Discussion

This report describes a large outbreak of scarlet fever due to GABHS infection in a primary school. The outbreak occurred against a background of an unusually high incidence of invasive Group A streptococcal infection in England and Wales.11 Scarlet fever notifications were also high and numbered 4147 in 2008/2009, their highest level for 13 years.13

The outbreak strain was identified as S pyogenes Group B type emm3, which was the prevalent Group A streptococcal strain isolated from invasive disease cases at that time. Three months prior to the outbreak, a child from the same locality who attended a different school had died of invasive GABHS type emm3 infection. This raised the level of concern of the CCDC during the outbreak. The relationship between pharyngitis and progression to invasive disease is still uncertain and remains to be elucidated.

The clinical case definition identified 57 outbreak cases of whom 13 had throat swabs taken. It is not essential to obtain samples from every case in an outbreak once the causative organism has been confirmed and continued sampling can be an inefficient use of resources. It is possible that some of the cases had infection with co-circulating pathogens, however the typical pattern of the outbreak curve together with its progression through the school years, suggests that most cases were part of the outbreak.

In spite of the outbreak being recognised at an early stage, with just six children unwell, control measures had little impact on disease transmission. The control measures were implemented as well as they could have been. Exclusion of cases from school was rigorously enforced and although the minimum exclusion was 24 h, in practice it was usually 48 h. Parents and GPs responded well to the treatment advice with two thirds of children receiving antibiotics. The fact that one third of cases did not receive antibiotics at all and that only 54% of those receiving antibiotics were prescribed a 10-day course, probably contributed to ongoing transmission. In addition, lack of compliance with therapy is likely to have reduced the proportion of children receiving effective eradication therapy even further. Achieving greater compliance with therapy would, however, be a considerable challenge.

The continuance of the outbreak was probably due to carriers of GABHS in the school and household spread, as suggested by the high proportion of linked family cases. It is also possible that cases in the wider community helped to sustain the outbreak. Work from the 1950s showed that between 25% and 50% of sibling contacts will develop GABHS and that delay in treatment of the primary case beyond 2 days is associated with a rapidly increasing attack rate in sibling contacts.14 Searching for and treating carriers may seem to be a rational control measure, however it is time consuming and is not backed up by convincing evidence of effectiveness.15 Carriers appear less likely to transmit the organism than acutely infected patients and are at significantly reduced risk of developing rheumatic fever.15 It may also be more difficult to eradicate the organism from a carrier than from an acute case.16

There are surprisingly few reports of scarlet fever outbreaks in the literature. In 1992, an outbreak affected 12 children in a Swedish day-care centre over a 3-week period.7 Screening of 31 children 2 weeks into the outbreak revealed 61% were colonised with GABHS. Control was based on repeated throat cultures with antibiotic treatment of cases and asymptomatic carriers. Contamination of the environment with GABHS was demonstrated, however this was thought to be an unlikely source of infection. Although streptococci are a relatively hardy organism and can survive in the environment, for example, in bedding17 and dust,18 they dry within hours and appear to be non-infectious for pharyngitis.19 However, environmental persistence is a factor in transmission of streptococcal pyoderma.20 In 2000, 21 cases of GABHS, including scarlet fever, pharyngitis and impetigo, occurred in a Dutch primary school over a 4-week period.8 Cases received treatment with a 3-day course of azithromycin. In 2003, 13 children in a Perth primary school acquired scarlet fever over a 5-week period.9 The outbreak ceased after the treatment of pharyngeal carriers. An outbreak of 16 cases of scarlet fever in a nursery in Southwest England was reported in 2006.10 Control was based on exclusion of cases for 5 days after commencement of penicillin.

Scarlet fever remains something of a conundrum. It is a notifiable disease but there is large under-reporting and some outbreaks are probably undetected. Is it important to detect outbreaks, and if so how is surveillance best undertaken? Nurseries and schools would need to be encouraged to report outbreaks, followed up by throat swab or rapid diagnosis streptococcal antigen test. This test has not proved popular in the UK due to a low level of sensitivity.21 Either test would entail additional time and costs. Increasing the detection of sporadic cases would require increased testing of children with a rash and compatible illness by GPs. This would be more likely to happen if a significant rheumatic fever risk could be demonstrated.

The question remains, how aggressive should CCDCs be in attempting to curtail an outbreak of scarlet fever in an enclosed setting, bearing in mind the potential for invasive disease and long term sequelae? Evidence based guidance to support decision making and intervention would be helpful. Current guidance relates to the management of close community contacts of invasive disease22 and not to outbreaks of pharyngitis or scarlet fever. Guidance would need to consider whether swabbing and treatment of contacts, or prophylaxis of contacts, has a role to play, and whether 24 h exclusion of young children is sufficient. It would also need to consider antibiotic policy taking compliance and completion rates into consideration. Penicillin is dispensed as a 5-day course of suspension and parents need to attend a pharmacy twice as a 10-day course of antibiotics is recommended. Low compliance or completion may lead to prolonged transmission in the short term and an increased incidence of rheumatic fever in the longer term.

One of the problems attempting to synthesise available evidence is that much comes from the 1950s and 1960s when sequelae of GABHS in developed countries were more common than they are today. Nevertheless, collation of current knowledge of the biology of GABHS, complication rates and the behaviour of carriage could form an initial evidence base for outbreak control interventions.

Outbreaks of scarlet fever will continue to occur and may be prolonged. Although illness is generally mild, there is concern about sequelae and outbreaks generate anxiety among parents. CCDCs, GPs, teachers and parents would all benefit from a standardised and evidence based approach to control.