Clinical management and impact of scarlet fever in the modern era: findings from a cross-sectional study of cases in London, 2018-2019

Background and Rationale

Scarlet fever results from pharyngeal infection with group A streptococci (GAS) expressing erythrogenic toxins, classically leading to rash, fever, constitutional symptoms, and localized symptoms including sore throat(1). Most studies of scarlet fever predate a modern understanding of streptococcal infections and their treatment(2-4). Incidence of scarlet fever in England and Wales declined from the 1940s to the mid-2010s, but increased markedly in the five years leading up to the pandemic lockdown of 2020: this coincided with the emergence of a dominant, more toxigenic lineage of GAS(5-7). Given the association between scarlet fever and severe GAS infections, including invasive soft tissue infections and toxic shock syndrome, this upsurge in cases underlined the need to review clinical practice(5, 8-10).

Scarlet fever is a notifiable infectious disease in England, and usually diagnosed on the basis of symptoms and signs. The triad of rash, sore throat, and fever is typical, but this presentation may be mistaken for viral infection, delaying the administration of antibiotics(11). Early case recognition aids implementation of treatment, initiation of which should reduce likelihood of complications and prevent onward transmission, reducing the incidence of not only scarlet fever itself, but also invasive GAS infections in cases and contacts(10).

Objectives

Prompted by increased scarlet fever notification, we undertook a survey of scarlet fever cases in London, to characterise the presenting features and healthcare experience, focussing on the timing of diagnosis and interventions, and impact on cases and their households(10, 12).

Study Design and Recruitment

We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study of confirmed or probable scarlet fever cases using an online survey (SelectSurvey v.4.0, Supplementary File 1). Invitations were sent to parents and guardians of all cases of scarlet fever notified by clinicians to Public Health England (PHE) Health Protection Teams (HPTs) in March-May 2018 in London. In March-May 2019, a modified version of the survey (omitting or rewording some questions, adding others) was sent to parents/guardians of notified sporadic cases plus cases identified as part of notified school outbreaks (Supplementary File 2). Participation was voluntary, anonymised, and approved by a national Research Ethics Committee (London-Chelsea REC Reference 18/LO/0025; IRAS Reference 225006). Consent was inferred from survey participation.

Public health management of cases and outbreaks was according to national guidelines used by HPTs(12).

Data Analysis

Quantitative data description and analysis were performed using Stata14.2 and GraphPad Prism7.0 (see Supplementary Methods for further details). Ethnicity proportions were compared to Department for Education primary schools data for London(13). In assessing symptoms and signs, description was restricted to cases diagnosed by a health professional.

To identify variables associated with delayed diagnosis, we compared cases where scarlet fever was suspected at first contact with a health professional versus those for whom it was not, restricting to cases formally notified by a health professional. A logistic regression model was constructed using a stepwise, subtractive approach. Models were compared using Akaike’s information criteria and Bayesian information criteria, with likelihood ratio tests used to address ambiguous comparisons, and stratifying as required to address effect modification.

Consequences of delayed diagnosis were assessed in terms of days until recovery to normal activity, days of school/nursery missed, and days of work missed by carers, constructing Cox’s proportional hazards regression models (condition of proportionality was met). The model for time to recovery to normal activity was limited to data from the 2019 survey, as it was not ascertained in 2018.

Qualitative textual analysis

Free text volunteered by respondents was coded in NVivo13 and Microsoft Excel using a thematic matrix for responses concerning perception of scarlet fever, and analysed to characterize experiences of the illness, accessibility of information and care, experiences of the health service, and impact on the case and their household, and identify ramifications for providers of clinical practice and health protection.

Baseline characteristics

London HPTs identified 4172 cases of confirmed or probable scarlet fever in children 0-14 years old, and 263 school/nursery outbreaks in 2018, and 2656 cases and 147 school/nursery outbreaks in 2019. From 1 March-31 May 2018, we contacted parents or guardians of 1703 cases of scarlet fever notified to London HPTs. From 1 March-31 May 2019 recruitment took place both through HPT contact with 872 identified scarlet fever cases and through dissemination to parental networks by outbreak-affected schools/nurseries. Surveys were completed for 477 children, 412 of whom met the case definition (339 in 2018, and 73 in 2019). In 381 cases (92%), scarlet fever was diagnosed by a health professional; 31 cases (8%) had a confirmed epidemiological link to an outbreak, but may not have been diagnosed by a health professional, and hence were excluded from analyses of clinical features.

Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics are described in Table 1. Compared to 2015 Department for Education estimates for primary schools in London, responses showed a higher proportion of White participants (70% vs. 42% in primary schools, P<0.001) and lower proportions of participants of Asian/Asian British (11% vs. 20%, P<0.001) and Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicity (5% vs. 21%, P<0.001) (13).

Clinical characteristics

Rash was the most commonly identified symptom, reported by 89% of respondents (Table 2). However, fever and sore throat were more likely than rash to be noted first. Among respondents commenting on the timing of the rash relative to other symptoms, 71% (32 of 45 responding) reported the rash followed other symptoms, with a median one-day delay (IQR 0-2.5 days; range 0-15 days). Cases with a history of recurrent sore throat were more likely to present with sore throat initially (OR 1.9, 95%CI 1.2-2.9, P=0.008), and substantially more likely to experience a sore throat at some point in the illness (OR 11.3, 95%CI 4.4-29.3, P<0.001).

70% of respondents characterizing the rash (19/27) described it as sand-papery or rough to feel, 63% (17/27) as red, 26% (7/27) as comprising small spots, 19% (5/27) as pink, 15% (4/27) as itchy, and 4% (1/27) as peeling off. Median duration of the rash was 5 days (IQR 3-8 days; range 1-14 days). 69% (18/26) reported the rash first appeared on the trunk, 19% (5/26) on the face, and 12% (4/26) on the arms and legs. Rash was seen in 89% of White cases and 90% of cases of other ethnicities (P=0.75).

While most children (71%) eventually experienced fever, rash, and sore throat, the pattern of symptoms at onset varied with age (Table 2). Sore throat was a more common initial symptom among older cases (OR 3.1, 95%CI 1.9-5.0, P<0.001). Conversely, rash and fever were less likely at onset among older cases (respectively OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.4-0.9, P=0.014; OR 0.5, 95%CI 0.3-0.8, P=0.001).

Differential diagnosis and clinical management

Table 3 summarizes the sources of care sought for cases. Median duration from onset of symptoms to seeing a health professional was 2 days (IQR 1-3 days; range<1-14 days). For 31% of cases, additional consultations were undertaken (with 14% requiring three or more consultations).

At the first consultation with a doctor, 72% of cases (268/374) had scarlet fever as the diagnosis (or part of the differential diagnosis). When the diagnosis was delayed, 60% (64/106) had their illness ascribed to a viral infection, 21% (22/106) to tonsillitis, and 13% (14/106) to pharyngitis. Throat swabs were taken from 44% of cases (148/338). Of those who knew the results of the swab, 91% (75/82) reported GAS was isolated. Antibiotic prescribing practices are described in Supplementary Table S1: 93% of cases were prescribed an agent consistent with clinical guidelines.

Burden and impact of disease

80% of cases (329/402) missed school because of their illness, with a median of 3 days lost (IQR 2-4 days; range 1-14 days). Median time from starting antibiotics to return to normal activity such as attending school or nursery was 2 days (IQR 1-4 days; range 0-8 days, asked only in 2019, with 71 respondents).

For 53% of cases (198/372), at least one carer took time off work, with a median total of 2 days taken as leave (IQR 1-3; range 0-11 days). In 23% of cases (92/398), a carer became ill themselves. In 22% (67/301), the child’s usual carers required additional help with care during the illness— provided by family members for 80%, friends for 5%, and paid professionals for 15%. In 11% of cases (37/337), other children in the household also missed school—predominantly because they were unwell themselves; less frequently because of dependence on the caregiver to transport siblings to school. In 2019, 43% (34/79) reported other unwell family members: 29 with sore throat, 10 with tonsillitis, 6 with scarlet fever, one each with cellulitis and conjunctivitis (11 households identified multiple illnesses).

Risk factors for delayed diagnosis

In a logistic model for delayed diagnosis among 321 cases in the 2018 survey, the strongest fit was provided by variables for age (under 5 years vs. 5 and older), sore throat at onset, and interaction between these variables (Table 4, Supplementary Table S1). No other variables affected the model. Among cases aged 5 and older, those with sore throat present at symptom onset had 2.7 times the odds of a delayed diagnosis compared to those without (95%CI 1.3-5.8, P<0.01). Among cases aged under 5, we found no evidence of an association between sore throat and delayed diagnosis (aOR 0.6, 95%CI 0.3-1.5, P=0.33).

Consequences of delayed diagnosis

Cases returned to normal activity faster when scarlet fever was considered at the first consultation (33/52; ascertained in 2019 only), with a median recovery time of 2 days from starting antibiotics when scarlet fever was considered, vs. 3 when it was not, and a hazard ratio (HR) for recovery of 0.53 (95%CI 0.28-0.99; P=0.047; Supplementary Figure S1). Cases diagnosed without delay returned to school sooner, with a median of 2 days off (246/298) and 3 days for those with delay (92/298) (HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.59-0.99; P=0.045). We found no difference in days of work missed by carers between the two groups, with a median of 2 days missed for both (HR 0.91, 95%CI 0.64-1. 29; P=0.592).

Qualitative synthesis

In thematic analysis of 194 free-text comments (Table 5), some respondents reported reassurance that a diagnosis was made promptly by practitioners who recognised the syndrome: others were disappointed that antibiotic treatment was delayed where symptoms were attributed to viral infection. Representativeness of online resources was questioned, such as the difficulty in finding depictions of the rash on non-white skin. While some respondents noted rapid recovery and minimal impact, others recorded spread of streptococcal infections to carers and other household members, and a wider impact of the time demands and stress of providing care to unwell children.

Summary

Undertaken at a time of increased incidence, this study provides an important update on the impact of scarlet fever, identifies opportunities for improved recognition, and highlights the previously unquantified burden of disease on affected households.

Practitioners should be alert to circumstances in which scarlet fever is easily overlooked. In this survey, a delay in diagnosis among older children was 2.8 times as likely when a sore throat was present at onset, with symptoms often ascribed to viral infection. Practitioners may have a lower index of suspicion in this age group, and be less likely to consider the diagnosis at first presentation when another explanation for symptoms is available. Timely recognition of scarlet fever in this age group could expedite antibiotic treatment, shorten the period of infectivity, and reduce onward propagation of GAS.

The sand-papery rash of scarlet fever was perceived by most carers, and tended to appear after other symptoms (median one day later). Rash timing is important in distinguishing scarlet fever from measles and rubella—which have a longer lag—but can lead to confusion with other viral exanthems(14). Awareness of the timing and sand-papery character of scarlet fever’s rash may help practitioners make the diagnosis and commence treatment.

Comparison with existing literature

Current clinical guidance for sore throat advises primary care physicians to give antibiotics only when a more serious condition (such as suppurative infection or sepsis) is suspected(15). FeverPAIN and Centor scores are validated in rapid appraisal for GAS pharyngitis, but scarlet fever falls outside their scope(16, 17). The rash of scarlet fever—particularly during the season of increased risk from March to May—should also prompt practitioners to commence antibiotics(18). The public health importance of prompt diagnosis and treatment is underscored by the 12-fold greater risk of invasive GAS among scarlet fever household contacts(10). Advice to avoid unnecessary antibiotics for most sore throats is valuable to antimicrobial stewardship: the caveat is that scarlet fever and other GAS infections require antibiotics to prevent complications and reduce onward spread.

In this study, 80% of children missed school/nursery for a median of 3 days. Time to recovery and return to school was longer when diagnosis was delayed. As the average primary school pupil misses 7.4 days a year, this increase is substantial(19). Scarlet fever affected almost 32,000 children in the UK in 2018(20); the direct medical costs, including hospital admissions (1 in 40 case in 2014), plus the risk of secondary GAS infections, and the non-medical costs of childcare and lost education, amount to a sizeable health and economic burden(5, 21).

Strengths and Limitations

By surveying notified scarlet fever cases, this study draws on the experience of patients and households accessing primary care. However, our use of an online survey tool introduces a risk of selection bias. Compared to the population at risk, more cases were white than would be expected by chance. There may be bias in recognition or notification, given that invasive GAS infection is observed with higher incidence in ethnicities other than white (22-24). Respondents’ observed difficulty finding illustrations of the rash on non-white skin corroborates under-representation in educational materials noted elsewhere(25-27). It also highlights the importance of ascertaining ethnicity in general practice research and surveillance, so that outbreaks affecting specific communities—or obstacles accessing care—are identified(28).

Implications for Practice and Research

Differentiating scarlet fever from viral infections presents a clinical challenge: sore throat is common to both conditions, and the rash of scarlet fever, though characteristic, may be subtle or delayed. Point-of-care tests may be useful to avoid unnecessary antibiotic prescription. Alertness to periodic peaks in scarlet fever—from March to May in the UK—and the occurrence of local outbreaks may help set an appropriate index of suspicion(5). Increased local incidence should drive more communication with carers about symptoms of concern (such as a sand-papery rash). The need for sound antimicrobial stewardship should not preclude access to timely clinical diagnosis of scarlet fever, microbiological testing, and empirical prescribing.

The strains of GAS that cause scarlet fever also trigger outbreaks of pharyngitis and invasive GAS infections. As such, a single case of scarlet fever may signal a larger outbreak of unrecognised GAS infections(5, 7, 29). Further research into the interplay of scarlet fever and invasive GAS at a population level will help direct diagnostic and treatment strategies to reduce the impact of such outbreaks.

Meanwhile, effective control of scarlet fever and GAS depends upon the coordinated efforts of clinicians and public health practitioners to identify cases and outbreaks early, implement appropriate treatment, and prevent onward transmission.