Clinical management and impact of scarlet fever in the modern era: findings from a cross-sectional study of cases in London, 2018-2019 ====================================================================================================================================== * M. Trent Herdman * Rebecca Cordery * Basel Karo * Amrit Kaur Purba * Lipi Begum * Theresa Lamagni * Chuin Kee * Sooria Balasegaram * Shiranee Sriskandan ## Abstract **Background** Scarlet fever incidence has risen steeply in recent years, and is associated with wider outbreaks of severe Group A Streptococcal infections. Yet, few studies of its epidemiology, clinical features, and management have been undertaken in the antibiotic era. **Aim** To characterize symptomatology, management, and consequences of scarlet fever and identify associations with delayed diagnosis. **Design/Setting** Cross-sectional study of children with scarlet fever in London, 2018-2019. **Methods** online survey of parents/guardians of children with scarlet fever identified by Health Protection Teams, recording demographics, symptoms, care-seeking, and management; logistic regression for factors associated with delayed diagnosis; Cox’s regression for consequences of delayed diagnosis. **Results** Responses represented 412 cases in a period with 6828 notifications for children 0-14 years old, and 410 school/nursery outbreaks. 70% first sought care from general practice, and 31% had multiple consultations. For 28%, scarlet fever was not considered at first consultation: in these cases, symptoms were frequently attributed to viral infection (60%, 64/106). Delay in diagnosis beyond first consultation occurred more frequently among children aged 5+ who presented with sore throat (odds ratio 2.8 *vs*. 5+ without sore throat; 95%CI 1.3-5.8; P=0.006). On average, cases with delayed diagnosis took one day longer to return to baseline activities, and required one additional day off school *versus* those diagnosed at first consultation. **Conclusions** In assessing children with fever, rash, and sore throat, practitioners should be alert to the possibility of scarlet fever: it is frequently missed at first consultation, and prompt recognition speeds clinical recovery and public health management. **How this fits in [4 sentences summarising key messages of background and findings]** * - In the five years leading up to the pandemic lockdown of 2020, scarlet fever incidence rose markedly in England and Wales, prompting this investigation of cases in London 2018-2019. * - Prompt recognition of the disease by carers and clinicians can direct timely antibiotic therapy, limit transmission in the household and community, and direct the identification and control of outbreaks. * - In this study, delayed diagnosis was more likely to occur among older children presenting with sore throat—perhaps reflecting a lower index of suspicion in this age group. * - Cases with delayed diagnosis took longer to return to normal activities, and required more time off from school than those diagnosed at the first consultation. Keywords * Scarlet Fever * *Streptococcus pyogenes* * Group A Streptococcal infection * health seeking behaviour * primary health care * childhood illness ## Introduction ### 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). ## Methods ### 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. ## Results ### 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). View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/02/2021.06.25.21259535/T1) Table 1: Demographic characteristics of participating scarlet fever cases (n=412). ### 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). View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/02/2021.06.25.21259535/T2) Table 2: Reported Symptoms among 381 cases diagnosed with scarlet fever by a health professional within 4 weeks of survey completion. 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. View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/02/2021.06.25.21259535/T3) Table 3: Crude analysis of demographic and clinical variables associated with delayed diagnosis (diagnosis of scarlet fever not considered at first consultation with healthcare; n=374): ### 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). View this table: [Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/02/2021.06.25.21259535/T4) Table 4: Pathways of care for participating cases. ### 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. View this table: [Table 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/02/2021.06.25.21259535/T5) Table 5: Thematic analysis of free text comments from respondents to questionnaires, 2018-2019. ## Discussion ### 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. ## Supporting information Supplementary File 1: Questionnaire 2018 [[supplements/259535_file02.pdf]](pending:yes) Supplementary File 2: Questionnaire 2019 [[supplements/259535_file03.pdf]](pending:yes) Supplementary File 3: STROBE Checklist [[supplements/259535_file04.pdf]](pending:yes) Disclosure Forms [[supplements/259535_file05.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability Non-identifiable data used in this study will be made available to researchers upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. ## Funding This report was funded by Action Medical Research. It was also funded in part by the Medical Research Council (grant MR/P022669/1) and the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Imperial College London in partnership with Public Health England (grant HPRU-2012-10047). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Department of Health or Public Health England. ## Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. ## Online Supplementary Material **Supplementary File 1: 2018 Online Questionnaire** **Supplementary File 2: 2019 Online Questionnaire** **Supplementary File 3: STROBE Checklist for Cross-Sectional Analysis** ## Supplementary Methods for Cross-Sectional Analysis ### Participants Children under 16 with scarlet fever were eligible if notified to London HPTs as confirmed or probable scarlet fever from March 1 to May 31 2018, or March 1 to May 31 2019. In 2018, the parents or guardians of all eligible cases for whom contact details and notification by a clinician could be confirmed were invited for participation; in 2019, parents or guardians were invited for participation after either notification by a clinician or via invitations circulated to parental networks of schools or nurseries with notified outbreaks. The case definition of scarlet fever was in keeping with PHE guidance definitions of confirmed or probable scarlet fever: for sporadic cases identified through statutory notification (including the index cases of suspected outbreaks), a case constituted a clinical diagnosis of scarlet fever by a health professional (with or without detection of Group A Streptococci on a throat swab); in the context of an established outbreak, cases required a credible report of signs or symptoms consistent with scarlet fever with a close epidemiological link to a confirmed or probable case (with or without confirmation by a health professional).1 ### Variables Ascertained Surveys collected data on demographics, medical history, contact history, symptoms, care-seeking behaviour, diagnoses and clinical management by health professionals, impact upon household caregivers, and knowledge and attitudes regarding scarlet fever on the part of the responding parent or guardian. Survey texts can be found in **Supplementary Files S1 and S2**. ### Data Sources and Measurement For analysis of variables associated with delayed diagnosis, the outcome was defined dichotomously as a case for whom scarlet fever was not considered in the differential diagnosis at the first consultation with a clinician (in the recollection of the responding parent or guardian). For analysis of consequences of delayed diagnosis, this dichotomous variable was considered as an exposure, and assessed along with potential confounders and effect modifiers for association with time to resumption of normal activity, time to return to school, and time to parent/guardian’s return to work. ### Study Size The study size was determined pragmatically, attempting to contact as many notified cases and schools/nurseries as possible over the course of two high-transmission seasons. ### Quantitative Variables Age in years was collected as a continuous variable and stratified for multivariable analysis into under 5 and 5 and older to increase statistical power and reflect the age at which school attendance starts. Other demographic and clinical exposure variables were ascertained and analysed dichotomously. Recovery outcomes were ascertained as continuous variables in days in the Cox’s proportional hazards regression model. ### Missing Data Missing values were addressed in regression models by introducing an additional category for unknown values of categorical variables. Cases with missing values for the outcome variables in Cox’s regression were excluded from the analysis. View this table: [Supplementary Table S1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/02/2021.06.25.21259535/T6) Supplementary Table S1: Antibiotic prescribing patterns described by respondents (n=339) View this table: [Supplementary Table S2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/02/2021.06.25.21259535/T7) Supplementary Table S2: Stratified model for associations with delayed diagnosis of scarlet fever among cases in 2018 (n=321). ![Supplementary Figure S1.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/07/02/2021.06.25.21259535/F1.medium.gif) [Supplementary Figure S1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/02/2021.06.25.21259535/F1) Supplementary Figure S1. Recovery of scarlet fever cases among those in whom diagnosis was delayed or not delayed beyond first consultation with a health professional. Days elapsed from onset of symptoms to clinical recovery (n=52, Panel A), return to school (n=298, Panel B), and return to work for carers (n=161 Panel C). ## Acknowledgements We are grateful to carers for taking time to complete the survey, and to PHE London Health Protection Teams’ Surveillance Officers for scarlet fever surveillance and data analysis. We would like to thank the staff of the London Health Protection Teams and the Field Epidemiology Service for their support with the study. SS Acknowledges the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre grant awarded to Imperial College. ## Footnotes * 1 Public Health England, *Guidelines for the public health management of scarlet fever outbreaks in schools, nurseries and other childcare settings*, PHE, Editor. 2017, PHE: Wellington House, London. * Received June 25, 2021. * Revision received June 25, 2021. * Accepted July 2, 2021. * © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Wong SS, Yuen KY. Streptococcus pyogenes and re-emergence of scarlet fever as a public health problem. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2012;1(7):e2. 2. 2.Warrack JS. The Differential Diagnosis of Scarlet Fever, Measles, and Rubella. Br Med J. 1918;2(3018):486–8. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6MzoiUERGIjtzOjExOiJqb3VybmFsQ29kZSI7czozOiJibWoiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTA6IjIvMzAxOC80ODYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wNy8wMi8yMDIxLjA2LjI1LjIxMjU5NTM1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 3. 3.Defining the group A streptococcal toxic shock syndrome. Rationale and consensus definition. The Working Group on Severe Streptococcal Infections. JAMA. 1993;269(3):390–1. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.1993.03500030088038&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8418347&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F07%2F02%2F2021.06.25.21259535.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993KG38100032&link_type=ISI) 4. 4.Wesselhoeft C, Weinstein L. Medical Progress: Scarlet Fever. N Engl J Med. 1945:500–37. 5. 5.Lamagni T, Guy R, Chand M, Henderson KL, Chalker V, Lewis J, et al. Resurgence of scarlet fever in England, 2014-16: a population-based surveillance study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(2):180–7. 6. 6.Guy R, Williams C, Irvine N, Reynolds A, Coelho J, Saliba V, et al. Increase in scarlet fever notifications in the United Kingdom, 2013/2014. Euro Surveill. 2014;19(12):20749. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24698137&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F07%2F02%2F2021.06.25.21259535.atom) 7. 7.Lynskey NN, Jauneikaite E, Li HK, Zhi X, Turner CE, Mosavie M, et al. Emergence of dominant toxigenic M1T1 Streptococcus pyogenes clone during increased scarlet fever activity in England: a population-based molecular epidemiological study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(11):1209–18. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30446-3&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F07%2F02%2F2021.06.25.21259535.atom) 8. 8.Chalker V, Jironkin A, Coelho J, Al-Shahib A, Platt S, Kapatai G, et al. Genome analysis following a national increase in Scarlet Fever in England 2014. BMC Genomics. 2017;18(1):224. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12864-017-3603-z&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28283023&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F07%2F02%2F2021.06.25.21259535.atom) 9. 9.Al-Shahib A, Underwood A, Afshar B, Turner CE, Lamagni T, Sriskandan S, et al. Emergence of a novel lineage containing a prophage in emm/M3 group A Streptococcus associated with upsurge in invasive disease in the UK. Microb Genom. 2016;2(6):e000059. 10. 10.Watts V, Balasegaram S, Brown CS, Mathew S, Mearkle R, Ready D, et al. Increased Risk for Invasive Group A Streptococcus Disease for Household Contacts of Scarlet Fever Cases, England, 2011-2016. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25(3):529–37. 11. 11.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Sore throat (acute): antimicrobial prescribing. NICE; 2018 26 January 2018. Contract No.: ng84. 12. 12.Public Health England. Guidelines for the public health management of scarlet fever outbreaks in schools, nurseries and other childcare settings. Wellington House, London: PHE; 2017. Report No.: 2017524. 13. 13.Department for Education. Schools, pupils, and their characteristics: January 2019. 2019 [16/12/2020]. 14. 14.Garcia JJG. Differential diagnosis of viral exanthemas. The Open Vaccine Journal. 2010;3:65–8. 15. 15.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Sore throat (acute): antimicrobial prescribing (NG84). NICE; 2018. 16. 16.McIsaac WJ, Kellner JD, Aufricht P, Vanjaka A, Low DE. Empirical validation of guidelines for the management of pharyngitis in children and adults. JAMA. 2004;291(13):1587–95. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.291.13.1587&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15069046&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F07%2F02%2F2021.06.25.21259535.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000220649000023&link_type=ISI) 17. 17.Little P, Hobbs FD, Moore M, Mant D, Williamson I, McNulty C, 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. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDcvb2N0MTBfMy9mNTgwNiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzA3LzAyLzIwMjEuMDYuMjUuMjEyNTk1MzUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 18. 18.Ebell MH, Smith MA, Barry HC, Ives K, Carey M. The rational clinical examination. Does this patient have strep throat? JAMA. 2000;284(22):2912–8. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.284.22.2912&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11147989&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F07%2F02%2F2021.06.25.21259535.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000165717000032&link_type=ISI) 19. 19.Department for Education. Pupil absence in schools in England: 2018 to 2019. 2020. 20. 20.Public Health England. Group A streptococcal infections: first report of seasonal activity, 2018/19: Health Protection Report. PHE; 2019. 21. 21.Pfoh E, Wessels MR, Goldmann D, Lee GM. Burden and economic cost of group A streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatrics. 2008;121(2):229–34. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6InBlZGlhdHJpY3MiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6OToiMTIxLzIvMjI5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMDcvMDIvMjAyMS4wNi4yNS4yMTI1OTUzNS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 22. 22.1. Ferretti JJ, 2. Stevens DL, 3. Fischetti VA Efstratiou A, Lamagni T. Epidemiology of Streptococcus pyogenes. In: Ferretti JJ, Stevens DL, Fischetti VA, editors. Streptococcus pyogenes : Basic Biology to Clinical Manifestations. Oklahoma City (OK)2016. 23. 23.O’Loughlin RE, Roberson A, Cieslak PR, Lynfield R, Gershman K, Craig A, et al. The epidemiology of invasive group A streptococcal infection and potential vaccine implications: United States, 2000-2004. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(7):853–62. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/521264&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17806049&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F07%2F02%2F2021.06.25.21259535.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000249237900005&link_type=ISI) 24. 24.Hoge CW, Schwartz B, Talkington DF, Breiman RF, MacNeill EM, Englender SJ. The changing epidemiology of invasive group A streptococcal infections and the emergence of streptococcal toxic shock-like syndrome. A retrospective population-based study. JAMA. 1993;269(3):384–9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.1993.03500030082037&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8418346&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F07%2F02%2F2021.06.25.21259535.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993KG38100031&link_type=ISI) 25. 25.Lester JC, Taylor SC, Chren MM. Under-representation of skin of colour in dermatology images: not just an educational issue. Br J Dermatol. 2019;180(6):1521–2. 26. 26.Ebede T, Papier A. Disparities in dermatology educational resources. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;55(4):687–90. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17010750&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F07%2F02%2F2021.06.25.21259535.atom) 27. 27.Adelekun A, Onyekaba G, Lipoff JB. Skin color in dermatology textbooks: An updated evaluation and analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84(1):194–6. 28. 28.de Lusignan S, Correa A, Pathirannehelage S, Byford R, Yonova I, Elliot AJ, et al. RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre Annual Report 2014-2015: disparities in presentations to primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2017;67(654):e29–e40. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYmpncCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiNjcvNjU0L2UyOSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzA3LzAyLzIwMjEuMDYuMjUuMjEyNTk1MzUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 29. 29.Brouwer S, Lacey JA, You Y, Davies MR, Walker MJ. Scarlet fever changes its spots. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(11):1154–5.