You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 12, Issue 4
  • What is the optimal strategy for managing primary care patients with an uncomplicated acute sore throat? Comparing the consequences of nine different strategies using a compilation of previous studies

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

General practice / Family practice
Original research
What is the optimal strategy for managing primary care patients with an uncomplicated acute sore throat? Comparing the consequences of nine different strategies using a compilation of previous studies
  1. Ronny Gunnarsson1,2,3,4,
  2. Ulrich Orda5,
  3. Bradley Elliott6,
  4. Clare Heal7,
  5. Chris Del Mar8
  1. 1School of Public Health and Community Medicine - General Practice/Family Medicine, Göteborgs universitet Institutionen för medicin, Goteborg, Sweden
  2. 2Research, Development, Education and Innovation, Primary Health Care, Västra Götalandsregionen, Göteborg, Sweden
  3. 3Centre for Antibiotic Resistance Research (CARe), University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden
  4. 4The primary health care clinic for homeless people, Närhälsan, Region Västra Götaland, Göteborg, Sweden
  5. 5Mount Isa Hospital, North West Hospital and Health Service, Mount Isa, Queensland, Australia
  6. 6Hinchinbrook Health Care, Ingham, Queensland, Australia
  7. 7School of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Mackay, Queensland, Australia
  8. 8Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Professor Ronny Gunnarsson; ronny.gunnarsson{at}infovoice.se

Abstract

Objective Identifying optimal strategies for managing patients of any age with varying risk of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) attending for an apparently uncomplicated acute sore throat, also clarifying the role of point-of-care testing (POCT) for presence of group A beta-haemolytic Streptococcus (GABHS) in these settings.

Design We compared outcomes of adhering to nine different strategies for managing these patients in primary healthcare.

Setting and participants The nine strategies, similar to guidelines from several countries, were tested against two validation data sets being constructs from seven prior studies.

Main outcome measures The proportion of patients requiring a POCT, prescribed antibiotics, prescribed antibiotics having GABHS and finally having GABHS not prescribed antibiotics, if different strategies had been adhered to.

Results In a scenario with high risk of ARF, adhering to existing guidelines would risk many patients ill from GABHS left without antibiotics. Hence, using a POCT on all of these patients minimised their risk. For low-risk patients, it is reasonable to only consider antibiotics if the patient has more than low pain levels despite adequate analgesia, 3–4 Centor scores (or 2–3 FeverPAIN scores or 3–4 McIsaac scores) and a POCT confirming the presence of GABHS. This would require testing only 10%–15% of patients and prescribing antibiotics to only 3.5%–6.6%.

Conclusions Patients with high or low risk for ARF needs to be managed very differently. POCT can play an important role in safely targeting the use of antibiotics for patients with an apparently uncomplicated acute sore throat.

  • primary care
  • protocols & guidelines
  • public health

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information. This publication builds upon previously published data sets compiled as described in the publication.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059069

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • This study investigated both overprescribing of antibiotics where the risk for rheumatic fever is low as well as undertreatment in scenarios where the risk is high, however, defining a specific cut-off for high risk is left to the reader.

    • This study assumes that bacteria other than group A beta-haemolytic Streptococcus can be ignored for patients attending primary healthcare at their first visit for an apparently uncomplicated acute sore throat and the conclusions are only valid for this type of patient.

    • The consequences of applying different strategies were evaluated using two data sets constructed from seven prior studies.

    Background

    An acute sore throat is a common reason for visits to a primary healthcare (PHC) provider.1–3 Commonly, this is caused by viruses or group A beta-haemolytic Streptococcus (GABHS).

    Fear of acute rheumatic fever and other complications

    A sore throat caused by GABHS can result in suppurative complications, such as peritonsillar abscess (quinsy), otitis media, sinusitis and skin infections, as well as non-suppurative ones, such as acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and poststreptococcal glomerulonephritis. Suppurative complications after a sore throat are unusual and rarely dangerous in high-income countries.4

    ARF, and the subsequent rheumatic heart disease (RHD), is the most serious and feared complication with a worldwide estimated 319 400 deaths in 2015.5 Hence, historically an emphasis was put on the risk and prevention of ARF. Most high-income countries has seen a step decline in the incidence of ARF. However, the risk for ARF in high-income countries may still have to be considered in a few high-risk individuals such as immigrants from low-income countries as well as some groups of first nation people.5 The estimated age-standardised prevalence of RHD per 100 000 population was for low-income countries 444 and for high-income countries 3.4, respectively.5

    Antibiotic treatment of patients with a sore throat reduces the incidence of ARF.6–8 Adherence to secondary prophylaxis after one episode of ARF is poor,9 emphasising the importance of preventing the first episode. Some recommendations before the era of point-of-care testing (POCT) were to swab for GABHS and treat accordingly, however, this caused delay and often an additional consultation. Subsequently, it became common practice in many high-income countries to prescribe penicillin routinely to patients attending with a sore throat despite a step decline in the incidence of ARF.

    Other bacteria than GABHS

    Streptococcus dysgalactiae subspecies Equisimilis (SDSE), Fusobacterium necrophorum (FN) and other bacteria are commonly found.10–14 FN may also cause the rare Lemierre’s disease.15 16 It has been suggested that prescribing antibiotics to patients with an uncomplicated acute sore throat harbouring FN may reduce the incidence of Lemierre’s syndrome,17 although there are to date no empirical studies supporting this. Case-control studies conclude SDSE and FN are not as important as GABHS in patients with an apparently uncomplicated acute sore throat.18 19 Furthermore, most empirical studies show antibiotics have no effect on symptom relief in the absence of GABHS,20–22 with a few exceptions showing a borderline effect in adult patients with SDSE.23 24 Despite this some practitioners perceive anything bacterial requires antibiotic treatment.25

    Clinical scoring algorithms

    Various scoring algorithms were developed to identify patients with a lower probability of having GABHS, including the Centor criteria,26 27 the FeverPAIN scores28 29 and the McIsaac scores.26 30 31 However, these algorithms are poorly adopted in clinical practice which may contribute to inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.32–34

    Changes over time in high-income countries

    A century ago, most countries had high incidences of ARF. However, this has declined dramatically over time in high-income countries.35 There are some exceptions, such as Australia and New Zealand, which still have high incidences of ARF in some risk groups.7 36

    In high-income countries, the main reason for antibiotic treatment is to reduce symptoms. Intervention studies show a minor reduction of symptoms in patients with a sore throat with a combination of presumed viral or bacterial origin.37 Antibiotics have a modest effect in reducing acute symptoms if GABHS is present in children,20 21 38 and in children and adults combined.22 39 40 Placebo controlled studies that performed a separate analysis for GABHS-positive and GABHS-negative patients found a statistically significant effect of antibiotics in GABHS-positive patients but not in those GABHS-negative.20–22 40 A subgroup analysis in a recent meta-analysis found a better effect of antibiotics if GABHS is present.37

    However, antibiotics have adverse effects such as increased antibiotic resistance, allergies, short-term gastrointestinal disturbances,41 candidiasis,41 potentially a reduction in development of long-term immunity against GABHS,42 increased risk for colorectal cancer,43 44 increased risk for rheumatic arthritis45 and possibly also increased risk for obesity.46–48 The modest reduction in acute symptoms has to be weighed against these potential negative effects.

    Modern guidelines and their impact in high-income countries

    There is now a plethora of different guidelines in high-income countries advising against routine use of antibiotics.49 50 Existing guidelines for management of patients with a sore throat focus on GABHS.51 52 However, they vary widely.53 54 While guidelines are important in theory and likely to have some impact,55 some practitioners seem to develop their own individual approach to manage patients presenting with a sore throat that differs significantly from any guideline.25 32 56–61 Some practitioners prescribe antibiotics to all, or nearly all, patients with a sore throat, perhaps in an attempt to reduce risks, to meet patient expectations or to reduce risks of litigation.62 However, the art of medicine is rarely about achieving zero risk but rather to weigh different risks and benefits.

    The problem is twofold. First, that there are contradicting guidelines for managing patients with a sore throat and second, that many practitioners do not adhere to any of them and instead rely on their own approach and clinical judgement. General practitioner (GPs) are highly skilled in improvising when faced with complex problems such as frail patients with multimorbidity or patients having a mixture of biomedical and psychosocial problems. In these situations, the GP makes a very good compromise between different guidelines or develops a plan where no guideline exists. These situations cannot be resolved without a high degree of improvisation requiring a strong belief in one’s own clinical judgement. However, most patients attending for a sore throat are relatively young and do not have relevant comorbidities so typically this problem is strait forward. A very simple and specific guideline, such as those for the uncomplicated acute sore throat, leave no room for improvisation, but this may not be compatible with the nature of many, otherwise highly skilled, GPs.63

    Point-of-care testing

    Throat swabs send for bacteriology are hampered by the delay in obtaining results.64 However, high-quality POCTs, delivering a result in minutes, are more useful.34 65 66 Some studies find little benefit of POCT in a low risk setting.29 Other studies, in a mixture of high-risk and low-risk patients, suggest they produce a modest reduction of antibiotic prescribing67–69 but importantly, they make antibiotic prescribing better targeted.69 The adoption of POCT varies due to concerns with accuracy of the test, although this concern may be misplaced due to misconceptions:

    1. The belief that a rapid POCT is not sensitive enough to reliably rule out the presence of GABHS. The POCT has, traditionally been compared with culture as reference standard,70 a technique introduced in 1903.71 Modern POCT has been perceived to have a sensitivity below 90% when compared with culture as reference standard.70 72 However, using more advanced reference standards has shown that, when there is diagnostic discrepancy between modern POCT and culture, POCT are more likely to be correct.73 74 Several modern POCT may have higher sensitivity than culture. There are also new small POCT molecular tests with a >95% sensitivity compared with in-house PCR.75 Hence, modern high-quality POCT does not have a sensitivity inferior to culture, though this remains an educational challenge.

    2. There is a belief that the POCT cannot distinguish between carriers and patients ill from GABHS, thus rendering the POCT useless. However, this is a misunderstanding of the problem. A high-quality POCT, used correctly, showing no presence of GABHS has a negative predictive value near 99% irrespective of the proportion of carriers of GABHS.65 76–78 Carriers will only influence the clinical value of a POCT positive for GABHS (the positive predictive value) but, in most patients the test will be negative and hence very reliable and clinically useful.65 Hence, a modern POCT will always work well as a stopping rule to stop incorrect antibiotic prescribing.66

    3. An assumption that patients ill from a non-GABHS bacterium should be treated with antibiotics, making the POCT useless since these bacteria are not detected by the type of POCT mostly used in today’s PHC. This is linked to the misconception that anything that is bacterial requires antibiotics.25

    To rely on clinical symptoms and signs alone, ignoring the additional information from a modern high-quality POCT, increases antibiotic prescribing34 66 and leaves a significant proportion of patients ill from GABHS without antibiotics, which may not be acceptable in a situation with an elevated risk for ARF.34

    The remaining dilemma

    In many high-income countries, 40%–80% of patients attending PHC for an apparently uncomplicated acute sore throat are prescribed antibiotics.33 79–84 Furthermore, many patients in a high-risk setting attending for a sore throat, and with proven presence of GAHS, are not prescribed antibiotics.34 This makes it worth to investigate the consequences of using different strategies in a constructed data validation set with known prevalence of GABHS. Our goal was to identify optimal strategies for scenarios with low as well as high risk of ARF.

    Methods

    Selection of strategies to be evaluated

    Most guidelines in high-income countries advice against the routine use of antibiotics in patients with minor discomfort. Hence, strategies using a cut-off of ≥2 or ≥3 Centor criteria to guide the use of POCT and antibiotic prescribing were evaluated and the consequences were estimated. These strategies does not include the scenario where you want to identify all patients with a GABHS infection irrespective of the magnitude of symptoms, as in patients at high risk of ARF. Furthermore, the strategies mentioned above do not cover the situation where avoidance of antibiotic use is the main focus. Hence, the strategies of prescribing antibiotics to all patients, using a POCT on all patients, never considering antibiotic use and including analgesics in a decision tree were also evaluated. Some of these strategies correspond to existing guidelines (table 1—with no ambition to identify all guidelines aligning with the strategies to be evaluated).

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Some existing guidelines for managing patients with an uncomplicated acute sore throat and low risk for acute rheumatic fever

    Data set for validation of strategies

    We identified seven publications stating the proportion of patients harbouring GABHS split into Centor scores 0–4 and providing actual numbers or detailed proportions. Two publications, Wigton et al85 and Fine et al26 were retrospective chart reviews where only patients who had their throat swabbed were included. Two studies by Pallon et al86 87 included patients first triaged by a nurse to sort out those with less probability for harbouring GABHS. Previous studies prospectively including unselected patients13 34 69 had a higher prevalence of patients with 0 Centor criteria compared with the publications including selected patients.26 85–87 Consequently, we decided to create two separate validation data sets, each being the weighted average of included studies (table 2).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Previous data sets with detailed information on prevalence of GABHS related to the number of Centor criteria

    Monitoring of adverse events and safety procedures

    Due to the nature of this study, no adverse events were expected nor observed.

    Outcome measures and statistical analysis

    The outcome measures were the proportion of patients requiring a POCT, prescribed antibiotics, prescribed antibiotics and having GABHS and finally having GABHS not prescribed antibiotics. This was calculated for the following strategies: (A) prescribe antibiotics to all patients, (B) test all patients and prescribe antibiotics if positive, (C) prescribe antibiotics if Centor criteria is 2–4 (as in Scotland,50) (D) prescribe antibiotics if Centor criteria is 3–4 (as in Australia88 ESCMID Europe52 and UK,49) (E) if Centor criteria is 2–4 test patient and prescribe antibiotics if positive, (F) if Centor criteria is 3–4 test patient and prescribe antibiotics if positive (as in Sweden89 and the USA,90) (G) if Centor criteria is 2–4 and pain is more than mild after analgesics test patient and prescribe antibiotics if positive, (H) if Centor criteria is 3–4 and pain is more than mild after analgesics test patient and prescribe antibiotics if positive, (I) never test nor prescribe antibiotics (as in the Netherlands).91

    Patient and public involvement

    Patients were not involved in the development of plans for design, outcome measures or implementation of the study conduct. No patients were asked to advise on the interpretation or writing of results.

    Results

    The strategies to prescribe antibiotics to all patients (row A in table 3) or to test all patients and prescribe antibiotics to all with a positive test (row B in table 3) would have ensured all of those having GABHS were given antibiotics (the rightmost column in row A and B in table 3). The lowest rate of antibiotic prescribing is achieved using the strategy of no antibiotic use (row I in table 3). If any use of antibiotics is allowed, the lowest prescribing rate, 3.5%–6.6%, would have been achieved by the strategy to only test if Centor criteria is 3–4, the pain is more than mild after adequate dose of analgesics and then only prescribe antibiotics if the test is positive (row H in table 3).

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Different strategies for managing patients with a sore throat and their consequences

    Discussion

    Consequences of adhering to different strategies vary dramatically and the choice of optimal strategy should be guided by the local prevalence of RHD as a marker of risk in the local setting. However, local healthcare providers may have different opinions as to which prevalence of RHD constitutes high, moderate or low risk. Hence, we suggest management in these different settings without defining a specific cut of in the prevalence of RHD to constitute a high-risk, moderate-risk or low-risk setting.

    Strength and limitations of the data set for validation

    The data sets for validation of strategies constitute a mix of studies including children and/or adults from various countries and continents. However, reasonable variations in the validation data sets would not alter the conclusions in this study.

    Suggested management if the risk for ARF is high

    Primary prevention of ARF is the main goal in this scenario. Hence, none of patients at high risk of ARF and harbouring GABHS, irrespective of Centor scores, should miss out on antibiotics (the rightmost column in table 3).We have seen that not testing patients in a high risk setting leaves a significant proportion of patients at high risk of ARF truly ill from GABHS without antibiotics.34 The strategy best achieving adequate antibiotic cover is to test all patients if POCTs are available (row B in table 3). Prescribing antibiotics to all patients attending for a sore throat (row A in table 3) would be the second best strategy if POCTs are unavailable. However, the latter strategy will lead to many unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions to patients not harbouring GABHS.

    Suggested management if the risk for ARF is moderate

    In this setting, it might be acceptable that patients with mild symptoms are left untreated despite some of them harbouring GABHS. The best strategy is to test all patients (row B in table 3) if POCTs are easily available. The second best strategy, if POCTs are available but of limited supply, is to adhere to the strategy described in row E, test if the patient has 2–4 Centor scores and prescribe antibiotics to all patients with a positive test. The consequences would be that a similar proportion of patients are prescribed antibiotics as if everyone was tested but only roughly half of the patients require testing. The downside is that 20%–38% of patients with a sore throat harbouring GABHS miss out on antibiotics. The third best option, if POCTs are completely unavailable, would be to prescribe antibiotics to all patients attending for a sore throat. Again, the downside is the overtreatment as described above.

    Suggested management if the risk for ARF is negligible

    Here the use of antibiotics for preventing ARF is unnecessary, and is of small benefit for reducing symptoms.37 Hence, the primary goal is to safely reduce antibiotic usage as much as possible. The optimal management in this situation is patient-centred care where the clinician presents available evidence of the benefits and harms of antibiotics. This is followed by a joint discussion whether antibiotics are worthwhile here, in other words, shared decision making.92

    The Netherlands have the most restrictive guideline prohibiting any antibiotic prescribing to otherwise healthy patients attending for an uncomplicated acute sore throat.91 Despite this GPs in the Netherlands prescribe antibiotics to approximately 50% of patients attending with a sore throat83 84 suggesting that this overly restrictive guideline has limited influence. It will be difficult to deny antibiotic treatment for those having intense symptoms despite adequate analgesics, presence of GABHS and requesting antibiotics. Hence, stating that otherwise healthy patients with uncomplicated acute sore throat should never be prescribed antibiotics at their first visit is unlikely to work in reality and potentially unethical. A sensible compromise that can work in real life should be made.

    The main reason for considering antibiotics is to reduce pain and fatigue, and there is no need for antibiotics if analgesics work well in low-risk patients. Many current guidelines recommend the use of analgesics for symptomatic treatment (table 1) but none of the guidelines presented in table 1 include analgesics in a decision tree for antibiotic prescribing. Analgesics should be part of a decision tree for low risk patients where antibiotics should only be considered if the patient has more than low pain after adequate analgesics, 3–4 Centor criteria26 27 (or 2–3 FeverPAIN scores28 29 or 3–4 McIsaac scores26 30 31) and a positive test confirming the presence of GABHS. Adhering to this recommendation results in the lowest rate of antibiotic prescribing if antibiotics are going to be used at all (row H in table 3). This strategy only requires a small proportion of patients being tested (10%–15%) and an even smaller proportion prescribed antibiotics (3.5%–6.6%).

    Children versus adults

    Asymptomatic carriers of GABHS are more common in children than in adults in most settings. However, the proportion of carriers in children can in some settings be very low and similar to the carrier rates seen in adults.34 Carriers will only influence the clinical value of a POCT positive for GABHS (the positive predictive value) but, in most patients the test will be negative and hence very reliable and clinically useful.65 The conclusion is that a modern POCT will always work well, in children and adults, as a stopping rule to stop incorrect antibiotic prescribing.66

    ARF and RHD are more common in children but may occur also in adults. The main goal is to keep antibiotic prescribing at a minimum in a low risk setting while ensuring no patients attending for a sore throat and harbouring GABHS is left without antibiotics in a high risk setting. These goals are exactly the same for children as well as adults. Although adhering to our recommendations may result in a few unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions to children the same strategies were identified as optimal for children and adults.

    Suggestions for future research

    Highly skilled GPs successfully managing complex problems in patients with multimorbidity do not seem to comply well with existing simple guidelines for managing patients attending for an apparently uncomplicated acute sore throat. The drivers for GPs to make decisions are complex, and the relevance of the patient’s expectations should not be underestimated.

    A possible alternative might be to allow healthcare providers other than medical practitioners manage otherwise healthy patients at their first visit for an apparently uncomplicated acute sore throat. Studies evaluating nurse management of these patients,93–95 however have been, due to methodological problems, inconclusive. A study using community pharmacies to manage these patients by adhering to the algorithm described in row F in table 3 resulted in antibiotic prescribing to only 9.8% of all patients.96 This is very similar to our result of 5.9%–11% if this strategy had been adhered to. However, using healthcare providers other than medical practitioners must be further tested, preferably in a well-designed randomised controlled trial, to ensure it does not compromise patient safety or adequate patient education.

    Conclusions

    For patients at high risk of ARF, we suggest that the safe strategy is to test all patients with an apparently uncomplicated acute sore throat for presence of GABHS. Prescribing antibiotics to all patients at high risk would be the second best option if POCTs are unavailable, although this results in significant overprescribing of antibiotics.

    In patients at low risk of ARF at their first visit we suggest adopting shared decision making and inform the patient that the most effective use of antibiotics is achieved by using the following strategy: primarily utilising analgesics as part of a decision tree where antibiotics should only be considered if the patient has more than low pain after adequate analgesics, 3–4 Centor criteria (or 2–3 FeverPAIN scores or 3–4 McIsaac scores) and a positive POCT confirming the presence of GABHS.

    It should be emphasised that these strategies may not be optimal in patients with signs of complications, in patients returning after a previous visit now being unwell, in patients with significant comorbidities and in hospitalised patients.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information. This publication builds upon previously published data sets compiled as described in the publication.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    References

    1. ↵
      1. André M,
      2. Vernby A,
      3. Odenholt I, et al
      . Diagnosis-prescribing surveys in 2000, 2002 and 2005 in Swedish general practice: consultations, diagnosis, diagnostics and treatment choices. Scand J Infect Dis 2008;40:648–54.doi:10.1080/00365540801932439pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18979603
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      1. Tyrstrup M,
      2. Beckman A,
      3. Mölstad S, et al
      . Reduction in antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in Swedish primary care- a retrospective study of electronic patient records. BMC Infect Dis 2016;16:709.doi:10.1186/s12879-016-2018-9pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27887585
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Armstrong GL,
      2. Pinner RW
      . Outpatient visits for infectious diseases in the United States, 1980 through 1996. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:2531–6.doi:10.1001/archinte.159.21.2531pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10573043
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Little P,
      2. Stuart B,
      3. Hobbs FDR, et al
      . Predictors of suppurative complications for acute sore throat in primary care: prospective clinical cohort study. BMJ 2013;347:f6867.doi:10.1136/bmj.f6867pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24277339
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      1. Watkins DA,
      2. Johnson CO,
      3. Colquhoun SM, et al
      . Global, regional, and national burden of rheumatic heart disease, 1990-2015. N Engl J Med 2017;377:713–22.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1603693pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28834488
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    6. ↵
      1. Catanzaro FJ,
      2. Stetson CA,
      3. Morris AJ, et al
      . The role of the streptococcus in the pathogenesis of rheumatic fever. Am J Med 1954;17:749–56.doi:10.1016/0002-9343(54)90219-3pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13207156
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Lennon D,
      2. Anderson P,
      3. Kerdemilidis M, et al
      . First presentation acute rheumatic fever is preventable in a community setting: a school-based intervention. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2017;36:1113–8.doi:10.1097/INF.0000000000001581pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28230706
      OpenUrlPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Robertson KA,
      2. Volmink JA,
      3. Mayosi BM
      . Antibiotics for the primary prevention of acute rheumatic fever: a meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2005;5:11.doi:10.1186/1471-2261-5-11pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15927077
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Kevat PM,
      2. Reeves BM,
      3. Ruben AR, et al
      . Adherence to secondary prophylaxis for acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease: a systematic review. Curr Cardiol Rev 2017;13:155–66.doi:10.2174/1573403X13666170116120828pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28093988
      OpenUrlPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Lindbaek M,
      2. Høiby EA,
      3. Lermark G, et al
      . Clinical symptoms and signs in sore throat patients with large colony variant beta-haemolytic streptococci groups C or G versus group A. Br J Gen Pract 2005;55:615–9.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16105370
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    11. ↵
      1. Tiemstra J,
      2. Miranda RLF
      . Role of non-group a streptococci in acute pharyngitis. J Am Board Fam Med 2009;22:663–9.doi:10.3122/jabfm.2009.06.090035pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19897695
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    12. ↵
      1. Little P,
      2. Moore M,
      3. Hobbs FDR, et al
      . 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. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003943.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003943
    13. ↵
      1. Centor RM,
      2. Atkinson TP,
      3. Ratliff AE, et al
      . The clinical presentation of Fusobacterium-positive and streptococcal-positive pharyngitis in a university health clinic: a cross-sectional study. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:241–7.doi:10.7326/M14-1305pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25686164
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Hedin K,
      2. Bieber L,
      3. Lindh M, et al
      . The aetiology of pharyngotonsillitis in adolescents and adults - Fusobacterium necrophorum is commonly found. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015;21:263 e1–7.doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2014.08.020pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25658556
      OpenUrlPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Lemierre A
      . On certain septicaemias due to anaerobic organisms. The Lancet 1936;227:701–3.
      OpenUrl
    16. ↵
      1. Osowicki J,
      2. Kapur S,
      3. Phuong LK, et al
      . The long shadow of Lemierre's syndrome. J Infect 2017;74:S47–53.doi:10.1016/S0163-4453(17)30191-3pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28646962
      OpenUrlPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Bank S,
      2. Christensen K,
      3. Kristensen LH, et al
      . A cost-effectiveness analysis of identifying Fusobacterium necrophorum in throat swabs followed by antibiotic treatment to reduce the incidence of Lemierre’s syndrome and peritonsillar abscesses. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2013;32:71–8.doi:10.1007/s10096-012-1715-6pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22886057
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Gunnarsson RK,
      2. Manchal N
      . Group C beta haemolytic Streptococci as a potential pathogen in patients presenting with an uncomplicated acute sore throat - A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Scand J Primary Health Care 2020:1–12.
    19. ↵
      1. Malmberg S,
      2. Petrén S,
      3. Gunnarsson R, et al
      . Acute sore throat and Fusobacterium necrophorum in primary healthcare: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2021;11:e042816–9.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042816
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      1. Pichichero ME,
      2. Disney FA,
      3. Talpey WB, et al
      . Adverse and beneficial effects of immediate treatment of Group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal pharyngitis with penicillin. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1987;6:635–43.doi:10.1097/00006454-198707000-00004pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3302916
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      1. Krober MS,
      2. Bass JW,
      3. Michels GN
      . Streptococcal pharyngitis. placebo-controlled double-blind evaluation of clinical response to penicillin therapy. JAMA 1985;253:1271–4.doi:10.1001/jama.253.9.1271pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3918190
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. De Meyere M,
      2. Mervielde Y,
      3. Verschraegen G, et al
      . Effect of penicillin on the clinical course of streptococcal pharyngitis in general practice. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1992;43:581–5.doi:10.1007/BF02284954pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1493837
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Petersen K,
      2. Phillips RS,
      3. Soukup J, et al
      . The effect of erythromycin on resolution of symptoms among adults with pharyngitis not caused by group A Streptococcus. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12:95–101.doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.00013.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9051558
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Zwart S,
      2. Sachs AP,
      3. Ruijs GJ, et al
      . Penicillin for acute sore throat: randomised double blind trial of seven days versus three days treatment or placebo in adults. BMJ 2000;320:150–4.doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7228.150pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10634735
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      1. Hedin K,
      2. Strandberg EL,
      3. Gröndal H, et al
      . Management of patients with sore throats in relation to guidelines: an interview study in Sweden. Scand J Prim Health Care 2014;32:193–9.doi:10.3109/02813432.2014.972046pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25363143
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. ↵
      1. Fine AM,
      2. Nizet V,
      3. Mandl KD
      . Large-scale validation of the centor and McIsaac scores to predict group A streptococcal pharyngitis. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:847–52.doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.950pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22566485
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Centor RM,
      2. Witherspoon JM,
      3. Dalton HP, et al
      . The diagnosis of strep throat in adults in the emergency room. Med Decis Making 1981;1:239–46.doi:10.1177/0272989X8100100304pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6763125
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Little P,
      2. Moore M,
      3. Hobbs FDR, et al
      . 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. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003943.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003943pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24163209
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      1. Little P,
      2. Hobbs FDR,
      3. Moore M, et al
      . Clinical score and rapid antigen detection test to guide antibiotic use for sore throats: randomised controlled trial of PRISM (primary care streptococcal management). BMJ 2013;347:f5806.doi:10.1136/bmj.f5806pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24114306
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    30. ↵
      1. McIsaac WJ,
      2. White D,
      3. Tannenbaum D, et al
      . A clinical score to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use in patients with sore throat. CMAJ 1998;158:75–83.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9475915
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    31. ↵
      1. McIsaac WJ,
      2. Goel V,
      3. To T, et al
      . The validity of a sore throat score in family practice. CMAJ 2000;163:811–5.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11033707
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    32. ↵
      1. Linder JA,
      2. Chan JC,
      3. Bates DW
      . Evaluation and treatment of pharyngitis in primary care practice: the difference between guidelines is largely academic. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:1374–9.doi:10.1001/archinte.166.13.1374pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16832002
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. ↵
      1. Gulliford MC,
      2. Dregan A,
      3. Moore MV, et al
      . Continued high rates of antibiotic prescribing to adults with respiratory tract infection: survey of 568 UK general practices. BMJ Open 2014;4:e006245.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006245pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25348424
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      1. Orda U,
      2. Mitra B,
      3. Orda S, et al
      . Point of care testing for group A streptococci in patients presenting with pharyngitis will improve appropriate antibiotic prescription. Emerg Med Australas 2016;28:199–204.doi:10.1111/1742-6723.12567pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26934845
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Howie JG,
      2. Foggo BA
      . Antibiotics, sore throats and rheumatic fever. J R Coll Gen Pract 1985;35:223–4.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4020743
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    36. ↵
      1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
      . Rheumatic heart disease and acute rheumatic fever in Australia: 1996-2012. Cardiovascular diseases series. Canberra 2013.
    37. ↵
      1. Spinks A,
      2. Glasziou PP,
      3. Del Mar CB
      . Antibiotics for treatment of sore throat in children and adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;12:CD000023.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000023.pub5pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34881426
      OpenUrlPubMed
    38. ↵
      1. Nelson JD
      . The effect of penicillin therapy on the symptoms and signs of streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr Infect Dis 1984;3:10–13.doi:10.1097/00006454-198401000-00004pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6366769
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    39. ↵
      1. Middleton DB,
      2. D'Amico F,
      3. Merenstein JH
      . Standardized symptomatic treatment versus penicillin as initial therapy for streptococcal pharyngitis. J Pediatr 1988;113:1089–94.doi:10.1016/s0022-3476(88)80588-2pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3057159
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    40. ↵
      1. Dagnelie CF,
      2. van der Graaf Y,
      3. De Melker RA
      . Do patients with sore throat benefit from penicillin? A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial with penicillin V in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 1996;46:589–93.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8945796
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    41. ↵
      1. Gillies M,
      2. Ranakusuma A,
      3. Hoffmann T, et al
      . Common harms from amoxicillin: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials for any indication. CMAJ 2015;187:E21–31.doi:10.1503/cmaj.140848pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404399
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    42. ↵
      1. Pichichero ME
      . The development of immunity sequelae or the carrier state following streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr Ann 1992;21:829–34.doi:10.3928/0090-4481-19921201-09pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1480437
      OpenUrlPubMed
    43. ↵
      1. Armstrong D,
      2. Dregan A,
      3. Ashworth M, et al
      . The association between colorectal cancer and prior antibiotic prescriptions: case control study. Br J Cancer 2020;122:912–7.doi:10.1038/s41416-019-0701-5pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31929515
      OpenUrlPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. Wan Q-Y,
      2. Zhao R,
      3. Wang Y, et al
      . Antibiotic use and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of 412 450 participants. Gut 2020;69:2059–60.doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-320826pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32111633
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    45. ↵
      1. Armstrong D,
      2. Dregan A,
      3. Ashworth M, et al
      . Influence of prior antibiotic use on risk of rheumatoid arthritis: case control study in general practice. Rheumatology 2020;59:1281–7.doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kez452pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31580454
      OpenUrlPubMed
    46. ↵
      1. Miller SA,
      2. Wu RKS,
      3. Oremus M
      . The association between antibiotic use in infancy and childhood overweight or obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2018;19:1463–75.doi:10.1111/obr.12717pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30035851
      OpenUrlPubMed
    47. ↵
      1. Rasmussen SH,
      2. Shrestha S,
      3. Bjerregaard LG, et al
      . Antibiotic exposure in early life and childhood overweight and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 2018;20:1508–14.doi:10.1111/dom.13230pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29359849
      OpenUrlPubMed
    48. ↵
      1. Leong KSW,
      2. Derraik JGB,
      3. Hofman PL, et al
      . Antibiotics, gut microbiome and obesity. Clin Endocrinol 2018;88:185–200.doi:10.1111/cen.13495pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29023853
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    49. ↵
      1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
      . NICE Guideline [NG84] - Sore throat (acute): antimicrobial prescribing 2018.
    50. ↵
      1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)
      . SIGN Guideline [117] - Management of sore throat and indications for tonsillectomy. A national clinical guideline 2010.
    51. ↵
      1. Shulman ST,
      2. Bisno AL,
      3. Clegg HW, et al
      . Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of group A streptococcal pharyngitis: 2012 update by the infectious diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2012;55:1279–82.doi:10.1093/cid/cis847pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23091044
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    52. ↵
      1. ESCMID Sore Throat Guideline Group,
      2. Pelucchi C,
      3. Grigoryan L, et al
      . Guideline for the management of acute sore throat. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012;18:1–27.doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03766.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22432746
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    53. ↵
      1. Hoare KJ,
      2. Ward E,
      3. Arroll B
      . International sore throat guidelines and international medical graduates: a mixed methods systematic review. J Prim Health Care 2016;8:20–9.doi:10.1071/HC15032pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27477371
      OpenUrlPubMed
    54. ↵
      1. Mustafa Z,
      2. Ghaffari M,
      3. Methods D
      . Diagnostic methods, clinical guidelines, and antibiotic treatment for group A streptococcal pharyngitis: a narrative review. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2020;10:563627.doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.563627pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33178623
      OpenUrlPubMed
    55. ↵
      1. Gunnarsson R,
      2. Ebell MH,
      3. Wächtler H, et al
      . Association between guidelines and medical practitioners’ perception of best management for patients attending with an apparently uncomplicated acute sore throat: a cross-sectional survey in five countries. BMJ Open 2020;10:e037884–10.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037884
      OpenUrl
    56. ↵
      1. Rico-Ferreira P,
      2. Palazón-Bru A,
      3. Calvo-Pérez M, et al
      . Nonadherence to guidelines for prescribing antibiotic therapy to patients with tonsillitis or pharyngotonsillitis: a cross-sectional study. Curr Med Res Opin 2015;31:1319–22.doi:10.1185/03007995.2015.1041896pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25876462
      OpenUrlPubMed
    57. ↵
      1. Cars H,
      2. Håkansson A
      . To prescribe-or not to prescribe-antibiotics. District physicians' habits vary greatly, and are difficult to change. Scand J Prim Health Care 1995;13:3–7.doi:10.3109/02813439508996727pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7777732
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    58. ↵
      1. Pitts J,
      2. Vincent S
      . What influences doctors' prescribing? Sore throats revisited. J R Coll Gen Pract 1989;39:65–6.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2552095
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    59. ↵
      1. Gröndal H,
      2. Hedin K,
      3. Strandberg EL, et al
      . Near-patient tests and the clinical gaze in decision-making of Swedish GPs not following current guidelines for sore throat - a qualitative interview study. BMC Fam Pract 2015;16:81.doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0285-ypmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26141740
      OpenUrlPubMed
    60. ↵
      1. Neumark T,
      2. Brudin L,
      3. Mölstad S
      . Use of rapid diagnostic tests and choice of antibiotics in respiratory tract infections in primary healthcare-a 6-y follow-up study. Scand J Infect Dis 2010;42:90–6.doi:10.3109/00365540903352932pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19902992
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    61. ↵
      1. Reinholdt KB,
      2. Rusan M,
      3. Hansen PR, et al
      . Management of sore throat in Danish general practices. BMC Fam Pract 2019;20:75.doi:10.1186/s12875-019-0970-3pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31153357
      OpenUrlPubMed
    62. ↵
      1. Panthöfer S
      . Do doctors prescribe antibiotics out of fear of malpractice? The HEDG Working Paper series 2016;16:1–35.
      OpenUrl
    63. ↵
      1. Tyrstrup M,
      2. André M,
      3. Brorsson A, et al
      . A study of guidelines for respiratory tract infections and their references from Swedish GPs: a qualitative analysis. Scand J Prim Health Care 2020;38:83–91.doi:10.1080/02813432.2020.1717073pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32031035
      OpenUrlPubMed
    64. ↵
      1. Cheung L,
      2. Pattni V,
      3. Peacock P, et al
      . Throat swabs have no influence on the management of patients with sore throats. J Laryngol Otol 2017;131:977–81.doi:10.1017/S002221511700189Xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28874208
      OpenUrlPubMed
    65. ↵
      1. Orda U,
      2. Gunnarsson R,
      3. Orda S, et al
      . Etiologic predictive value of a rapid immunoassay for the detection of group A streptococci antigen from throat swabs in patients presenting with a sore throat. Int J Infect Dis 2016;45:32–5.doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2016.02.002pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26873279
      OpenUrlPubMed
    66. ↵
      1. Gunnarsson MS,
      2. Sundvall P-D,
      3. Gunnarsson R
      . In primary health care, never prescribe antibiotics to patients suspected of having an uncomplicated sore throat caused by group A beta-haemolytic streptococci without first confirming the presence of this bacterium. Scand J Infect Dis 2012;44:915–21.doi:10.3109/00365548.2012.700768pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22830425
      OpenUrlPubMed
    67. ↵
      1. Llor C,
      2. Madurell J,
      3. Balagué-Corbella M, et al
      . Impact on antibiotic prescription of rapid antigen detection testing in acute pharyngitis in adults: a randomised clinical trial. Br J Gen Pract 2011;61:e244–51.doi:10.3399/bjgp11X572436pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21619748
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    68. ↵
      1. Worrall G,
      2. Hutchinson J,
      3. Sherman G, et al
      . Diagnosing streptococcal sore throat in adults: randomized controlled trial of in-office AIDS. Can Fam Physician 2007;53:666–71.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17872717
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    69. ↵
      1. Gunnarsson RK,
      2. Orda U,
      3. Elliott B, et al
      . Improving antibiotics targeting using PCR point-of-care testing for group A streptococci in patients with uncomplicated acute sore throat. Aust J Gen Pract 2021;50:76–83.doi:10.31128/AJGP-07-20-5518
      OpenUrl
    70. ↵
      1. Stewart EH,
      2. Davis B,
      3. Clemans-Taylor BL, et al
      . Rapid antigen group A streptococcus test to diagnose pharyngitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9:e111727.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111727pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25369170
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    71. ↵
      1. Ferretti J,
      2. Kohler W
      . History of streptococcal research. In: Ferretti JJ, Stevens DL, Fischetti VA, eds. Streptococcus pyogenes: basic biology to clinical manifestations. Oklahoma City, 2016.
    72. ↵
      1. Lean WL,
      2. Arnup S,
      3. Danchin M, et al
      . Rapid diagnostic tests for group A streptococcal pharyngitis: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2014;134:771–81.doi:10.1542/peds.2014-1094pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25201792
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    73. ↵
      1. Lindbaek M,
      2. Høiby EA,
      3. Lermark G, et al
      . Which is the best method to trace group A streptococci in sore throat patients: culture or GAS antigen test? Scand J Prim Health Care 2004;22:233–8.doi:10.1080/02813430410006675pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15765639
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    74. ↵
      1. Cohen JF,
      2. Cohen R,
      3. Bidet P, et al
      . Rapid-antigen detection tests for group A streptococcal pharyngitis: revisiting false-positive results using polymerase chain reaction testing. J Pediatr 2013;162:1282–4.doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.01.050
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    75. ↵
      1. Cohen DM,
      2. Russo ME,
      3. Jaggi P, et al
      . Multicenter clinical evaluation of the novel Alere I Strep a isothermal nucleic acid amplification test. J Clin Microbiol 2015;53:2258–61.doi:10.1128/JCM.00490-15pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25972418
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    76. ↵
      1. Gunnarsson RK,
      2. Lanke J
      . The predictive value of microbiologic diagnostic tests if asymptomatic carriers are present. Stat Med 2002;21:1773–85.doi:10.1002/sim.1119pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12111911
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    77. ↵
      1. Gunnarsson RK
      . Dissertation: microbiologic diagnostic tests when asymptomatic carriers are present. aspects of the use of conventional throat and nasopharyngeal cultures as examples. Sweden: University of Gothenburg, 2001.
    78. ↵
      1. Orda U,
      2. Gunnarsson RK,
      3. Orda S
      . Etiologic predictive value of a rapid immunoassay for detection of group A streptococci antigen from throat swabs in patients presenting with a sore throat. North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) Annual Meeting. Colorado Springs, US, 2016. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHMeQuKOYpw
    79. ↵
      1. Luo R,
      2. Sickler J,
      3. Vahidnia F, et al
      . Diagnosis and management of group A streptococcal pharyngitis in the United States, 2011-2015. BMC Infect Dis 2019;19:193.doi:10.1186/s12879-019-3835-4pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30808305
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    80. ↵
      1. Tran J,
      2. Danchin M,
      3. C Steer A, et al
      . Management of sore throat in primary care. Aust J Gen Pract 2018;47:485–9.doi:10.31128/AJGP-11-17-4393pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30114874
      OpenUrlPubMed
    81. ↵
      1. Patel C,
      2. Green BD,
      3. Batt JM, et al
      . Antibiotic prescribing for tonsillopharyngitis in a general practice setting: can the use of modified Centor criteria reduce antibiotic prescribing? Aust J Gen Pract 2019;48:395–401.doi:10.31128/AJGP-08-18-4685pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31220878
      OpenUrlPubMed
    82. ↵
      1. Dallas A,
      2. van Driel M,
      3. Morgan S, et al
      . Antibiotic prescribing for sore throat: a cross-sectional analysis of the ReCEnT study exploring the habits of early-career doctors in family practice. Fam Pract 2016;33:302–8.doi:10.1093/fampra/cmw014pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26993484
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    83. ↵
      1. Damoiseaux RAMJ,
      2. Venekamp RP
      . [Prescribing antibiotics for sore throat: a persistent habit]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2015;159:A9419.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26332821
      OpenUrlPubMed
    84. ↵
      1. Tyrstrup M,
      2. van der Velden A,
      3. Engstrom S, et al
      . Antibiotic prescribing in relation to diagnoses and consultation rates in Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden: use of European quality indicators. Scand J Prim Health Care 2017;35:10–18.doi:10.1080/02813432.2017.1288680pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28277045
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    85. ↵
      1. Wigton RS,
      2. Connor JL,
      3. Centor RM
      . Transportability of a decision rule for the diagnosis of streptococcal pharyngitis. Arch Intern Med 1986;146:81–3.doi:10.1001/archinte.1986.00360130103014pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3510600
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    86. ↵
      1. Pallon J,
      2. Rööst M,
      3. Sundqvist M, et al
      . The aetiology of pharyngotonsillitis in primary health care: a prospective observational study. BMC Infect Dis 2021;21:971.doi:10.1186/s12879-021-06665-9pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34535115
      OpenUrlPubMed
    87. ↵
      1. Pallon J,
      2. Sundqvist M,
      3. Rööst M, et al
      . Presence of microorganisms in children with pharyngotonsillitis and healthy controls: a prospective study in primary healthcare. Infection 2021;49:715–24.doi:10.1007/s15010-021-01595-9pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33686635
      OpenUrlPubMed
    88. ↵
      1. Antibiotic. Egf
      . Acute pharyngitis and/or tonsillitis. therapeutic guidelines (eTG Complete). Melbourne: Therapeutic Guidelines Limited, 2014.
    89. ↵
      Handläggning AV faryngotonsilliter I öppenvård – NY rekommendation. Information från Läkemedelsverket 2012;6:18–25.
      OpenUrl
    90. ↵
      1. Harris AM,
      2. Hicks LA,
      3. Qaseem A, et al
      . Appropriate antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infection in adults: advice for high-value care from the American College of physicians and the centers for disease control and prevention. Ann Intern Med 2016;164:425–34.doi:10.7326/M15-1840pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26785402
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    91. ↵
      1. de Jongh E,
      2. Opstelten W, Werkgroep NHG-Standaard Acute keelpijn
      . [Revision of the Dutch College of General Practitioners practice guideline 'Acute sore throat']. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2015;159:A9456.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26332822
      OpenUrlPubMed
    92. ↵
      1. Coxeter P,
      2. Del Mar CB,
      3. McGregor L, et al
      . Interventions to facilitate shared decision making to address antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;11:CD010907.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010907.pub2pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26560888
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    93. ↵
      1. Cox C,
      2. Jones M
      . An evaluation of the management of patients with sore throats by practice nurses and GPs. Br J Gen Pract 2000;50:872–6.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11141872
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    94. ↵
      1. Fabrellas N,
      2. Sánchez C,
      3. Juvé E, et al
      . A program of nurse algorithm-guided care for adult patients with acute minor illnesses in primary care. BMC Fam Pract 2013;14:61.doi:10.1186/1471-2296-14-61pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23679821
      OpenUrlPubMed
    95. ↵
      1. Stuhr JK,
      2. Lykkegaard J,
      3. Kristensen JK
      . Danish GPs’ and practice nurses’ management of acute sore throat and adherence to guidelines. Fam Pract2018.
    96. ↵
      1. Thornley T,
      2. Marshall G,
      3. Howard P, et al
      . A feasibility service evaluation of screening and treatment of group A streptococcal pharyngitis in community pharmacies. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016;71:3293–9.doi:10.1093/jac/dkw264pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27439523
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Kenealy T
      . Sore throat. BMJ Clin Evid 2007;2007pmid:19450346
      OpenUrlPubMed

    Footnotes

    • Deceased Deceased after submission of revised manuscript

    • Contributors The initiative for this study comes from RG with input from UO. Details of the study were planned by RG with support from UO, BE, CH and CDM. RG conducted analysis of data and wrote a draft of the manuscript which was discussed and refined in discussion with all authors. All authors are guarantors taking full responsibility for the article.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.