meta-analysis (11 studies):7 Sensitivity=49% specificity=82%, LR+ 2.68. 
  • Empiric treatment for sore throat is common (~60%).8 Point-of-care testing may improve appropriate antibiotic prescribing.9 
  • Antibiotics for GABHS significantly reduces:10 
    • Sore throat at day three: 44% versus 71%, number needed to treat (NNT)=4. 
    • Peritonsillar abscess 0.1% versus 2%, NNT=47. 
    • Rheumatic fever 0.6% versus 1.7%, NNT=90. 
      • (rheumatic fever data from pre-1950, incidence has declined significantly in developed countries). 
  • Populations with higher incidence of GABHS complications, such as Canada’s Indigenous population, are more likely to benefit from antibiotic treatment.11-13 
  • Many international guidelines consider GABHS pharyngitis self-limiting and do not recommend antibiotic treatment.14 
  • Delayed antibiotic prescriptions decrease antibiotic utilization with no significant impact on symptom duration, or clinical outcomes, in GABHS pharyngitis.15 


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#353 - Turn Down the Heat! Can non-hormonal drugs improve vasomotor symptoms in menopause? (Free)

Do non-hormonal medications improve menopausal vasomotor symptoms?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#352 Do-It-Yourself Hearing Aids (Free)

Do self-fitted hearing aids improve hearing for adults with mild to moderate-severe hearing loss?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#351 Flaked out? Topical treatment for seborrheic dermatitis (Free)

How effective are topical treatments for adult facial or scalp seborrheic dermatitis?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Rodger Craig MPH
  • Christina Korownyk MD CCFP

1. Stewart EH, Davis B, Clemans-Taylor BL, et al. PLoS One. 2014 4;9(11):e111727.

2. Cohen JF, Bertille N, Cohen, R, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 2016(7):CD010502.

3. Lean WL, Arnup S, Danchin M, et al. Pediatrics. 2014; 134(4):771-81.

4. Berry GJ, Miller CR, Moreno Prats M, et al. J Clin Microbiol. 2018; 56(3):e01310-17.

5. Wang F, Tian Y, Chen L, et al. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2017 Oct; 56(12):1128-1134.

6. Weinzierl EP, Jerris RC, Gonzalez MD, et al. Am J Clin Pathol. 2018 Jun 19 [epub ahead of print].

7. Aalbers J, O'Brien KK, Chan W, et al. BMC Med. 2011; 9:67.

8. Barnett ML, Linder JA. JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174(1):138-40.

9. Rao A, Berg B, Quezada T, et al. BMC Pediatr. 2019; 19(1):24.

10. Spinks A, Glasziou PP, Del Mar CB. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Nov 5;(11):CD000023.

11. Bocking N, Matsumoto CL, Loewen K, et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2016; 4(1):ofw243.

12. Madden S, Kelly L. Can Fam Physician. 2009; 55(5):475-8.

13. Ralph AP, Holt DC, Islam S, et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019; 6(4):ofz097.

14. Van Brusselen D, Vlieghe E, Schelstraete P, et al. Eur J Pediatr. 2014 Oct;173(10):1275-83.

15. Spurling GK, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Sep; 2017(9):CD004417.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.