PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11096490

Rheumatic Fever.

Abstract

There have been numerous reports stating that treatment of acute rheumatic fever with either aspirin or corticosteroids does not alter the long-term outcome of rheumatic heart disease. Yet, it should be emphasized that most of these studies were carried out with the first generic corticosteroids before the advent of the more active and more potent corticosteroid agents. In spite of this caveat, there is no question that all the clinical and laboratory parameters of inflammation (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein) return to normal much more rapidly with corticosteroids than with aspirin alone. It is therefore our belief that steroids should be used when clinical and laboratory evidence of carditis exists, and aspirin should be reserved for cases of acute rheumatic arthritis with no evidence of carditis. The incidence of long-term valvular disease in active carditis may be decreased with steroid therapy. For example, the number of valve replacements differs markedly in centers that do use steroids and in those that do not. In Capetown, South Africa, where steroids are routinely used for carditis, valve replacement is quite rare. In contrast, in Johannesburg, where steroids are rarely used, the rate of valve replacement is quite high. The racial backgrounds of both groups of patients are similar, thus eliminating the question of racial differences. Concerning secondary prophylaxis, there is also controversy concerning the best second-line therapy. It is now well known that monthly intramuscular injections of benzathine penicillin are really effective for only 20 days. Thus, there is a window in which penicillin coverage is not adequate. To circumvent this problem, some investigators give benzathine penicillin every 3 weeks. These injections are quite painful, however, and it has been our "rule" that compliance with this treatment is inversely proportional to the ratio of the size of the child to the mother. In our own experience over 30 years with the follow-up of more than 300 patients with acute rheumatic fever, careful discussion of the consequences of missing oral doses has been adequate to insure proper compliance. An analysis of our patients on oral penicillin prophylaxis compared with other groups using benzathine penicillin revealed that there was very little difference in recurrence rate.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K Visvanathan, RC Manjarez, JB Zabriskie. 1999. Rheumatic Fever.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-999-0041-5

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗