Rheumatic Fever Guideline 1

New Zealand
[ Guidelines ] for
Evidence-based, best practice New Zealand Guidelines for Rheumatic Fever
Rheumatic Fever
1. Diagnosis, Management
and Secondary Prevention
Evidence-based, best practice

Guidelines on:
1. Diagnosis, Management and
Secondary Prevention
2. Sore Throat Management
3. Proposed Rheumatic Fever
Primary Prevention Programme
NHF0239 80pp Cover 4C.indd 2 21/6/06 12:12:39

Endorsed by:
NHF0239 80pp Cover 4C.indd 3-4 21/6/06 12:34:58

Table of Contents
1. Scope and Purpose of Guideline 5

2. About the Guideline 5
Disclaimer 5
Outline of grading methodology used 6
Endorsing organisations 6
Organisations consulted 6
New Zealand guidelines: Writing group 7
Other reviewers and contributors 8
Secreteriat support 8
3. Introduction 9
Key points 9
Pathogenesis 9
Epidemiology 9
Cost to New Zealand 11
Population projections 11
Prevention of ARF and RHD 11
DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT 13

4. Diagnosis of Acute Rheumatic Fever 14
Importance of accurate diagnosis 14
Current approaches to diagnosis 14
Clinical features of acute rheumatic fever - major manifestations 16
Clinical features of acute rheumatic fever - minor manifestations 18
Evidence of a preceding group A streptococcal infection 19
Other less common clinical features 19
Echocardiography 19
Differential diagnosis 22
Investigations 23
5. Management of ARF 24
Observation and general hospital care 28
Discharge 29
SECONDARY PREVENTION 31
6. Prophylaxis Regimes 32
Penicillin 32
Dose 32
Frequency 32
Secondary prophylaxis while breast feeding, in pregnancy and while on oral contraceptives 33
Secondary prophylaxis in anti-coagulated cases 34
7. Duration of Secondary Prophylaxis 34
8. Protocol for Secondary Prophylaxis Delivery 36
9. Anaphylaxis 37
10. Improving Adherence to Secondary Prophylaxis 37
Reducing the pain of BPG injections 37
Education 38
ARF Registers 38
Key data elements of ARF/RHD registers 40
Outreach and out-of-town 42
Non-compliance 42
11. Routine Review and Structured Care Planning 43
NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 2 21/6/06 12:11:52

1
Evidence-based, best practice

New Zealand Guidelines for Rheumatic Fever
1. DIAGNOSIS, MANAGEMENT
AND SECONDARY PREVENTION
He korokoro ora he manawa ora,

Mo tatou katoa
( A healthy throat, a healthy heart for us all)
JUNE 2006

Process CyanProcess
CyanProcess MagentaProcess
MagentaProcess YellowProcess
YellowProcess BlackPANTONE
BlackPANTONE 186 CVC
3
12. Prevention of Infective Endocarditis 44

13. Case Finding: Surveillance and Screening 44
Surveillance 44
Screening for rheumatic heart disease 45
Suggested indicators for evaluation 46
14. Implementation 47
15. Algorithms 50
Algorithm 1. Guide for the diagnosis of ARF 50
Algorithm 2. Guide for the use of echocardiography in ARF 52
Algorithm 3. Guide for the duration of secondary prophylaxis 53
16. References 54
17. Appendices 63
Appendix A: Guideline development process 63
Appendix B: Jones criteria for the diagnosis of ARF 64
Appendix C: Use of echocardiography in ARF 66
Appendix D: Medications used in ARF 68
Appendix E: Comparison of intramuscular penicillin and oral penicillin for secondary prevention 70
Appendix F: Anaphylaxis recognition and management 71
Appendix G: Protocol for follow-up of non-compliant cases 72
Appendix H: Wallet card for infective endocarditis prevention 73
18. Glossary 74
19. Notes 75

List of Tables
Table 1. Levels of evidence for clinical interventions and grades of recommendation 6

Table 2. New Zealand guidelines for the diagnosis of ARF 15
Table 3. Major manifestations of ARF 16
Table 4. Minor manifestations of ARF 18
Table 5. Upper limits of normal for serum streptococcal antibody titres used in New Zealand for ARF diagnosis 19
Table 6. Minimal echocardiographic criteria to allow a diagnosis of pathological valvular regurgitation 20
Table 7. Severity of ARF carditis 21
Table 8. Differential diagnoses of common major manifestations of ARF 22
Table 9. Investigations in suspected ARF 23
Table 10. Priorities in managing acute rheumatic fever 24
Table 11. Guidelines for general in-hospital care 28
Table 12. Recommended antibiotic regimens for secondary prevention of acute rheumatic fever/rheumatic heart disease 33
Table 13. New Zealand recommendations for the duration of secondary prophylaxis 34
Table 14. Suggested protocol for the delivery of secondary prophylaxis by community nurses 36
Table 15. Measures that may reduce the pain of benzathine penicillin G injections 37
Table 16. Primary aims of ARF register systems 39
Table 17. Recommended elements of register-based control programme 39
Table 18. Dataset for acute rheumatic fever register 40
Table 19. Recommended routine review and management plan for ARF and RHD 43
Table 20. Recommended elements of a screening programme in New Zealand 45
Table 21. Proposed indicators for evaluating ARF/RHD control programmes 46
Table 22. Uses of echocardiography in ARF 66
Table 23. Diagnostic and clinical utility of subclinical rheumatic valve damage in ARF 67
Table 24. Medications used in ARF 68
Table 25. Recommended dose of adrenaline in anaphylaxis 71

5

[ 1. Scope and Purpose of Guideline]
This guideline has been developed by The National Heart Foundation of New Zealand and the Cardiac Society of Australia and
New Zealand. This guideline will be complemented by further guidelines on appropriate sore throat management and primary
prevention of acute rheumatic fever (ARF).
The objectives of this guideline are:

• to identify and present the evidence for best practice in ARF diagnosis
• to identify the standard of care that should be available to all people in New Zealand
• to identify areas where current management strategies may not be in line with available evidence
• to ensure that high-risk populations receive the same standard of care as that available to other
New Zealanders.

[ 2. About the Guideline]
This guideline was developed by a writing group comprised of experts in rheumatic fever. Selected individuals with experience in ARF
and relevant stakeholders were also involved. These included a range of general and specialist clinicians, allied health professionals,
Ma-ori and Pacifi c professionals, and lay representative groups.
This guideline has been produced for New Zealand and is endorsed by New Zealand organisations.
The chairs of the guideline writing committee were involved in the development of a similar document for the Australian population, with
the understanding that the Australian guidelines would be adapted for the New Zealand setting. We are grateful for the contribution
of our Australian colleagues.
The development process is described in Appendix A.
Disclaimer
This document has been produced by The National Heart Foundation of New Zealand and the Cardiac Society of Australia and
New Zealand for health professionals. The statements and recommendations it contains are, unless labelled as “expert opinion”,
based on independent review of the available evidence. Interpretation of this document by those without appropriate health training
is not recommended, other than at the request of, or in consultation with, a relevant health professional.
In addition, the recommendations in this guideline are not intended to replace clinical judgment of each individual case. Treatment
should take into account comorbidities, drug tolerance, lifestyle, living circumstances, cultural sensibilities and wishes. When
prescribing medication, clinicians should observe usual contra-indications, be mindful of potential adverse drug interactions and
allergies, monitor responses and ensure regular review.

Outline of grading methodology used

The review includes levels of evidence and accompanying grades of recommendation (Table 1).
Table 1. Levels of Evidence for Clinical Interventions and Grades of Recommendation
Level of
Study Design Grade of Recommendation
Evidence
I Evidence obtained from a systematic review of all relevant A

Rich body of high-quality
randomised controlled trials (RCT) RCT data
II Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed B

randomised controlled trial
Limited body of RCT data
III-I Evidence obtained from well-designed pseudo- or high-quality non-RCT
B
randomised controlled trials (alternate allocation data
or some other method)
No evidence available
— panel consensus judgment
III-2 Evidence obtained from comparative studies with B
concurrent controls and allocation not randomised (cohort
studies), case-control studies, or interrupted time series
with a control group
III-3 Evidence obtained from comparative studies with historical C

control, 2 or more single-arm studies, or interrupted time
series with a parallel control group
IV Evidence obtained from case series, either post-test or C

pre-test and post-test
Insufficient evidence available – expert opinion or D/I

panel consensus judgment
Note: The levels of evidence and grades of recommendations are adapted from the National Heart Foundation of Australia Rheumatic Fever
guidelines. (Details can be found at www.nhf.com.au)
Endorsing organisations
• The Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand
• The National Heart Foundation of New Zealand, along with:
• Te Hotu Manawa Ma-ori
• Pacific Islands Heartbeat
• Paediatric Society of New Zealand
• The Rheumatic Fever Trust.
Organisations consulted
• Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases
• Australasian Faculty of Public Health Medicine
• National Heart Foundation of Australia
• New Zealand Nurses Organisation
• New Zealand Ministry of Health
• Pasifika Medical Association of New Zealand
• Royal Australasian College of Physicians
• Te Ohu Rata o Aotearoa - Ma-ori Medical Practitioners Association.

7
New Zealand guidelines: Writing group
Professor Diana Lennon (Co-chair)

Professor of Population Child & Youth Health, University of Auckland
Dr Nigel Wilson (Co-chair)

Paediatric Cardiologist, Starship Children’s Hospital
Dr Polly Atatoa-Carr
Public Health Medicine Registrar
Dr Bruce Arroll
Associate Professor of General Practice, University of Auckland
Ms Elizabeth Farrell
Public Health Nurse, Counties Manukau District Health Board
Dr Jonathan Jarman
Medical Offi cer of Health, Northland District Health Board
Dr Melissa Kerdemelidis
Rheumatic Fever Trust Research Fellow
Mr Henare Mason
Project Manager, Counties Manukau District Health Board
Dr Johan Morreau
Paediatrician, Rotorua Hospital
Dr Ross Nicholson
Paediatrician, KidzFirst Hospital, Middlemore Hospital
Dr Briar Peat
Senior Lecturer in General Medicine, University of Auckland
Ms Heather Spinetto
Specialist Cardiac Nurse, Starship Children’s Hospital
Dr Lesley Voss
Paediatrician in Infectious Diseases, Starship Children’s Hospital.

Other Reviewers and Contributors

Dr Rohan Ameratunga Ms Erica Amon Dr Jeremy Armishaw Ms Catherine Atkinson
Dr Anita Bell Dr Catherine Bremner Ms Josephine Cottrell Professor Bart Currie
Dr Alan Farrell Dr Tom Gentles Dr David Graham Ms Michelle Hooker
Dr David Jamison Professor Edward Kaplan Dr Andrew Kerr Ms Tracey Kunac
Dr Graeme Lear Ms Lindsay Lowe Ms Maoitele Lowen Mr John Kristiansen
Dr Chris Mansell Dr Fraser Maxwell Dr Malcolm McDonald Dr Margot McLean
Ms Andrea Mockford Dr Philip Moore Dr Chris Moyes Ms Martha Ngawaka
Ms Maureen O’Halloran Dr Teuila Percival Dr Neil Poskitt Ms Kathy Rennie
Dr Jan Sinclair Dr Warren Smith Ms Renee Streatfield Dr Richard Talbot
Dr Craig Thornley Ms Lupe Toilolo Dr Wendy Walker Ms Joanna Williams
Dr Elizabeth Wilson Ms Isabelle Teokotai White
Auckland District Nursing Group.
Secretariat Support
Mrs Shaelynn Schaumkel.
Australian Guidelines Writing Group

Dr Alex Brown; Associate Professor Jonathan Carapetis (Chair); Dr Keith Edwards; Dr Clive Hadfield; Professor Diana Lennon; Ms
Lynette Purton; Dr Andrew Tonkin; Dr Warren Walsh; Dr Gavin Wheaton and Dr Nigel Wilson.
Australian Guidelines reviewers and contributors

Dr Leslie E Bolitho; Dr Andrew Boyden; Dr Christian Brizard; Dr Richard Chard; Ms Eleanor Clune; Dr Arthur Coverdale; Dr Sophie
Couzos; Professor Bart Currie; Dr James Edward; Dr Tom Gentles; Professor Marcia George; Dr Jeffery Hanna; Dr Noel Hayman;
Dr Ana Herceg; Dr Marcus Ilton; Dr Jennifer Johns; Dr John Knight; Dr John McBride; Dr Malcolm McDonald; Dr Johan Morreau;
Dr Michael Nicholson; Dr Ross Nicholson; Ms Sara Noonan; Dr Briar Peat; Dr Peter Pohlner; Dr Jim Ramsey; Dr Jenny Reath;
Ms Emma Rooney; Dr Warren Smith; Dr Lesley Voss; Dr Mark Wenitong; Mr Chris Wilson; Dr Elizabeth Wilson and Dr Keith Wollard.
Declaration
No conflicts of interest were involved in the development of this guideline. Dr Polly Atatoa-Carr who coordinated the writing of this
guideline was funded by The National Heart Foundation of New Zealand and the Australasian Faculty of Public Health Medicine.

9

[ 3. Introduction]
Key points
Key points
•• Acute
Acute rheumatic
rheumatic fever,
fever, an
an auto-immune
auto-immune response
responsetotogroup
groupAAstreptococcus
streptococcus infection of of
infection thethe
upper respiratory
upper tract,
respiratory tract,
may result in damage to the mitral and/or aortic valves and therefore rheumatic heart disease.
may result in damage to the mitral and/or aortic valves and therefore rheumatic heart disease. Recurrences are Recurrences are likely
likely
ininthe
theabsence
absenceof ofpreventative
preventativemeasures
measuresand andmay
maycause
causefurther
furthercardiac
cardiacvalve valvedamage
damage
•• Although
Although acute
acute rheumatic
rheumatic fever
fever is
is rare
rare ininindustrialised
industrialisedcountries,
countries,it itis isa signifi cant
a signifi cause
cant causeof disease
of diseaseamong Ma-ori
among Ma-ori
and Pacifi c children in New Zealand. The incidence of rheumatic heart disease
and Pacific children in New Zealand. The incidence of rheumatic heart disease is also high among these is also high among these
populations,with
populations, withsignifi
significant
cantrates
ratesof ofprocedures
proceduresand anddeath
deathamong
amongyoung
youngadultsadults
•• Appropriate
Appropriate treatment
treatment ofof sore
sore throats
throats in in high
highrisk
riskpopulations
populationswill
willeliminate
eliminate group A streptococcus
group A streptococcus in most cases,
in most cases,
and prevent individual cases of acute rheumatic
and prevent individual cases of acute rheumatic fever fever
•• Prevention
Preventionofofrecurrences,
recurrences,and
andtherefore
thereforerheumatic
rheumaticheart
heartdisease
diseaseprevention,
prevention,with
withintramuscular
intramuscularpenicillin
penicillinisisboth
both
effective and highly cost-effective.
effective and highly cost-effective.
Acute rheumatic fever (ARF) is an auto-immune consequence of infection with the bacterium group A streptococcus (GAS). It causes
an acute generalised infl ammatory response and an illness that affects only certain parts of the body, mainly the heart, joints, brain
and skin. Individuals with ARF are often severely unwell, in great pain and require hospitalisation. Despite the dramatic nature of the
acute episode, ARF leaves no lasting damage to the brain, joints or skin.1
However, the damage to the heart, or more specifi cally the mitral and/or aortic valves, may remain once the acute episode has
resolved. This is known as rheumatic heart disease (RHD). People who have had ARF previously are much more likely than the wider
community to have subsequent episodes.2 These recurrences of ARF may cause further cardiac valve damage. Hence RHD steadily
worsens in people who have multiple episodes of ARF.
Because of its high prevalence in developing countries, RHD is the most common form of paediatric heart disease in the world. In
many countries it is the most common cause of cardiac mortality in children and adults aged less than 40 years.3
Pathogenesis
ARF has been shown to develop in approximately one to three percent of those in an epidemic situation of untreated exudative
pharyngitis and/or a culture positive for GAS. Despite the high incidence in some ethnic groups (such as Ma-ori and Pacifi c people in
New Zealand), a genetic predisposition to ARF remains unproven.1 Some strains of GAS have been repeatedly identifi ed as causative
in ARF (and therefore labelled “rheumatogenic”) and other rheumatogenic strains continue to appear. The role of skin infections
remains uncertain.4,5
Following GAS infection, there is a latent period averaging three weeks before the symptoms of ARF begin. By the time the symptoms
develop, the infecting strain of GAS has usually been eradicated by the host immune response.
Epidemiology
The burden of ARF in industrialised countries declined dramatically during the 20th Century, due mainly to improvements in living
standards (and hence reduced transmission of GAS) and better availability of medical care.6,7 In most affl uent populations ARF is now
rare. RHD is also rare in younger people in industrialised countries, although it is still seen in some elderly patients, a legacy of ARF
half a century earlier.
By contrast, ARF and RHD remain common in many developing countries. A recent review of the global burden of GAS-related
disease estimated that there is a minimum of 15.6 million people with RHD, another 1.9 million with a history of ARF but no carditis
who still require preventive treatment, 470,000 new cases of ARF each year and over 230,000 deaths due to RHD annually.8 Almost all
cases and deaths occur in developing countries. These fi gures are all likely to be underestimates of the true burden of the disease.

10
There is substantial regional variation in the burden of ARF and RHD. The highest documented rates in the world have been found
in Ma-ori and Pacific people in New Zealand, Aboriginal Australians and those in Pacific Island nations.9,10,11 The prevalence of RHD is
also high in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East and Northern Africa.8
New Zealand has had sustained high rates of ARF and RHD for many decades with RHD being a significant cause of premature death
in this country.12,13,14 A number of surveys of ARF and RHD incidence have been conducted since the early 1900s in New Zealand. In
the 1920s, surveys of school records in New Zealand determined an approximate annual total population incidence of ARF of 65 per
100,000.9 From 1956 to 1973, the Wairoa College Study determined that the decline in incidence of ARF seen in other developed
countries was not evident in New Zealand and those pockets of the country which experienced isolation and socio-economic
deprivation had significantly higher rates of both ARF and RHD.15
From 1995 to 2000, around 100 cases of ARF were notified annually in New Zealand, with an incidence of 13.8 per 100,000
population in 5 to 14 year olds.14 From 1993 to 1999, the Auckland Register recorded an incidence of 21.9 per 100,000 population
in 5 to 14 year olds. Auckland accounts for 60% of the active cases on New Zealand registers.16,17
ARF is predominantly a disease of children aged between 5 to 14 years, with a peak at around eight years. It is rare to diagnose ARF
under the age of three (before full maturation of the immune system).18,19 As RHD represents the cumulative heart damage of previous
ARF episodes, the prevalence of RHD peaks in the third and fourth decades of life.20,21 Therefore, although ARF is a disease with its
roots in childhood, its effects are felt throughout adulthood, especially in the young adult years when people might otherwise be at
their most productive.
The disparity of ethnicity in rheumatic fever populations has been described in many world centers where population groups
experiencing low socio-economic status and living in overcrowded situations present with a high incidence of ARF.19 In New Zealand,
Ma-ori and Pacific peoples have the highest burden of both ARF and RHD. Despite the significant issues regarding the accuracy of
ethnicity data in past morbidity and mortality statistics, the rates of ARF in Ma-ori have always been reported as significantly greater
than those seen in non-Ma-ori. For example, from 1949 to 1953 the reported incidence of ARF in Ma-ori children (rates of greater
than 1000 per 100,000) was 11 times that of the non-Ma-ori population.9 The age-specific annual notification rates for ARF between
1990 to 1995 for children aged 10 to 14 years was 77.7 per 100,000 for Pacific children, 30.4 per 100,000 for Ma-ori children and
1 per 100,000 for European children.14 Auckland also displays this pattern: the annual incidence of ARF in 5 to 14 year old Ma-ori
children from 1993 to 1999 was 41.2 per 100,000 population, Pacific children 83.7 per 100,000 population/year and the rest of the
population 1.4 per 100,000 population/year.21 Depending on the year analysed, the Pacific hospitalisation rates are at least nine times
that of Europeans/others. The Ma-ori hospitalisation rate is just over five times that of Europeans/others.23
As well as higher rates of initial ARF incidence, Ma-ori and Pacific people also have the highest rates of ARF recurrence. From
1973 to 1982 (prior to the introduction of systematic prophylaxis delivery) recurrence rates in Ma-ori were 40% compared to 22% in
non-Ma-ori.24 A review of cases in the Auckland rheumatic fever register from 1993 to 1999 found that although the total recurrence
rates had dropped significantly from the 1980s (22% to 5.5%), all of the recurrences found were in Ma-ori and Pacific people.16,17 It is
therefore not surprising that Ma-ori and Pacific people have much higher rates of carditis, RHD and consequent heart failure, as the
risk of these complications increases with each attack of ARF.
It has not been proven that Ma-ori and Pacific people have increased genetic susceptibility to rheumatic fever. It is more likely that the
over-representation of these sectors of the population reflects a combination of overcrowded conditions, socio-economic deprivation,
an increased incidence of upper respiratory infections with GAS, and different treatment options or opportunities for appropriate and
effective health care.11,19,22

11
Cost to New Zealand

There are signifi cant personal, community and national costs associated with ARF and RHD. These result from repeated and
prolonged hospitalisation, the resources required for medical prophylaxis and treatment, surgical intervention, negative physical
and psychological experience, disruption of the lives of cases and their families and often premature death.25 In 1991, it was
estimated that the total cost of ARF and RHD to the Auckland health service alone was $3.6 million, with chronic RHD accounting for
71% of the costs. Costs involved were the direct costs of GP and outpatient visits, prescription charges, travel, radiology and the
costs of informal care given by household members.20 In addition to these direct costs, there are a number of indirect costs of ARF
and RHD, which are often diffi cult to measure. These include not only the loss of quantity of life (it has been estimated that fi ve to ten
young people die each year as a direct result of ARF or RHD), but also the loss of quality of life. This occurs through time away from
education and occupation, impacts on physical development and family relationships, psychological effects and the loss of ability for
children and young adults to realise their full potential.12,20
Population projections
Currently Ma-ori and Pacifi c people in New Zealand make up a sizeable percentage of the childhood population. In 2001, approximately
37% of Ma-ori and 40% of Pacifi c people in New Zealand were under the age of 15 (compared to 23% European). The median age of
Europeans was 36.8 years, while for the Ma-ori and Pacifi c ethnic groups the comparable fi gures were 21.9 and 21.0 years respectively.26
It is reasonable to predict that the New Zealand population in the future will represent high growth and a sustained youthful age
structure in the Ma-ori and Pacifi c populations with many (particularly children) living in poor socio-economic circumstance.26 All these
features have signifi cant implications for ARF incidence, prevalence and prevention.
Prevention of ARF and RHD

Primary prevention
In the future, a cost-effective vaccine for group A streptococci may be the ideal solution for the primary prevention of ARF.27,28
Scientifi c problems have so far prevented the development of such a vaccine,28 and currently prevention of an initial attack of ARF
requires the prompt and accurate diagnosis and adequate antibiotic treatment of GAS throat infections.28,29,30 ARF can be prevented if
the preceding throat infection is treated in a timely and effective way.3,31,32 Recommended treatment of streptococcal throat infection is
intramuscular (IM) benzathine penicillin or a ten-day course of oral phenoxymethyl penicillin, both of which eradicate the streptococci
from the pharynx. The oral treatment is often used because it is safe, inexpensive and less painful.
Secondary prevention
Over the last 30 years one of the major successes in ARF management has been the marked decline in recurrent (and often disabling)
attacks of rheumatic fever, due to the availability of effective antibiotics for secondary prophylaxis.32 Secondary prevention of ARF is
defi ned as the continuous administration of antibiotics (usually parenteral benzathine penicillin every 28 days) to cases with previous
ARF or well-documented RHD.28 The aim of secondary prevention is to stop recolonisation or reinfection of the throat with group A
streptococci and thereby preventing recurrence of ARF.3 The risk of ARF after the fi rst attack of group A streptoccoci is approximately
0.3-3%, but with subsequent infection this risk rises to 25-75%.2 In addition, those who suffer carditis during their initial attack are
signifi cantly more likely to develop further carditis with subsequent streptococcal throat infections.33 The systematic use of regular
antibiotic prophylaxis in known ARF cases has been shown to reduce the incidence of recurrent rheumatic fever, reduce the need for
hospitalisation and surgery, decrease the rapidity and severity of RHD and improve quality of life.28,34 Furthermore, national prevention
programmes based on secondary prevention have the potential for considerable cost savings, and have been found to be a cost-
effective method of reducing mortality and morbidity from ARF internationally and in New Zealand.20,22,28,35

12

13
[ Diagnosis and
Management ]

14
[ 4. Diagnosis of Acute Rheumatic Fever (ARF)]

Importance of accurate diagnosis
It is important that an accurate diagnosis of ARF is made as:
• over-diagnosis will result in the individual receiving benzathine penicillin G (BPG) injections unnecessarily
every four weeks for a minimum of ten years
• under-diagnosis of ARF may lead to the individual suffering a further attack of ARF, cardiac damage and
premature death.
The diagnosis of ARF relies on health professionals being aware of the diagnostic features, particularly when presentation is delayed
or atypical. In Auckland for example, between 1993 and 1999, four patients diagnosed with septic arthritis by general medicine and
orthopaedic physicians, subsequently developed acute rheumatic fever.16,17
Currently, there is no laboratory test diagnostic for ARF, so diagnosis remains a clinical decision. The pre-test probability for diagnosis
of ARF varies according to location and ethnicity. For example, in a region with high incidence of ARF (such as the Northern half of
the North Island), a person with fever and arthritis is more likely to have ARF than one in a low incidence region (such as the South
Island). Ma-ori and Pacific people are also more likely than non-Ma-ori and Pacific people to have ARF.
Current approaches to diagnosis

The Jones criteria for the diagnosis of ARF were introduced in 1944.36 The criteria divide the clinical features of ARF into major and
minor manifestations, based on their prevalence and specificity. Major manifestations are those that make the diagnosis more likely,
whereas minor manifestations are considered to be suggestive, but insufficient on their own, for a diagnosis of ARF. The exception
to this is in the diagnosis of recurrent ARF.
The Jones criteria have been periodically modified and updated. The 1992 update is currently the most widely used and quoted
version.37
There are important circumstances where ARF can be diagnosed without strictly adhering to the Jones criteria and these include:
• chorea as the only manifestation of ARF
• indolent carditis (carditis of insidious onset and slow progression) as the only manifestation of ARF.37
Both these types of patients may have insufficient supporting historical, clinical or laboratory findings to fulfil the Jones criteria.
The 1992 Jones criteria are intended only for the initial attack of ARF. Further discussion of the Jones criteria can be found in
Appendix B.
Each change to the Jones criteria was made to improve specificity at the expense of sensitivity, largely in response to the falling incidence
of ARF in America. As a result, the criteria may not be sensitive enough to pick up disease in high incidence populations, such as
Ma-ori and Pacific people. In such populations, the consequences of under-diagnosis are likely to be greater than those of over-diagnosis.
All cases of suspected ARF should be judged against the most recent version of the Jones criteria, but the criteria need not be rigidly
adhered to when ARF is the most likely diagnosis.
An expert group convened by the World Health Organisation (WHO) has recently provided additional guidelines as to how the Jones
criteria should be applied in primary and recurrent episodes.38

The main modification made to the Jones 1992 criteria for these New Zealand guidelines is the acceptance of
echocardiographic evidence of carditis as a major manifestation. In addition there is greater emphasis that monoarthritis
may be a presenting feature if there is a history of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use that is likely to have
aborted classical ARF migratory polyarthritis.

15
Categories of defi nite, probable and possible ARF can be determined by the application of the New Zealand criteria to each case
(Table 2).
Table 2. New Zealand Guidelines for the Diagnosis of ARF
DIAGNOSTIC REQuIREMENTS CATEGORY
Initial episode of ARF 2 major or 1 major and 2 minor manifestations Defi nite ARF
plus
evidence of a preceding GAS infection*
Initial episode of ARF 1 major and 2 minor with the inclusion of evidence of Probable ARF
a preceding GAS infection* as a minor manifestation
(Jones, 1956) 39
Initial episode of ARF Strong clinical suspicion of ARF, but insuffi cient signs and Possible ARF
symptoms to fulfi l diagnosis of defi nite or probable ARF
Recurrent attack of ARF 2 major or 1 major and 2 minor or several** minor

in a case with known plus
past ARF or RHD evidence of a preceding GAS infection* (Jones, 1992) 37
Major manifestations modifi ed*** Carditis (including evidence of subclinical rheumatic valve disease
from Jones 1992 on echocardiogram) #
(see Table 3 for key points in Polyarthritis§ (or aseptic monoarthritis with history of NSAID use)
identifying major manifestations) Chorea (can be stand-alone for ARF diagnosis)
Erythema marginatum
Subcutaneous nodules
Minor manifestations Fever

(see Table 4 for key points in Raised ESR or CRP
identifying minor manifestations) Polyarthralgia§
Prolonged P-R interval on ECG.
All categories assume that other more likely diagnoses have been excluded. Please see additional tables for details about specific manifestations.
CRP = C-reactive protein; ECG = electrocardiogram; ESR = erythrocyte sedimentation rate; GAS = group A streptococcus; RHD = rheumatic heart
disease
* Elevated or rising antistreptolysin O or other streptococcal antibody (Table 5), is sufficient for a diagnosis of definite ARF. A positive throat
culture or rapid antigen test for GAS alone is less secure as 50% of those with a positive throat culture will be carriers only. Therefore, a positive
culture alone demotes a case to probable or possible ARF
** Most cases of recurrence fulfil the Jones criteria. However in some cases (such as new carditis on previous RHD) it may not be clear.
Therefore in order to avoid under-diagnosis, a presumptive diagnosis of rheumatic recurrence may be made where there are several minor
manifestations and evidence of a preceding GAS infection in a person with a reliable history of previous ARF or established RHD. In addition,
WHO (2004) recommendations state that where there is established RHD, a recurrent attack can be diagnosed by the presence of two minor
manifestations plus evidence of a preceding group A streptococcal infection28
*** Acceptance of echocardiographic evidence of carditis as a major criterion is a modification to the Jones (1992) update
# When carditis is present as a major manifestation (clinical and/or echocardiographic), a prolonged P-R interval cannot be considered an
additional minor manifestation in the same person
§ Other causes of arthritis/arthralgia should be carefully excluded, particularly in the case of monoarthritis e.g. septic arthritis
(including disseminated gonococcal infection), infective or reactive arthritis and auto-immune arthropathy (e.g. juvenile
chronic arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, systemic vasculitis and sarcoidosis. Note that if
polyarthritis is present as a major manifestation, polyarthralgia cannot be considered an additional minor manifestation in the
same person.
Special consideration should be given to high-risk population groups such as Ma-ori and Pacific people, and those residing in poor socio-economic
circumstances. In these cases, it may be important to err on the side of diagnosis and prophylaxis.

16
Patients who do not fulfil these criteria, but in whom the clinician remains suspicious that the diagnosis may be ARF, should be
maintained on oral penicillin and reviewed in two to four weeks with a repeat echocardiogram to detect the appearance of new
lesions.40,41 If there is evidence of rheumatic valve disease clinically or on echocardiogram, the diagnosis is confirmed and long-term
secondary prophylaxis can be commenced. If there is no evidence of carditis and no alternative diagnosis has been found then ARF
may be the diagnosis by exclusion. Those with epidemiological risk factors (Ma-ori, Pacific and low socio-economic status) should be
commenced on secondary prophylaxis with due consideration of an alternative diagnosis (such as rheumatological) and the need for
ongoing review.
Clinical features of acute rheumatic fever - major manifestations

The major manifestations of ARF and features for their diagnosis are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Major Manifestations of ARF
MAJOR
MANIFESTATION POINTS FOR DIAGNOSIS
Arthritis* • Most common presenting symptom of ARF (occurring in up to 75% of first attacks)
• Classified as swelling of the joint in the presence of two or more of the following:
limitation of movement, hotness of the joint and pain in the joint and/or tenderness.42 Typically, the arthritis of
ARF is extremely painful
• Large joints are usually affected, especially knees and ankles
• Polyarthritis is usually asymmetrical and migratory (one joint becoming inflamed as another subsides) but can be
additive (multiple joints progressively becoming inflamed without warning)
• Highly responsive to salicylate and NSAID therapy - usually responds within 3 days
• Monoarthritis may be a presenting feature if there is a history of NSAID use early in the course of the illness
(prematurely aborting the manifestation of polyarthritis).** This diagnosis is best made by a physician experienced
in ARF
• The diagnosis of arthritis of the hip is accepted by history of pain precluding weight bearing and/or limitation of
movement on examination
• In order to satisfy polyarthritis as a manifestation, at least one joint should have been observed in a clinical setting
accompanied by a definite history of arthritis in other joints (Grade D)
Carditis • Valvulitis usually presents clinically as an apical holosystolic murmur with or without a mid-diastolic flow murmur
(Carey-Coombs murmur) or an early diastolic murmur at the base of the heart (aortic regurgitation)
• Although pericarditis and myocarditis may occur, cardiac inflammation in ARF almost always affects the valves,
especially the mitral and aortic valves43,44
• Early disease leads to valvular regurgitation, whereas prolonged or recurrent disease may lead to increased
valvular regurgitation or stenotic lesions43
• The rheumatic aetiology can usually be confirmed by a typical appearance on echocardiography

(see Tables 6 and 7)
• In New Zealand, echocardiographic evidence of subclinical carditis can also be accepted as a major
manifestation
• Congestive heart failure in ARF results from valvular dysfunction secondary to valvulitis and is not due to primary
myocarditis45
• The natural history of valve regurgitation is a 25-50% improvement by one year46
• If pericarditis is present, the friction rub may obscure valvular murmurs.

17
MAJOR
MANIFESTATION POINTS FOR DIAGNOSIS
Sydenham’s chorea • Consists of jerky, uncoordinated movements, especially affecting the hands, feet, tongue and face. The
movements disappear during sleep. They may affect one side only (hemichorea)
• Useful signs include:47
• the “milkmaid’s grip” (rhythmic squeezing when the patient grasps the examiner’s fi ngers)
• “spooning” (fl exion of the wrists and extension of the fi ngers when the hands are extended)
• the “pronator sign” (turning outwards of the arms and palms when held above the head)
• inability to maintain protrusion of the tongue
• This manifestation affects females predominantly, particularly in adolescence48,49
• Chorea may occur after a prolonged latent period following GAS infection50,51,52 therefore no additional
manifestations (including raised antibody titres) are required in order to make a diagnosis of ARF
• Chorea has a strong association with carditis,*** hence echocardiography is essential for assessment of all
patients with chorea, regardless of the presence of cardiac murmurs (Level IV, Grade C). A fi nding of subclinical
carditis by echo will further support the diagnosis of chorea as a manifestation of ARF (Grade D). Even in
the absence of echocardiographic evidence of carditis, patients with chorea should be considered at risk of
subsequent cardiac damage.53 Therefore, they should all receive secondary prophylaxis, and be carefully
followed up for subsequent development of RHD
• Chorea is the ARF manifestation most likely to recur and is often associated with pregnancy or oral contraceptive
use. The vast majority of cases resolve within 6 months (usually within 6 weeks) although rare cases lasting as
long as 3 years have been documented47
Subcutaneous • Rare (less than 2% of cases) but highly specifi c manifestation of ARF54
nodules
• They are 0.5-2.0 cm in diameter, round, fi rm, freely mobile and painless nodules that occur in crops of up to 12
over the elbows, wrists, knees, ankles, Achilles tendon, occiput and posterior spinal processes of vertebrae
• Tend to appear 1-2 weeks after the onset of other symptoms, last only 1-2 weeks (rarely more than 1 month)
• Strongly associated with carditis
• Subcutaneous nodules are rarely seen as the sole major criterion in ARF and should be accompanied by
additional major criteria in order to make the diagnosis
Erythema • Rare as well as diffi cult to detect (especially in dark-skinned people)

marginatum
• Occurs as circular patterns of bright pink macules or papules that blanch under pressure and spread outwards
in a circular or serpiginous pattern on the trunk and proximal extremities (almost never on face). The rash may
be more apparent after showering
• Not itchy or painful and not affected by anti-infl ammatory medication
• May recur for weeks or months, despite resolution of the other features of ARF
• Erythema marginatum is rarely seen as the sole major criterion in ARF and should be accompanied by additional
major criteria in order to make the diagnosis.
* ARF should always be considered in the differential diagnosis of patients presenting with arthritis in high-risk populations. In the hospital
setting, physicians and surgeons should collaborate when the diagnosis of arthritis is unclear. Patients with sterile joint aspirates in the
absence of previous antibiotic exposure should never be treated speculatively for septic arthritis without further investigation, particularly in
areas with high ARF/RHD prevalence
** Note that in New Zealand, NSAIDs are now readily available over the counter and have therefore often been used prior to presentation
*** During recent outbreaks of ARF in the USA, up to 71% of patients with chorea had carditis.55 Even though clinically evident carditis
increases the risk of later development of RHD, prior to cardiac echocardiography approximately 25% of patients with “pure” chorea also
eventually developed RHD.53,56 This is explained by the finding that over 50% of patients with chorea, but without cardiac murmurs, have
echocardiographic evidence of mitral regurgitation.5

18
Clinical features of acute rheumatic fever - minor manifestations

The minor manifestations of ARF and features for their diagnosis are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Minor Manifestations of ARF
MINOR POINTS FOR DIAGNOSIS

MANIFESTATION
Arthralgia • May suggest ARF if the arthralgia occurs in the same pattern as rheumatic polyarthritis (migratory, asymmetrical
and affecting large joints)
• If polyarthritis is present as a major manifestation, polyarthralgia cannot be considered an additional minor
manifestation in the same person
• Alternative diagnoses (as suggested in Table 8) should be considered in a patient with arthralgia that is not
typical of ARF
Fever • Most manifestations of ARF are accompanied by fever (with the exception of chorea)
• In New Zealand, an oral, tympanic or rectal temperature greater than or equal to 38°C on admission, or
documented during the current illness, should be considered as fever (Level IV, Grade C)
• Fever, like arthritis and arthralgia, is usually quickly responsive to salicylate/NSAID therapy
Elevated acute • In New Zealand, a serum CRP level of ≥30mg/L or ESR of ≥50mm/h meets this diagnostic criterion (Grade D)
phase reactants
• The ESR in ARF is typically >80mm/hr, usually remains elevated for >4 weeks, and may remain elevated for 3-6
months despite a much shorter duration of symptoms
• The serum CRP concentration rises more rapidly than the ESR and also falls more rapidly with resolution of
the attack
Prolonged P-R interval • An electrocardiogram (ECG) should be performed in all cases of suspected ARF (Level IV, Grade C)
• The P-R interval increases normally with age therefore needs to be age-adjusted. The following upper limits of
normal are used in New Zealand:*
• Age 3-12 years: 0.16 seconds

• Age 12-16 years: 0.18 seconds
• Age 17+ years: 0.20 seconds
• A prolonged P-R interval is occasionally a normal variant, but one that resolves over the ensuing days to weeks
may be a useful diagnostic feature of ARF in cases where the clinical features are not definitive.** In these
cases, a repeat ECG after 1-2 months may be useful
• Extreme first degree block sometimes leads to a junctional rhythm, usually with a heart rate similar to the sinus
rate
• Second degree, and even complete heart block, can occur and, if associated with a slow ventricular rate, may
give the false impression that carditis is not significant
• In the absence of clinical or echocardiographic carditis, a second or third degree block accompanied by other
manifestations of ARF is highly supportive of the diagnosis (Grade D)
• When carditis is present as a major manifestation (clinical and/or echocardiographic), prolonged P-R interval
cannot be considered an additional minor manifestation in the same person.
* Adapted from Park M K. 58 p42.
** In a recent resurgence of ARF in the USA, 32% of patients had abnormal AV conduction, usually a prolonged P-R interval. A small
proportion had more severe conduction abnormalities, which were sometimes found by auscultation or echocardiography in the
absence of evidence of valvulitis.57

19
Evidence of a preceding group A streptococcal infection

GAS are isolated from throat swabs in less than ten percent of ARF cases in New Zealand5 and less than fi ve percent of cases in
Aboriginal Australians.54 This latter fi gure may be a result of later presentation of ARF, as 28% of Aboriginal Australians have been found to
present as chorea59 compared to six percent of ARF cases in Auckland (1993-1999).22,23 A positive culture without supportive antibody
elevation may be carriage in up to 50% of cases.37 Streptococcal antibody titres are therefore crucial in confi rming the diagnosis. The
most commonly used tests are the plasma antistreptolysin O (ASO) and the antideoxyribonuclease B (anti-DNase B) titres. The serum
ASO titre reaches a maximum at about three to six weeks after infection and the serum anti-DNase B titre can take up to six to eight
weeks to reach a maximum.60 The rate of decline of these antibodies varies enormously, with the ASO titre starting to fall six to eight
weeks and the anti-DNase B titre three months after infection.61 In the absence of reinfection, the ASO titre usually approaches pre-
infection levels after six to 12 months, whereas the anti-DNase B titre tends to remain elevated for longer.62 The reference range for these
antibody titres varies with age and geographical location. In a population with a high rate of streptococcal infections, many children will
have high background streptococcal titres. The upper limit of normal approach attempts to determine a raised titre over and above
this background, and therefore select out those children who have had a recent streptococcal infection.63 In New Zealand, an ASO
titre of greater than or equal to 480 and/or an anti DNase B titre of greater than or equal to 680 is accepted as signifi cant (Grade D)
Table 5.
Table 5. Upper Limits of Normal for Serum Streptococcal Antibody Titres Used in New Zealand for ARF Diagnosis
ANTIBODY TEST TITRE (Iu/ML)
ASO (anti-streptolysin O) ≥480
Anti-DNase B ≥680
Established from residual sera from children (under 15 years) hospitalised in Auckland in 1982. Lower levels may be acceptable in the
very young or those over the age of 15 years. A two-tube (two-fold) rise or fall in antibody titres after 10 -14 days would also be diagnostic.
Note that evidence of a preceding GAS infection is not necessary for the diagnosis of chorea as ARF.
All cases of suspected ARF (chorea is an exception) should have elevated serum streptococcal serology demonstrated. If the initial
titre is below the upper limit of normal, testing should be repeated 10 to 14 days later (Grade D).
Other less common clinical features

These include epistaxis, abdominal pain, rheumatic pneumonia (pulmonary infi ltrates in patients with acute carditis), mild elevations of
plasma transaminase levels and microscopic haematuria, pyuria or proteinuria. None is specifi c for ARF but epistaxis and abdominal
pain occur commonly.
Echocardiography
Prior to the introduction of echocardiography, the diagnosis of rheumatic carditis relied on clinical evidence of valvulitis or
pericarditis, supported by radiographic evidence of cardiomegaly. Today, all patients with suspected or defi nite ARF should undergo
echocardiography, if possible, to identify evidence of carditis (Grade C).
In New Zealand, echocardiology facilities are readily available in the larger centers for populations at high-risk of ARF. The use of
echocardiography as a major criterion for ARF diagnosis requires expert interpretation adhering to echocardiographic diagnostic
standards. These standards concur with recent WHO echocardiographic criteria for ARF and are summarised in Table 6 (Level IV).
These criteria can readily distinguish a small colour jet of physiological regurgitation in a normal child from pathological regurgitation
in a child with RHD.

20
Table 6. Minimal Echocardiographic Criteria to Allow a Diagnosis of Pathological Valvular Regurgitation
AORTIC REGURGITATION
• Colour:
Substantial colour jet seen in 2 planes extending greater than or equal to 1 cm beyond the valve leaflets
• Continuous wave or pulsed Doppler:
Holodiastolic with well-defined high velocity spectral envelope
MITRAL REGURGITATION
• Colour:
Substantial colour jet seen in 2 planes extending greater than or equal to 2 cm beyond the valve leaflets
• Continuous wave or pulsed Doppler:
Holosystolic with well-defined high velocity spectral envelope
If the aetiology of aortic or mitral regurgitation on Doppler echocardiography is not clear, the following features support a diagnosis of
rheumatic valve damage:
• Both mitral and aortic valves have pathological regurgitation
• The mitral regurgitant jet is directed posteriorly, as anterior mitral valve prolapse is more common than posterior valve prolapse
• Multiple jets of mitral regurgitation
• The presence of morphological or anatomical changes consistent with RHD (see text), but excluding slight thickening of valve leaflets:
• Definite thickening of mitral valve leaflets, indicative of chronic RHD*
• Elbow or dog leg deformity** of anterior mitral valve leaflet.
Source: Adapted with permission from Wilson N J. & Neutze J M.65 These criteria further evolved as part of the development of the Australian guidelines
on rheumatic fever diagnosis and the WHO working groups on echocardiography.66
* Echocardiography allows the operator to comment on the appearance of valves that are affected by rheumatic inflammation. The degree
of thickening gives some insight into the duration of valvulitis, no significant thickening occurs in the first weeks of acute rheumatic carditis
(Level IV)
** Only after several months is immobility of the subchordal apparatus and posterior leaflet observed. Several other findings have also been
reported, including acute nodules, seen as a beaded appearance of the mitral valve leaflets.64 Although none of these morphological
features is unique to ARF, the experienced echocardiographic operator can use their presence as supportive evidence of a rheumatic
aetiology of valvulitis.
In New Zealand, ARF carditis is classified mild, moderate or severe (Table 7) and these categories are used to guide the duration of
secondary prophylaxis (see Section 7 and Table 13).

1
Table 7. Severity of ARF Carditis
MILD CARDITIS*
• Mild mitral or aortic regurgitation clinically and/or on echo (fulfi lling the minimal echo standards in Table 6) with no clinical evidence
of heart failure and no evidence of cardiac chamber enlargement on CXR, ECG or echocardiography
MODERATE CARDITIS
• Any valve lesion of moderate severity clinically (e.g. mild or moderate cardiomegaly), or
• Any echocardiographic evidence of cardiac chamber enlargement or
• Any moderate severity valve lesion on echo**
• Mitral regurgitation is considered moderate if there is a broad high-intensity proximal jet fi lling half the left atrium or a
lesser volume high-intensity jet producing prominent blunting of pulmonary venous infl ow41
• Aortic regurgitation is considered moderate if the diameter of the regurgitant jet is 15% to 30% of the diameter of the
left ventricular outfl ow tract with fl ow reversal in upper descending aorta41
SEVERE CARDITIS
• Any impending or previous cardiac surgery for RHD, or
• Any severe valve lesion clinically (signifi cant cardiomegaly expected, and/or heart failure), or
• Any severe valve lesion on echo:
• Abnormal regurgitant colour and Doppler fl ow patterns in pulmonary veins are a prerequisite for severe mitral
regurgitation41
• Doppler reversal in lower descending aorta is required for severe aortic regurgitation.41
* Valvular regurgitation is usually relatively mild in the absence of pre-existing disease; in first episodes of ARF, severe mitral and aortic
regurgitation occurred in less than 10% of patients in New Zealand41
** When there is both mitral and aortic regurgitation, one must be moderate by echo criteria in order for the carditis to be classified
of moderate severity.
Tricuspid and pulmonary regurgitation graded mild or greater may be seen in people with normal hearts who have fever, volume overload or pulmonary
hypertension. For this reason a diagnosis of carditis should not be based on right-side regurgitation alone. Although pulmonary and tricuspid
regurgitation are often seen in association with left-sided lesions in ARF, pressure and volume overload must be excluded before attributing even
moderate tricuspid regurgitation to valvulitis. If both left and right-sided lesions coexist in ARF carditis, then the predominant influence for diagnosis
is the severity of the left-sided lesion.
If valvulitis is not found at presentation, it may appear within two weeks,40 or occasionally within one month41 but no longer. Thus an
equivocal initial echocardiograph should be followed up in two to four weeks if the fi ndings would alter the diagnosis of ARF.
Usually it is not possible to confi dently distinguish between acute carditis and pre-existing rheumatic valve disease by echocardiography.
In a patient with known previous RHD, the diagnosis of acute carditis during a recurrence of ARF relies on accurate documentation
of the cardiac fi ndings before the recurrence, so that new clinical or echocardiographic features can be confi rmed. But, in a patient
with no prior history of ARF or RHD, it makes little difference whether echocardiographic changes are new or old.
Further details on the use of echo in ARF can be found in Appendix C.

22
Differential diagnosis
Many of the clinical features of ARF are non-specific, so a wide range of differential diagnoses should be considered as shown in
Table 8.32,67
Table 8. Differential Diagnoses of Common Major Manifestations of ARF
POLYARTHRITIS AND FEVER CARDITIS CHOREA
• Other infections*(including gonococcal) • Innocent murmur • Systemic lupus erythematosus
• Connective tissue and other auto-immune disease** • Mitral valve prolapse • Drug ingestion (extrapyramidal syndrome)#
• Reactive arthropathy • Congenital heart disease • Wilson’s disease (usually adult onset)
DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSES
• Sickle cell anaemia • Infective endocarditis • Tic disorder§
• Infective endocarditis • Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy • Congenital, e.g. hyperbilirubinaemia
• Leukaemia or lymphoma • Myocarditis — viral or idiopathic • Choreoathetoid cerebral palsy
• Gout and pseudogout • Pericarditis — viral or idiopathic • Encephalitis
• Henoch-Schonlein purpura • Familial chorea (including Huntington’s)
• Post-streptococcal reactive arthritis*** • Intracranial tumour
• Other, e.g. HIV/AIDS, leukaemia • Hormonal‡
• Metabolic, e.g. Lesch-Nyhan,

hyperalanaemia, ataxia, telangiectasia
• Antiphospholipid antibody
Source: Adapted from Lennon D. 2004,32 and Carapetis J et al. 2005.67
* Includes bacterial arthritis (e.g. Staphylococcus aureus, Neisseria gonorrhea), influenza b, cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr Virus, mycoplasma,
rubella (also post-vaccination), hepatitis B, parvovirus, Yersinia spp and other gastrointestinal pathogens
** Includes rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile chronic arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, systemic vasculitis,
sarcoidosis and others
*** Some patients present with arthritis not typical of ARF, but with evidence of recent streptococcal infection and are said to have post-
streptococcal reactive arthritis. In these cases the arthritis may affect joints that are not commonly affected in ARF (such as the small joints
of the hand), and is less responsive to anti-inflammatory treatment. These patients are said not to be at risk of carditis, and therefore do not
require secondary prophylaxis. However, some patients diagnosed with post-streptococcal reactive arthritis have developed later episodes
of ARF, indicating that the initial diagnosis should have been atypical ARF (Level IV)68,69
It is recommended that the diagnosis of post-streptococcal reactive arthritis should rarely, if ever, be made in high-risk populations, and
with caution in low-risk populations (Grade C). Patients so diagnosed should receive secondary prophylaxis for at least 5 years (Grade D).
Echocardiography (see algorithm 2) should be used to confirm the absence of valvular damage in all of these cases before discontinuing
secondary prophylaxis (Grade D)
# Drugs and toxins include anticonvulsants, antidepressants, lithium, scopolamine, calcium channel blockers, methylphenidate, theophylline
and antihistamines
§ Some cases of chorea are mild or atypical and may be confused with motor tics or the involuntary jerks of Tourette’s syndrome. There may
therefore be confusion between Sydenham’s chorea and these conditions. The term PANDAS (Pediatric Auto-immune Neuropsychiatric
Disorder Associated with Streptococcal infection) refers to a subgroup of children with tic or obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCD), whose
symptoms may develop or worsen following GAS infection.
Five criteria have been used to define the PANDAS subgroup:70,71

• The presence of a Tic disorder and/or OCD
• Pre-pubertal age of onset (usually between 3 and 12 years of age)
• Abrupt symptom onset and/or episodic course of symptom severity
• Temporal association between symptom exacerbations and streptococcal infection (approx 7-14 days)
• Presence of neurologic abnormalities during periods of symptom exacerbation (typically adventitious movements
or motoric hyperactivity)

3
However, the evidence supporting PANDAS as a distinct disease entity has been questioned.71 Hence, in New Zealand populations with a
high prevalence of ARF, clinicians should rarely (if ever) make a diagnosis of PANDAS, and should rather err on the side of over-diagnosis
of ARF and secondary prophylaxis (Grade D). If ARF is excluded, secondary prophylaxis is not needed, but such cases should be carefully
followed up to ensure that they do not develop carditis in the long term
‡
Includes oral contraceptives, pregnancy (chorea gravidarum), hyperthyroidism and hypoparathyroidism.
Investigations
The recommended investigations in ARF are listed in Table 9. Other investigations may be appropriate depending on the clinical
picture and potential differential diagnoses.
Table 9. Investigations in Suspected ARF
RECOMMENDED FOR ALL CASES
• White blood cell count
• Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (repeat weekly once diagnosis confi rmed)
• C-reactive protein
• Blood cultures if febrile
• Electrocardiogram (repeat as necessary if conduction abnormality more than fi rst degree)
• Chest x-ray if clinical or echocardiographic evidence of carditis
• Echocardiogram (repeat as necessary in 2-4 weeks if equivocal or if serious carditis)
• Throat swab (preferably before giving antibiotics) — culture for group A streptococcus
• Anti-streptococcal serology: both anti-streptolysin O and anti-DNase B titres, if available (repeat 10-14 days later if 1st test not
confi rmatory)
TESTS FOR ALTERNATIVE DIAGNOSES, DEPENDING ON CLINICAL FEATuRES
• Serology and auto-immune markers for auto-immune or reactive arthritis (including ANA - Anti Nuclear Antibody)
• Repeated blood cultures if possible endocarditis or septic arthritis
• Joint aspirate (microscopy and culture) for possible septic arthritis*
• Joint X-ray
• Copper, caeruloplasmin, anti-nuclear antibody, drug screen, and consider CT/MRI head for choreiform movements.**
* Typically, the synovial fluid in joints affected by ARF contains 10,000 to 100,000 white blood cells/mm3 (predominantly neutrophils). The
protein concentration is approximately 4g/dL, glucose levels are normal, gram stain negative and a good mucin clot is present72
** The chorea of ARF can be readily diagnosed on the basis of history, physical examination and laboratory evaluation. Neuroimaging is
seldom necessary and should be reserved for cases who have an atypical presentation such as hemichorea.73

24
[ 5. Management of ARF]
The major priority in the first few days after presentation in ARF is confirmation of the diagnosis. Except in the case of heart failure
management, none of the treatments offered to cases with ARF have been proven to alter the outcome of the acute episode or the
amount of damage to heart valves.74,75 Thus, there is no urgency to begin definitive treatment. The priorities in managing ARF are
outlined in Table 10.
Table 10. Priorities in Managing Acute Rheumatic Fever
ADMISSION TO HOSPITAL*
Ideally, all those with suspected ARF (first episode or recurrence) should be hospitalised as soon as possible after onset of symptoms
(Grade D). This ensures that all investigations are performed and, if necessary, observations completed for a period prior to commencing
treatment to confirm the diagnosis. Hospitalisation also provides an ideal opportunity for education
CONFIRMATION OF THE DIAGNOSIS
Observation prior to anti-inflammatory treatment (paracetamol [1st line] for fever or joint pain)
Investigations (as per Table 9)
TREATMENT
All cases
Antibiotics**
• Oral penicillin V (250mg twice daily) should be commenced in all cases while the diagnosis is being established. To reliably eradicate
GAS, oral penicillin should be given for the full 10 days
• Oral erythromycin used in cases with reliably documented penicillin allergy*** (10 days of erythromycin ethylsuccinate (EES) 40mg/kg
per day in 2-4 divided doses, maximum 1g/day in children or 400mg twice daily in adolescents and adults).76 EES is currently the
only fully subsidised oral erythromycin in New Zealand
• Intravenous antibiotics are not indicated. Roxithromycin is not recommended because of the limited available evidence that it is not
as effective as erythromycin in eradicating GAS from the upper respiratory tract77
• The first dose of intramuscular benzathine penicillin G (BPG 1,200,000 U or 600,000 U if less than 20kg) should also be given in
hospital in association with education about the importance of secondary prophylaxis. Once the first dose of BPG is given, the oral
penicillin is stopped
Arthritis/arthralgia

Salicylates/NSAIDS
• The arthritis of ARF has been shown in controlled trials to respond dramatically to salicylates and has also been noted to respond to
other NSAID therapy,78,79,80 often within hours and almost always within 3 days (Level II)
• Salicylates are recommended as first line treatment because of the extensive experience with their use in ARF.38,81,82 They should
be commenced in cases with arthritis or severe arthralgia as soon as the diagnosis of ARF has been confirmed (Grade B), but they
should be withheld if the diagnosis is not certain. In such cases, paracetamol or codeine should be used instead for pain relief
• Aspirin should be started at a dose of 60-100mg/kg/day (4-8g/day in adults) in 4-5 divided doses. If there is an incomplete response
within 2 weeks, the dose may be increased to 125mg/kg/day, but with these higher doses careful observation for features of
salicylate toxicity is advised. If facilities are available, blood levels may be monitored every few days, and the dose increased until
serum levels of 20-30mg/100dL are reached. Toxic effects (tinnitus, headache, hyperpnoea) are likely above 20mg/100dL but often
resolve after a few days
• Most cases require 10 days or less of aspirin therapy and therefore blood level monitoring is seldom necessary. Many need aspirin
for only 1-2 weeks, although some need it for up to 6 weeks. In such cases, the dose can often be reduced to 60-70mg/kg/day

5
TREATMENT CONTINuED
after the initial 1-2 weeks.32 As the dose is reduced, or within 3 weeks of discontinuing aspirin, joint symptoms may recur. This does
not indicate recurrence, and can be treated with another brief course of high-dose aspirin. Most ARF episodes subside within 6
weeks, and 90% resolve within 12 weeks. Approximately 5% of cases require 6 months or more of salicylate therapy83
• There is also the risk of Reye’s syndrome in children receiving salicylates who develop certain viral infections, particularly infl uenza. It is
recommended that children receiving aspirin during the infl uenza season (autumn/winter) also receive an infl uenza vaccine (Grade D)
• Naproxen has been used (10-20mg/kg/day) successfully in those with ARF, including one small randomised trial, and has been
advocated as a safer alternative to aspirin (Level III-I).84,85 It has the advantage of only twice-daily dosing, less hepatotoxicity, and it is
also available in an elixir for young children. The experience with this medication is limited, so the recommendation currently is to
restrict it to those intolerant to aspirin, or to use it as a step-down treatment once cases are discharged from hospital (Grade D)
Paracetamol
• Mild arthralgia and fever may respond to paracetamol alone
Fever
Low-grade fever does not require specifi c treatment. Fever will usually respond dramatically to salicylate therapy. Fever alone, or fever
with mild arthralgia or arthritis, may not require salicylates, but can instead be treated with paracetamol
Carditis/heart failure
Bed rest
In the pre-penicillin era, prolonged bed rest in those with rheumatic carditis was associated with shorter duration of carditis, fewer
relapses and less cardiomegaly.86 Ambulation should be gradual and as tolerated in cases with heart failure, or severe acute valve
disease, especially during the fi rst 4 weeks, or until the serum CRP level has normalised and the ESR has normalised or dramatically
reduced. Those with milder or no carditis should remain in bed only as long as necessary to manage other symptoms, such as joint
pain (Grade D).
A guide for activity levels is shown below (Adapted from Lennon D. 200432) (Grade D).
Activity Arthritis Mild carditis Moderate carditis Severe carditis

alone
In hospital 1-2 weeks 2-3 weeks 4-6 weeks 2-4 months
Mobilise
freely as
tolerated
House arrest 1-2 weeks 2-3 weeks 4-6 weeks 2-4 months
(activity and after
school work discharge
at home)
School 2 weeks 2-4 weeks 1-3 months 2-3 months
Gradual return to full activity Avoid sport and physical education
Full activity After 6 After 3 months After 3-6 months Variable

(sport) weeks
Urgent echocardiogram
An urgent echocardiogram and cardiology assessment are recommended for all cases with heart failure

26
Anti-failure medication
• Diuretics/fluid restriction for mild-moderate failure
• ACE inhibitors for more severe failure, particularly if aortic regurgitation present
• Glucocorticoids§ optional for severe carditis74
• Digoxin if atrial fibrillation present
• There is little experience with beta-blockers in heart failure due to acute carditis, and their use is not recommended
(Grade D)
Detailed recommendations for the management of heart failure can be found in a separate Heart Foundation clinical guideline
(available at http://www.nzgg.org.nz)
Valve surgery
Surgery is usually deferred until active inflammation has subsided. Rarely, valve leaflet or chordae tendinae rupture leads to severe
regurgitation which requires emergency surgery. This can be safely performed by experienced surgeons, although the risk appears
to be slightly higher than when surgery is performed after active inflammation has resolved.87 Valve replacement, rather than repair, is
usually performed during the acute episode, because of the technical difficulties of repairing friable, inflamed tissue. Nevertheless, very
experienced surgeons may achieve good results with repair in this situation

Chorea

Sydenham’s chorea is self-limited. Most cases will resolve within weeks and almost all cases within 6 months,88 although rare cases
may last as long as 2-3 years.59,89,90 Mild or moderate chorea does not require any specific treatment, aside from rest and a calm
environment. Over-stimulation or stress can exacerbate the symptoms. Sometimes hospitalisation is useful to reduce the stress that
families face in dealing with abnormal movements and emotional lability
Because chorea is benign and self-limiting, and anti-chorea medications are potentially toxic, treatment should only be considered if
the movements interfere substantially with normal activities, place the person at risk of injury or are extremely distressing to the patient,
family and friends. Aspirin and glucocorticoid therapy do not have a significant effect on rheumatic chorea47
Small studies of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) have suggested more rapid recovery from chorea, but have not demonstrated
reduced incidence of long-term valve disease in non-chorea ARF.41,91 Until more evidence is available, IVIG is not recommended,
except for severe chorea refractory to other treatments (Level II / IV, Grade C)
Carbamazepine‡ and valproic acid+ are now preferred to haloperidol, which was previously considered the first-line medical treatment
for chorea.92,93 A small, prospective comparison of these 3 agents recently concluded that valproic acid was the most effective94
Other anti-chorea medications should be avoided because of potential toxicity. Because of the small potential for liver toxicity with
valproic acid, it is recommended that carbamazepine be used initially for severe chorea requiring treatment, and that valproic acid be
considered for refractory cases (Level III 2, Grade B). A response may not be seen for 1-2 weeks, and successful medication may
only reduce, but not eliminate, the symptoms. Medication should be continued for 2-4 weeks after chorea has subsided and then
withdrawn. Recurrences of chorea are usually mild and can be managed conservatively but, in severe recurrences, the medication
can be re-started if necessary
CLINICAL FOLLOW-UP
• All cases should receive regular review and outpatient follow-up should be initiated prior to discharge
• The frequency and duration of review is dependent on the individual clinical needs and local capacity and should become more
frequent in the event of symptom onset, symptomatic deterioration or a change in clinical findings
• Particular care should be taken when cases are transferred from paediatric to adult services. A case can be made for maintaining
less severe cases in the paediatric services until discharge at age 21 in order to ensure continuity of follow-up
• Joint cardiology and general paediatric/physician management for cases with severe carditis are recommended
• Further information regarding frequency and nature of routine review can be found in Section 11

7
COMMENCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PREVENTIVE MEASuRES
Secondary prophylaxis
• Obtain consent from caregiver/case for IM penicillin treatment
• First dose of secondary prophylaxis should be delivered in hospital
Notifi cation
• Case should be notifi ed to a local ARF register if available (see Section 10.3). There should be an easy means to do this, via a
standard notifi cation form, telephone call or otherwise
• In addition, as ARF is a notifi able disease in New Zealand, each case should be notifi ed to the local public health unit for national
infectious disease surveillance
Contact community services to ensure follow-up
• The register coordinator (if available) should notify community health staff about ARF cases in their area. The notifying medical
practitioner should also make direct contact with those in the community responsible for prophylaxis delivery in order to ensure that
they are aware of the diagnosis, the need for secondary prophylaxis and any other specifi c follow-up requirements. This may include
district nurses, public health nurses, medical offi cer of health and other public health staff
• A community nurse and/or community health worker for the area where the case resides should also do a ward and/or family visit if
possible before discharge
• Where relevant, it is also important for consent to be obtained from the case (or caregiver) for their local Ma-ori or Pacifi c provider to
know about the illness
Education
• At the time of diagnosis, it is essential that the disease process be explained to the patient and their family in a culturally appropriate
way, using available educational materials and interactive discussion. Further education, using culturally appropriate educational
materials should follow once the case has returned home
• For further information regarding education see Section 10.2
Organise dental check and ongoing dental care
• This is critical in the prevention of endocarditis. As those without rheumatic valve damage may still be at long-term risk of developing
RHD, particularly in the event of recurrent episodes of ARF, dental care is essential, regardless of the presence or absence of carditis
• Each case should be notifi ed to the appropriate school dental service or dentist
Contact management
• All symptomatic and asymptomatic household contacts of the index case aged 3 years and older should have a throat swab if the
contact was no longer than one month before the onset of ARF in the index case. This should be organised through the appropriate
public health unit and all contacts with positive GAS cultures should be offered antibiotic treatment. Streptococcal acquisition rates
of 25% or greater have been recorded in family contacts of streptococcal pharyngitis78,95,96
Opportunistic care
• It is important to note this opportunity to provide information and other services for ARF cases, whom frequently have other challenges
to their general wellbeing. This may include promoting a healthy diet, exercise and hygiene, as well as assistance with socio-
economic stressors, and the opportunity for on going support.
* Occasionally, when the diagnosis has already been confirmed and the case is not unwell (e.g. mild recurrent chorea in a child with no other
symptoms or signs), outpatient management may be appropriate. In such cases health staff must ensure that investigations, treatment,
health education, registration (where available) and notification are all completed and prophylaxis commenced
** Controlled studies have failed to show that treating ARF with large doses of penicillin affects the outcome of rheumatic valvular lesions 1
year later.97,98 Despite this, most authorities recommend a course of penicillin, even if throat cultures are negative, to ensure eradication of
streptococci that may persist in the upper respiratory tract (Grade D)
*** Most people labelled as being allergic to penicillin are not. Because penicillin is the best antibiotic choice for secondary prophylaxis it is
recommended that those with stated penicillin allergy be investigated carefully, preferably with the help of an allergist, before being accepted
as truly allergic (Grade D) (Section 6)
# If the symptoms and signs do not remit substantially within 3 days of commencing anti-inflammatory medications, a diagnosis other than
ARF should be considered

28
§
The use of glucocorticoids and other anti-inflammatory medications in rheumatic carditis has been studied in two meta-analyses.74,75 All
of these studies of glucocorticoids were performed more than 40 years ago, and did not use drugs in common use today. These meta-
analyses failed to suggest any benefit of glucocorticoids or IVIG over placebo, or of glucocorticoids over salicylates, in reducing the risk of
long-term heart disease (Level I). The available evidence suggests that salicylates do not decrease the incidence of residual RHD (Level
IV).78,79,80 Therefore, salicylates are not recommended to treat carditis (Grade C). Glucocorticoids may be considered for those with heart
failure in whom acute cardiac surgery is not indicated (Grade D). This recommendation is not supported by evidence, but is made because
many clinicians believe that glucocorticoids may lead to more rapid resolution of cardiac compromise, and even be life-saving in severe
acute carditis.75,99 The potential major adverse effects of short courses of glucocorticoids, including gastrointestinal bleeding and worsening
of heart failure as a result of fluid retention, should be considered before they are used. If glucocorticoids are used, the drug of choice is
oral prednisone or prednisolone (1-2mg/kg/day, to a maximum of 80mg once daily or in divided doses). Intravenous methyl prednisolone
may be given in very severe cases. If a week or less of treatment is required, the medication can be ceased when heart failure is controlled,
and inflammatory markers are improving. For longer courses (usually no more than 3 weeks is required), the dose may be decreased by
20-25% each week. Treatment should be given in addition to the other anti-failure treatments outlined below. Mild to moderate carditis
does not warrant any specific treatment. As glucocorticoids will control joint pain and fever, salicylates can usually be discontinued, or the
dose reduced, during glucocorticoid administration. Salicylates may need to be recommenced after glucocorticoids are discontinued to
avoid rebound joint symptoms or fever
‡ Side effects of carbamazepine include CNS adverse reactions (dizziness, headache, ataxia, drowsiness, fatigue and diplopia); gastrointestinal
disturbances (nausea and vomiting), as well as allergic skin reactions. Uncommon side effects include abnormal involuntary movements
(e.g. tremor, asterixis, dystonia and tics) and nystagmus. Rarely carbemazapine can cause orofacial dyskinesia, oculomotor disturbances,
speech disorders (e.g. dysarthria and slurred speech), choreoathetotic disorders, peripheral neuritis, paresthesia, muscle weakness and
paretic symptoms100
+ Side effects of valproic acid include pancreatitis, hepatic toxicity, hyperammonaemia and thrombocytopaenia.100
Observation and general hospital care

Guidelines for general in-hospital care are provided in Table 11 (Grade D).
Table 11. Guidelines For General In-Hospital Care
NURSING RECORDINGS
• Temperature, pulse, RR, BP 4 times daily

• Sleeping pulse (e.g. 0200 hrs)
• If pulse >100bpm, record apical HR
DIET
• Free fluids (if no heart failure)

• Normal diet (limit extras)
• Early dietary advice if overweight and in failure, to avoid further weight gain
• Weekly weight
BED REST AND GENERAL CARE
• Examine daily for the pattern of arthritis and the presence of heart murmur, choreiform movements, skin rash and subcutaneous
nodules
• If clinical carditis present:
• Document cardiac symptoms and signs
• Daily weight and fluid balance chart
• Medications as appropriate (see Table 10 and Appendix D)
• See general guidelines for bed rest (Table 10)
• Cardiology opinion
• Repeat investigations as necessary
• Provide cultural support (as relevant)
• Plan care to provide rest periods
• Provide age-appropriate activities
• Notify school teacher
• Involve family in care.
Source: Adapted from Lennon D. 2004.32

Note: RR = respiratory rate; BP = blood pressure; HR = heart rate.

9
Discharge
Timing of discharge
The duration of treatment is dictated by the clinical response and improvement in infl ammatory markers (ESR and CRP). Most cases
of ARF without severe carditis can be discharged from hospital after approximately two weeks. The length of admission will partly
depend on the social and home circumstances. If cases come from remote communities or other settings with limited access to
high quality medical care, it is advisable to discuss discharge timing with the person, family and the local primary health care team
(particularly Ma-ori or Pacifi c health providers where possible). In some cases, it may be advisable to prolong the hospital stay until
recovery is well advanced.
Advice on discharge
All cases should have a good understanding of the cause of rheumatic fever and the need to have sore throats treated early in other
family members. Contact management (as per Table 10) should be discussed.
Cases and their families should understand the reason for secondary prophylaxis and the consequences of missing a BPG injection.
The fi rst dose of BPG is usually given in a hospital setting. Arrangements for the fi rst injection post discharge should be made. They
should be given clear information about where to go for secondary prophylaxis once discharged, know who to contact with questions
concerning their follow-up or secondary prophylaxis, and be given written information on appointments for follow-up with their local
medical practitioner, physician/paediatrician and cardiologist (if needed). They should be advised of the appropriate activity level until
their next clinic appointment.
Cases and their families should also be reminded of the importance of additional antibiotic prophylaxis for dental and other procedures
to protect against endocarditis (Appendix H).
Copies of the discharge summary should go to the following services: community nursing staff responsible for prophylaxis delivery
(such as district nurse, public health nurse), rheumatic fever secretary or staff responsible for the register (where applicable), primary
care provider and the family.

30

31
[ Secondary
]
Prevention

32
SECONDARY PREVENTION
Secondary prevention of rheumatic fever is defined as the continuous administration of antibiotics to cases who have had a previous
attack of ARF or well-documented RHD. The purpose is to prevent infection of the upper respiratory tract with GAS and the
development of recurrent rheumatic fever.28
[ 6. Prophylaxis Regimes]
The regular administration of antibiotics to prevent infection with group A streptococcal (GAS) and recurrent ARF is recommended
for all people with a history of ARF or RHD.3 This strategy has been proven in randomised controlled trials to prevent streptococcal
pharyngitis and recurrent ARF.
Penicillin
In early studies of ARF prophylaxis using sulphonamides, 1.5% of treated cases developed ARF recurrences, compared to 20% of
untreated cases. Subsequently, penicillin was found to be more efficacious than sulphonamides (Level I).35,83
A recent Cochrane meta-analysis101 concluded that the use of penicillin (compared to no therapy) is beneficial in the prevention of
recurrent ARF, and that intramuscular benzathine penicillin G (BPG) is superior to oral penicillin in the reduction of both recurrent ARF
(87–96% reduction) and streptococcal pharyngitis (71-91% reduction) (Level I) (Appendix E).
Secondary prophylaxis also reduces the severity of RHD. It is associated with regression of heart disease in approximately 50-70%
of those with adequate adherence over a decade (Level III 2),56,102,103 and reduces mortality (Level III 2).104
Dose
The internationally accepted standard dose of BPG for the secondary prevention of ARF in adults is 1,200,000 U.3,38,105 The dose for
children is less clear. In New Zealand, it is recommended that 1,200,000 U of BPG should be used for secondary prophylaxis for all
persons weighing 20kg or more (Level III-2, Grade B), and 600,000 U for those weighing less than 20kg (Grade D).106
Frequency
While BPG is usually administered every four weeks (28 days), serum penicillin levels may be low or undetectable 28 days
following a dose of 1,200,000 U.107 Fewer streptococcal infections and ARF recurrences occurred among those receiving three-
weekly BPG (Level I).101,108,109 Moreover, the three-weekly regimen resulted in greater resolution of mitral regurgitation in a long-term
randomised study in Taiwan (66% vs 46%) (Level II).110 Prospective data from New Zealand however, showed that recurrences
were rare among people who were fully adherent to a four-weekly BPG regimen. In Auckland (1993 to 1999), the rate of
recurrence in fully adherent individuals on a 28 day regime was 0.07 per 100 patient years. Failure on the prophylaxis programme
(i.e. including those who were less than fully adherent) was 1.4 per patient years.16,17 This compares favourably to prophylaxis
failure reported in Taiwan of 0.25 (21-day programme) and 1.29 (28-day programme) per 100 patient years.111 Furthermore, a
four-weekly regime is preferable to a three-weekly regime because of the resource and compliance implications (Grade D).
In New Zealand, three weekly (21-day) BPG is recommended only for those who have confirmed recurrent ARF despite full adherence
to four-weekly (28-day) BPG delivery (Grade C).16,17
An alternative strategy is the administration of larger doses of BPG, leading to a higher proportion of people with detectable serum
penicillin levels four weeks after injection.112 However, until more data are available, this strategy cannot be recommended.

33
Table 12. Recommended Antibiotic Regimens for Secondary Prevention of Acute Rheumatic Fever/Rheumatic Heart Disease
ANTIBIOTIC DOSE ROuTE FREQuENCY
First line
Benzathine penicillin G 1,200,000 U ≥ 20kg BPG is most effectively 4-weekly (28 days), or 3-weekly
(BPG) 600,000 U < 20kg given as a deep for those who have had confi rmed
intramuscular injection38 recurrent ARF despite full adherence to
4-weekly BPG
Second line (If intramuscular route is not possible or refused)*
Phenoxymethylpenicillin 250mg Oral Twice daily

(Penicillin V)
Following documented penicillin allergy**
Erythromycin (EES) 40mg/kg per day Oral 2-4 divided doses (maximum 1g/day)
(children)
400mg (adolescents Oral Twice daily

and adults)
* Oral penicillin is less efficacious than BPG in preventing GAS infections and subsequent recurrences of ARF.38,83,113,114 Twice-daily oral
regimens are also likely to result in poorer rates of adherence over long periods of time115 and less predictable serum penicillin concentrations,
when compared to intramuscular BPG.35 In addition, oral penicillin V incurs a cost to the patient, while IM BPG is free when provided through
an ARF prevention programme. Oral penicillin should be reserved for cases who refuse intramuscular BPG (Level II, Grade B). If a patient is
offered oral penicillin, the consequences of missed doses must be emphasised and adherence carefully monitored (Grade D)
** The benefits of long-term BPG administration outweigh the rare risk of serious allergic reactions to penicillin and fatality as a result of
anaphylaxis.35,108,116,117 The rates of allergic and anaphylactic reactions to monthly BPG are 3.2% and 0.2%, respectively, and fatal reactions
are exceptionally rare.117,118 There is no increased risk with prolonged BPG use. A prospective study of 1,790 ARF/RHD patients found
similar rates of allergic reactions in those receiving long-term penicillin therapy and those receiving short-term therapy for sexually transmitted
diseases (Level III-2).118 Before commencing penicillin treatment, cases should be carefully questioned about known allergies to penicillin
and other beta-lactam antibiotics. When patients state they are allergic to penicillin or when a non-specific reaction has been reported but
there is no unequivocal evidence, they should be investigated for penicillin allergy, preferably in consultation with an allergist. The options
include skin testing118 or a supervised challenge test. Most of these patients are not truly allergic. Penicillin desensitisation is not applicable
to these patients, even with a regime of more frequent injections, as it would have to be repeated before each dose of BPG.119,120 A RAST
(RadioAllergoSorbent Test) may be used as a screening tool only. Because this is a specific but not very sensitive test, a negative RAST test
must be followed up in all cases with penicillin skin testing and/or consideration of a graded challenge if appropriate (Grade D).
New Zealand has been affected by inconsistent supply of benzathine penicillin over recent years. This poses potential risks to those
requiring four-weekly prophylaxis. Organisational approaches to secondary prevention should seek to ensure consistent supply at
the national, regional and local levels. However, when benzathine penicillin is unavailable, oral penicillin or erythromycin can be given
(as per Table 12).
Secondary prophylaxis while breast feeding, during pregnancy and while on oral
contraceptives
As there is no evidence of teratogenicity, penicillin prophylaxis should continue for the duration of pregnancy for the prevention of recurrent
ARF (Grade D).38 Erythromycin is also considered safe in pregnancy, although controlled trials have not been conducted.100

Penicillin is also generally considered to be safe to use during breast feeding. Concentrations lower than plasma levels are excreted
in breast milk. No adverse effects have been reported.121 Erythromycin is also excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of
adverse effects in infants and it is considered safe to use (Grade D).121

34
Oral contraceptives are still recommended for women of child-bearing age while on BPG prophylaxis. Progesterone-only oral
contraceptives do not interact with BPG therapy.122,123,124,125 An interaction between IM BPG and the combined oral contraceptive
is possible, although this interaction is suggested to only be of significance for short courses of antibiotic therapy (less than three
weeks). In addition, the risk of interaction with antibiotics is small enough that it may not be identifiable from the one to three percent
risk of oral contraceptive failure (Grade C).126 Caution is advised when considering the use of the combined oral contraceptive
pill in women with complicated rheumatic heart disease/valve disease or atrial fibrillation, especially for cases also on warfarin.
A levonorgestrel-releasing intra uterine contraceptive device (such as Mirena) would be more suitable (if in a stable relationship)
(Grade D).
Secondary prophylaxis in anti-coagulated cases

Intramuscular bleeding from BPG injections, used in conjunction with anticoagulation therapy in New Zealand, is rare. Thus, BPG
injections should be continued for those who are anti-coagulated, unless there is evidence of uncontrolled bleeding or the international
normalised ratio (INR) is outside the defined therapeutic window (Grade D). Cases discharged from hospital on oral penicillin following
valve surgery should recommence BPG as soon as is practical.
[ 7. Duration of Secondary Prophylaxis]

The appropriate duration of secondary prophylaxis depends on a number of factors. These include:
• age (ARF recurrence is less common after the age of 25 and uncommon after the age of 30)16,17,38
• clinical pattern (presence or absence of carditis or RHD and severity of carditis or RHD)
• environment (particularly the likelihood of ongoing exposure to GAS)
• time elapsed since last episode of ARF (ARF recurrences are less common greater than five years since
last episode).16,17,38
Based on these factors, the recommended duration of secondary prophylaxis is outlined in Table 13. The duration of prophylaxis
recommended is also outlined in Algorithm 3.
Table 13. New Zealand Recommendations for the Duration of Secondary Prophylaxis
CATEGORY* DURATION OF PROPHYLAXIS
All persons with ARF with no or mild carditis Minimum of 10 years after most recent episode ARF or until age 21 years (whichever is longer)**
All persons with ARF with moderate carditis Minimum of 10 years after most recent episode ARF or until age 30 years*** (whichever is longer)
All persons with ARF with severe carditis Minimum of 10 years after most recent episode ARF or until age 30 years (whichever is longer),
and then specialist review for consideration of the need for continuation of prophylaxis, probably
lifelong.
* Definition of categories:
• Mild carditis:
• Any valve lesion(s) graded mild clinically, or by echocardiography, with no clinical evidence of heart failure and no
evidence of cardiac chamber enlargement on CXR, ECG or echo
• Moderate carditis:
• Any valve lesion of moderate severity clinically (e.g. mild or moderate cardiomegaly), or
• Any moderate severity valve lesion on echocardiography, or
• Any echocardiographic evidence of cardiac chamber enlargement

35
• Severe carditis:
• Any severe valve lesion clinically (significant cardiomegaly expected, and/or heart failure), or
• Any severe valve lesion on echocardiography, or
• Any impending or previous cardiac surgery for RHD
• Pure aortic stenosis is rarely due to ARF and in such cases an alternative diagnosis should be considered
• When there is both mitral and aortic regurgitation, one of them must be graded moderate by echo standards in order for the carditis to be classified
of moderate severity
• Tricuspid and pulmonary regurgitation graded mild or greater may be seen in people with normal hearts who have fever, volume overload or
pulmonary hypertension. For this reason a diagnosis of carditis should not be based on right-side regurgitation alone. Although pulmonary and
tricuspid regurgitation are often seen in association with left-sided lesions in ARF, pressure and volume overload must be excluded before attributing
even moderate tricuspid regurgitation to valvulitis. If both left and right-sided lesions coexist in ARF carditis, then the predominant influence is the
severity of the left-sided lesion
** A review of data from the Auckland Acute Rheumatic Fever Register (1993-1999) in New Zealand found that recurrences occurred up to
21 years after completion of prophylaxis programmes. 77% were within the first seven years, and 30% were greater than ten years. The
mean overall recurrence interval between last attack and recurrence was 8.6 years. Of the cases that received ten years prophylaxis, there
were two ARF recurrences after discharge and an estimated 2,200 patient years of follow-up (0.1/100 patient years). Two “breakthrough”
recurrences occurred in this series in cases who were inadvertently discharged early off prophylaxis (aged 16 and 17 years).16,17 This data
suggest that in the New Zealand environment, maintenance of prophylaxis to 21 years of age in cases with absent or mild heart disease is
safe and effective (Level IV, Grade C)
*** Of the Auckland (1993-1999) cases, only five recurrences occurred after the age of 30. 16,17 Therefore it is reasonable to cease secondary
prophylaxis at that age, except when individual circumstances warrant continuing (e.g. when cases wish to reduce even a small chance of
a recurrence) (Level IV, Grade C)
• Individuals working or living with children or in a living situation where there is overcrowding or close proximity to others (such as boarding schools,
barracks, and hostels) have a higher risk of exposure to GAS and subsequent development of ARF. In these cases, consideration should be given
to extending the duration of prophylaxis (Grade D)
• For those presenting at an older age (over the age of 21 years), with no or mild carditis, it is possible to consider discharge from prophylaxis after 5
years (Grade D)
• The duration of prophylaxis presented here refers to ‘definite’ and ‘probable’ cases of ARF (see Section 4). For those with ‘possible’
ARF (where there is strong clinical suspicion, but insufficient signs and symptoms to fulfil the diagnosis), a minimum of 5 years prophylaxis should
be considered, with regular review (Grade D)
• For those presenting with RHD for whom no initial episode of ARF can be identified, the decision to commence and cease penicillin prophylaxis
should be taken on an individual basis with regard to the age of the case, severity of the disease, possible age of first attack and risk of exposure
to GAS.
Before stopping prophylaxis, recipients who are known to have had carditis should be evaluated for symptomatic deterioration and the
stability and severity of valve lesions. This should include echocardiographic assessment (Grade D). Where limited echocardiography
is available, preference should be given to those with a history of moderate or greater carditis, a history of one or more ARF recurrences
or clinical evidence of carditis (e.g. a murmur) (Grade D). The anticipated and actual dates of cessation should be documented in
the medical records and on the ARF register where possible, (see Section 10.3). The date of cessation may be reviewed if there
is a change in clinical or echocardiographic severity, specialist recommendation, a change in environmental exposure to GAS, or a
recurrence of ARF (Grade D).

36
[ 8. Protocol for Secondary Prophylaxis Delivery]

In the New Zealand environment, it is recommended that secondary prophylaxis is delivered by community nursing staff at schools,
in the workplace or at home (Table 14).
In each area this delivery should be supported by the presence of a rheumatic fever register (see Section 10.3), and it is also
recommended that in each area specific medical staff sign three-monthly designated authorisation for the nurses to deliver BPG. The
generation of these prescriptions will also be assisted by a register system.
Table 14. Suggested Protocol for the Delivery of Secondary Prophylaxis by Community Nurses
PREPARATION
DURATION OF PROPHYLAXIS
• Identify client (full name and date of birth)*

• Confirm that consent** has been given for BPG delivery at school (if appropriate)
• Check allergy status, if symptoms of allergy reported from previous injection then withhold injection, document and report to GP and
specialist
• Note appropriate dose of adrenaline required for current age if necessary for an anaphylactic reaction (see Appendix F)
• Check the prescription: date, frequency and dose
• Check weight for children on 0.6 megaunits (mU) of bicillin to ensure dose for next injection is appropriate (i.e. remain at <20kg). Record
weight in progress notes. If dose should change, document and inform the local prescriber and register coordinator to ensure the dose is
changed for the next delivery
• Give full explanation to client
• Position client lying or as preferred
• Wash hands
• Prepare BPG (bicillin cartridge and Tubex is the current system). If 0.6 mU dose is required dispose of half the syringe contents prior to
administration. Warm in hands
• Alcohol swab injection site, allow to dry
DELIVERY***
• Apply pressure to injection site for 10 seconds and consider other measures to reduce pain (Table 15)
• Administer bicillin slowly into ventrogluteal, dorsogluteal area of buttock or vastus lateralis or thigh (or as per local area policy)
• Dispose of the used syringe in a sharps container after removing Tubex
OBSERVATION
• Observe client for a minimum of 10 minutes after administration of bicillin for any signs and symptoms of an allergic reaction. Local policy
may suggest a 20 minute observation period
EVALUATION
• Complete record of administration

• Review education needs/knowledge
• Confirm next appointment and any other follow-up needs
• Consider opportunity to review broader health issues such as mobility and activity levels, nutritional status and dietary habits, dental hygiene
and support.
* If under 16: confirm identification with another responsible person (i.e. caregiver, school receptionist)
** Consent for the duration of BPG delivery will have been obtained in hospital prior to the initiation of prophylaxis (Table 10). A separate
consent needs to be obtained from the caregiver/parent only for delivery at school
*** If the client is not available, and the full syringe has been maintained in cold chain, it can be returned to the medicine fridge. If the full syringe
has not been maintained within the cold chain, then it needs to be discarded.

37

[ 9. Anaphylaxis]
Anaphylaxis is an uncommon reaction following IM or IV antibiotics, immunisation or other medicines. Anaphylaxis to benzathine
penicillin is rare. In a prospective international study after 32,430 injections during 2,736 patient years of observation, 57 (3.2%) of
the 1,790 patients had an allergic reaction and four (0.2% or 1.2 per 10 000 injections) had anaphylaxis. The long-term benefi ts of
prophylaxis therefore far outweigh the potential risk of a serious allergic reaction.117 The response to an anaphylactic reaction to a

BPG dose and the management of anaphylaxis can be found in Appendix F.
[ 10. Improving Adherence to Secondary Prophylaxis ]

The persistence of recurrent ARF in some areas of New Zealand highlights the continued failure of secondary prevention.
Failure to prevent recurrent ARF in a study from the Gisborne area, was thought to be due to a range of factors including a lack of
recognition of the effi cacy of parenteral BPG compared to oral regimens, inadequate adherence, unreliable data collection and the
lack of long-term continuity of care.127 Improved adherence to prophylaxis is seen with active follow-up of cases when BPG doses are
missed, the identifi cation of local dedicated staff members responsible for delivery of secondary prophylaxis, developing a personal
rapport with each case and coordinating routine care. Effective communication between health staff and families is important. In New
Zealand, it is particularly important to support and utilise the expertise, experience, community knowledge, culture and language skills
of Ma-ori and Pacifi c health workers in order to assist with adherence to secondary prophylaxis.
Three methods for improving compliance will be discussed further in this guideline:
• reducing the pain of the BPG injection
• education
• the use of rheumatic fever registers.
Reducing the pain of BPG injections

The pain of BPG injections is usually not a critical factor in determining adherence to secondary prophylaxis. Nonetheless, techniques
that safely reduce injection pain (Table 15) should be promoted.
Table 15. Measures That May Reduce the Pain of Benzathine Penicillin G Injections
• Use a 23-gauge needle* • Deliver injection very slowly (preferably over at least 2–3 mins)***
• Apply pressure with thumb for 10 seconds before • Distraction techniques during injection (e.g. with conversation)
inserting needle**
• Good rapport with the case, assisted by having a designated
• Warm syringe to room temperature before using*** nurse for each case, is a signifi cant aid to injection comfort,
compliance, and understanding.***
• Allow alcohol from swab to dry before inserting needle***
• Use of ethylchloride spray prior to injection#
* A smaller gauge needle and increasing the volume of injection to 3.5ml improved acceptability in Taiwan110
** Direct application of pressure to the injection site has been shown to decrease pain of intra-muscular injections128
*** As these measures are logical and benign they are recommended, despite lack of evidence (Grade D)
# Although merely a topical agent, some cases have reported reduced pain and bruising following the appropriate use of ethylchloride spray
(Grade D)
The addition of 0.5-1.0 ml of 1% lignocaine is used elsewhere. It significantly reduces pain immediately and in the first 24 hours after injection, while
not significantly affecting serum penicillin concentrations.129 Procaine penicillin added to BPG also reduces pain and local reactions. The combination
is effective for the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis, but the formulations tested to date have not sustained adequate serum penicillin levels
for long enough for secondary prophylaxis.130,131 However, with the pre-loaded (“Tubex”) system syringes currently used in New Zealand it is not
recommended or possible for community staff to add lignocaine or procaine penicillin (Grade D).

38
Education
Health education is critical at all levels.38 Lack of parental awareness of the causes and consequences of ARF/RHD was a key contributor
to poor adherence among children on long-term prophylaxis in Egypt.132 In a number of regions in India, comprehensive health
education has improved community awareness of sore throat, ARF and RHD133 and assisted case identification.134 Comprehensive
health education and promotion was also a key component in the successful control of RHD in the French Caribbean.135 Improved
health staff awareness of the diagnosis and management of ARF and RHD is necessary in order to improve case findings, encourage
compliance with prophylaxis and to improve the quality and delivery of health education delivered to cases and their families.
Education provided to the case and their family should cover:

• the cause and complications of ARF
• the reason for secondary prophylaxis and the signs and symptoms of recurrence
• the prevention of endocarditis and the differences between this and secondary prophylaxis of ARF
• sore throat management
• the importance of medical and dental follow-up
• how to contact the relevant people or agencies should they require further information or assistance.
The National Heart Foundation of New Zealand produces a booklet called “What is Rheumatic Fever?” to assist in education provision
to cases and their families. This is available to order from www.heartfoundation.org.nz
ARF Registers
Registers of people with RHD or a history of ARF are a key element in ARF recurrence and RHD control at an individual, community
and national level.14,15,16,25,136
In 1978, the WHO promoted the use of disease registers as part of community programmes to help coordinate prevention of ARF
recurrences and of RHD.137 The use of these registers has been proven in both developing and developed countries to enhance the
impact of secondary prevention strategies for ARF and to effectively reduce morbidity and mortality.13,28,138
Register-based RHD control programmes have been successful in New Zealand. By the early 1980s, ARF registers had been
implemented in Waikato, Northland, Auckland, Gisborne and Rotorua. Despite similarities, each programme developed independently
of any national framework, and each was shown to be effective at reducing admissions for ARF recurrences.13 In New Zealand, ARF
became a notifiable condition under the national surveillance and management framework in 1986.13
In 2001, a survey describing register-based ARF prevention programmes in New Zealand was conducted. Two types of registers
were described: management and surveillance. Register-based ‘management’ programmes use a register to coordinate community-
based prophylaxis provided predominantly by district nursing services, collate information on prophylaxis delivery and encourage
parenteral prophylaxis. Management programmes also use their registers to perform a varying range of other functions including
informing health care workers (such as dentists and GPs) of those who are receiving prophylaxis, generating or prompting penicillin
prescriptions and accumulating data for evaluation. Six register-based management programmes were operating in New Zealand in
2001 (predominantly through public health units in collaboration with clinicians). These were based in Northland, Auckland (district
nurses in association with paediatricians), Rotorua (established by an association of GP’s), Gisborne, Hawkes Bay and Lower Hutt.
Collectively, these programmes covered nine health districts containing 51.1% of the population and 81.9% of ARF notifications
between 1995 and 2000. A further three ‘surveillance’ programmes, without clinician input, were described in Whakatane, Wanganui
and Palmerston North. These programmes maintained a record of cases receiving prophylaxis, but did not have a role in coordinating
the provision of prophylaxis.13 In total, these register systems covered 94% of notified ARF cases, and they were considered largely
responsible for reducing ARF recurrence from 22% (of all ARF episodes) between 1972 and 1981 to only 6% between 1982 and
1992.139
The Auckland Acute Rheumatic Fever Register, established in 1982, is a population-based register covering 60% of New Zealand
ARF registrations. The register is used both as a surveillance register and a tool to generate dental referrals and delegated authority
prescriptions to aid penicillin delivery by the district nursing service. Those who miss their prophylaxis are actively sought for three to
six months before being inactivated on the register. Community nurses from other areas can also refer confirmed cases to the register
for ongoing prophylaxis. A recent study evaluated the effectiveness of the Auckland ARF Register and of 28 day penicillin prophylaxis
by auditing recurrences notified to the register in this time period for those with mild or absent heart disease without active follow-up
after at least ten years. In this study, an overall programme failure rate of 1.4 per 100 patient years was determined with a penicillin
failure rate of 0.07 per 100 patient years.16,17 Earlier audits of the same register from 1972 to 1981 (1.5 per 100 patient years) and
1982 to 1992 (0.6 per 100 patient years) reached similar conclusions.24,140 These rates of programme failure are highly acceptable
when compared to other published data (0.0-2.8 per 100 patient years). 35,56, 109, 110,111,137,141,142,143,144,145

39
It is recommended that all regions of New Zealand with substantial populations with ARF or RHD establish a coordinated ARF register
(preferably computerised) which provides individual and community reports, recall lists, reports on ARF/RHD epidemiology and
monitors the effectiveness of the local prevention programme (Grade C).
The main aims of ARF registers are summarised in Table 16.
Table 16. Primary Aims of ARF Register Systems
• Increase uptake of and adherence to secondary prophylaxis34,146
• Reduce recurrences of ARF13,34,139,146,147,148 and decease hospitalisations from ARF/RHD (Level III)34,146
• Improve case detection34,135,146,149,150
• Record prophylaxis delivery
• Employ recall and reminder systems for ARF cases, identify individuals with poor adherence to long-term therapy for targeted educational
activities and other interventions
• Monitor the movement of ARF cases (who are typically highly mobile), while conforming to privacy legislation and patient confi dentiality
• Improve the coordination of ongoing care requirements and follow-up
• Identify and register new cases of ARF and RHD
• Use data to improve programme strategies and determine changes in disease epidemiology
• Fulfi l legal requirements of disease notifi cation
• Improve awareness amongst health professionals
• Centralised registers can also support the provision of prophylaxis for those who move between communities.149
The register can then be used as the basis for a coordinated control programme. This is the most effective approach to improving
BPG adherence and clinical follow-up of people with RHD, including specialist review and echocardiography (Level III-3). Elements
of such a programme are listed in Table 17 (Grade C).
Table 17. Recommended Elements of a Register-Based Control Programme
• A local (preferably computerised) ARF register, established within existing health care networks or public health units, with all the
properties and data as described in Tables 16 and 18
• Commitment from regional and local services, particularly to ensure long-term funding
• Activities guided by locally relevant, evidence-based guidelines
• A coordinator for each register programme*
• A commitment to partnerships between clinicians and public health services in order to support the needs of people with ARF/RHD and
the community
• An ability to assess and monitor the burden of disease
• Provision of education for health practitioners, the community, those with rheumatic fever or rheumatic heart disease and their families
• Provision or support for the provision of health education within the local community, community health service and for community health
workers
• A follow-up system (such as dedicated ARF/RHD clinics) that ensures that ongoing care is delivered, particularly to those at highest risk
• A mechanism for monitoring delivery of secondary prophylaxis and ongoing care, programme reporting and independent evaluation
• Some areas may also be able to have an effective advisory committee that may include cardiologists, paediatricians, general practitioners,
physicians, epidemiologists, nurses, public health practitioners and relevant community representative.
* A dedicated coordinator with data entry support is critical to the success of the programme. This person should have skills in data
management, basic epidemiology, and clinical medicine, or ready access to clinical expertise when individual case management issues
arise. To ensure that the programme continues to function well despite staffing changes, activities must be integrated into the established
health system.

40
Key data elements of ARF/RHD registers

A possible dataset for ARF/RHD registers is outlined in Table 18.
Table 18. Dataset for Acute Rheumatic Fever Register*
DOMAIN DATA ELEMENTS
Demographics National Hospital Index and name(s)
Date of birth
Gender
Address and phone numbers (including cellphone for text message contacting), alternate address
Details of parents/caregivers
Ethnicity
GP details
School at diagnosis (where relevant) **
Initial ARF diagnosis Date and place of diagnosis and date of admission to hospital
Definite, probable or possible diagnosis
Medications taken prior to presentation/admission
Major criteria:
• Presence (and severity) of carditis
• Presence (and site) of arthritis
• Presence of chorea
• Presence of erythema marginatum and/or subcutaneous nodules
Minor criteria:
• Fever
• Acute phase reactants
• P-R interval
Evidence of a preceding GAS infection:
• History of sore throat
• Throat swab
• Titres
ARF recurrences*** Onset date
Presence and severity of carditis
Other symptoms and signs at each recurrence
Prophylaxis status at time of recurrence

1
Table 18. (continued)
DOMAIN DATA ELEMENTS
RHD diagnosis Onset date/date of diagnosis
Documented history of ARF
Valvular dysfunction and disease severity at time of diagnosis
Surgery
Dentist
Secondary prophylaxis Antibiotic used
Dose and frequency
Date commenced on prophylaxis
Date of last dose
Date of next expected dose
Designated authority
Expected date of cessation
Annual adherence data
Follow-up/recall Date and place of last review
Date and place of next scheduled review by each provider (cardiologist, paediatrician, physician, surgeon,
echocardiography)
Recall system for missed BPG
Recall system for missed appointment
Mortality Date and cause of death according to agreed criteria (e.g. due to RHD, not due to RHD).
* This dataset is an amalgamation of systems currently in use in New Zealand. Some of the functions may be fulfilled elsewhere. Other
information such as details of surgical procedures and medical management may also be included
** To facilitate the set-up of school-based primary prevention programmes
*** It is recommended that each ARF recurrence notified to the register is thoroughly investigated to determine if any changes in the system of
prophylaxis delivery need to be made to prevent such recurrences from occuring in the future.

42
Outreach and out-of-town

The non-compliant and the non-presenting groups continue to be a major challenge to secondary prophylaxis. Transient living
patterns or shifting without notifying staff of a forwarding address can create follow-up difficulties. In Auckland (1993 to 1999),
13 people suffered 14 recurrences because penicillin had been discontinued prematurely.16,17
As the populations at the highest risk of ARF are Ma-ori and Pacific, the involvement of Ma-ori and Pacific health workers, with their
skills in outreach and their community knowledge, is important.
In addition, the presence of local ARF registers in New Zealand allows for inter-register referral (often nurse to nurse) of diagnosed ARF
cases. This ensures continuity of care and prophylaxis when cases transfer to a new area.
Non-compliance
If a case is non-compliant, it is recommended that a number of methods of contact, over a number of months are attempted. Every
effort should be made to utilise community contacts in the area, and a period “on hold” with continued attempts to contact, should
be used prior to considering discharge. In Auckland early discharge off prophylaxis due to persistent non-compliance, is rare.
A protocol for the management of non-compliant cases can be found in Appendix G.

3

[ 11. Routine Review and Structured Care Planning]
A structured care plan should be developed and recorded in the notes of all persons with a history of ARF, or with established RHD.
Table 19 lists the recommended review frequency (Grade D). This schedule may be tailored to the needs of the individual and may
also differ depending on local resources. Auckland, for example (with 60% of New Zealand ARF cases), may not be able to see cases
as frequently as is possible in other areas with a smaller case load.
Table 19. Recommended Routine Review and Management Plan for ARF and RHD*
CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA REVIEW AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FREQuENCY
Low risk ARF with no evidence of Secondary prophylaxis (BPG) 4-weekly**

RHD
or
Doctor review 3-5 yearly, or more frequently
Trivial to mild valvular depending on local resource
disease
Echocardiography Children on clinical change
Adults on discharge
Medium or Any moderate or severe Secondary prophylaxis (BPG) 4-weekly**

high risk# valve lesion
or
Infl uenza vaccination Yearly
Mechanical prosthetic
valves
or Cardiologist/physician/paediatrician 6-24 monthly***

review with echocardiography
Tissue prosthetic valves
and valve repairs
Dental review§ 6 monthly
Polysaccharide pneumococcal 5-yearly (max 3 doses)

vaccination (Pneumovax 23)
Endocarditis prophylaxis As required
Additional Following valve surgery Medical assessment 3-4 weeks

considerations ECG post-discharge
Chest radiograph
Echocardiography
Full blood count
Urea, creatinine, electrolytes
INR if indicated
* Review frequency should be determined according to individual needs and local capacity. Most critically, review should become more
frequent in the event of symptom onset, symptomatic deterioration or a change in clinical findings
** In New Zealand, 4-weekly BPG is recommended unless confirmed recurrent ARF has occurred despite full adherence to prophylaxis. In this
case, 3-weekly BPG is recommended (Grade D)
*** Close supervision until stable
# Anyone with severe valvular disease or moderate to severe valvular disease with symptoms should be referred for cardiological and surgical
assessment as soon as is possible (Grade D)
§ Routine dental care is critically important in cases with a history of ARF and/or RHD. All patients should receive education about oral
hygiene, and should be referred promptly for dental assessment and treatment when required. This is especially important prior to valvular
surgery, when all oral/dental pathology should be investigated and treated accordingly (Grade D).

44
[ 12. Prevention of Infective Endocarditis]

Infective endocarditis is a dangerous complication of RHD.38,151 Although the effectiveness of additional antibiotic prophylaxis prior to
dental or surgical procedures has not been proven, its use is supported by animal models of endocarditis and empirical observations,
such as the reduction of bacteraemia.38,151
Therefore, persons with established RHD or prosthetic valves should receive antibiotic prophylaxis prior to procedures expected to
produce bacteraemia. Individuals with a history of ARF but no valvular damage do not require antibiotic prophylaxis. Those already
receiving penicillin for secondary prophylaxis should be offered a different antibiotic for prophylaxis of endocarditis.
Recommendations for the procedures that require endocarditis prophylaxis and the appropriate antibiotics are currently being
updated. These can be found on The National Heart Foundation of New Zealand website (http://www.nhf.org.nz). Some of these
recommendations are also outlined on a wallet card to be carried by cases (Appendix H).
[ 13. Case Finding Surveillance and Screening]

Surveillance
Passive surveillance of ARF usually depends on case identification from health care providers. In New Zealand, ARF and recurrent
ARF are notifiable conditions.14 Historically however, reliance on notification has under-estimated the burden of disease due to
inaccuracies and incompleteness.152 In under-resourced settings, the deficiencies of passive surveillance are exacerbated by high
turnover of hospital and primary care staff and lack of awareness of ARF by many health care providers.
Ideally, active surveillance should be used to augment passive surveillance (Grade D).153 This entails establishing mechanisms to
identify new cases of ARF and to update information about existing cases. This could include:
• mechanisms allowing access to hospital coding data
• echocardiography reports
• specialist review correspondence
• primary health care information.
Where possible, these processes should be automated (including regular downloads of information regarding cases admitted to
hospital with a diagnosis of ARF). This would have to be compliant with the Health Information Privacy Code 1994.
RHD is not a notifiable condition, and is unlikely to be in the near future. It is important to note however that relying only on ARF
notification would not identify a number of Ma-ori and Pacific people with RHD. Furthermore, there is great potential for RHD
notification to improve outcomes for people with RHD because, unlike for most notifiable diseases, there is a simple, cheap and
proven intervention — secondary prophylaxis.

5
Screening for rheumatic heart disease

New Zealand criteria for assessing screening programmes are as follows (Table 20):
Table 20. Recommended Elements of a Screening Programme in New Zealand
• The condition is a suitable candidate for screening. The condition should be an important health problem from both an individual and a
community perspective. The epidemiology and natural history of the condition, including development from latent to declared disease,
should be adequately understood and there should be a detectable risk factor or disease marker and a latent period or pre-symptomatic
stage
• There is a suitable test: safe, simple, reliable, accurate, sensitive, and specifi c
• There is an effective and accessible treatment or intervention for the condition identifi ed through early detection. There should be evidence
that early treatment leads to better outcomes than late treatment
• There is high quality evidence, ideally from randomised controlled trials, that a screening programme is effective in reducing mortality
or morbidity
• The potential benefi t from the screening programme should outweigh the potential physical and psychological harm (caused by the test,
diagnostic procedures and treatment)
• The health care system will be capable of supporting all necessary elements of the screening pathway, including diagnosis, follow-up and
programme evaluation
• There is consideration of social and ethical issues. There should be evidence that the complete screening programme (identifi cation and
invitation, test, diagnostic procedures and treatment/ intervention) is clinically, socially and ethically understood and acceptable to health
professionals and the wider public
• There is consideration of cost-benefi t issues
• When considering and evaluating a prospective screening programme, it is important to consider the direct benefi t to participants and any
public good benefi ts that may result
• Screening programmes need to specifi cally consider and respond to Ma-ori, if they are to ensure participation by Ma-ori, which is crucial to
reducing inequalities in morbidity and mortality in New Zealand.
Source: National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (2003)154
In the Ma-ori and Pacifi c populations in New Zealand, RHD fulfi ls some of these properties:
• RHD is an important health problem in these populations, with signifi cant mortality, morbidity, social and
economic burden. The natural history of RHD is well understood (thanks to classic studies of the 20th
Century),99,155 with a latent or early symptomatic stage
• good adherence to secondary prophylaxis prevents the development or worsening of RHD and leads to
disease resolution in many cases99,143
• milder valve lesions, which are often asymptomatic and thus the most common lesions that will be detected
with screening, are more likely to resolve than more severe lesions in those who adhere to secondary
prophylaxis41,46,103,155
• auscultation and echocardiography could provide appropriate testing tools that are highly sensitive and
specifi c for the disease, as well as being acceptable to the person screened.
The WHO recommends school-based screening for RHD as a tool for estimating the disease burden, and also for identifying cases
in areas with a high prevalence of RHD.38 The ideal method of RHD screening however is not known. The WHO Global Programme
on RHD undertook auscultatory screening of over one million children.146 In some regions, this was augmented by echo to confi rm
the diagnosis of RHD. The sensitivity of cardiac auscultation is highly dependent on the skill of the operator, and the specifi city of
auscultation for rheumatic carditis is low. Therefore, the addition of echocardiography to confi rm the diagnosis has been proposed.
In New Zealand, a national comprehensive RHD screening programme would not be cost-effective. Any screening for RHD here
would have to target high-risk populations in order to improve the pre-test probability. It is possible that auscultatory school-based
screening (such as at school-entry, or at age 11 coordinated with the immunisation programme) could discover undetected RHD in
these populations. Where echocardiography was not available to review all children with murmurs, a highly experienced auscultator
could select all children with non-innocent murmurs for echocardiography (Grade D).

46
Low school attendance for children of high-risk groups in some areas may influence the effectiveness of such a programme. A pilot
programme to estimate the prevalence of undetected RHD in a specified population may be required (Grade D).
Suggested indicators for evaluation

Control programmes for ARF/RHD should be evaluated on criteria for routine care and key epidemiological objectives. These include
measurement of individual and community adherence to secondary prophylaxis, indicators of satisfactory care specified in best-
practice guidelines and rates of disease occurrence, recurrence and mortality.

Further consideration should be given to:
• assessing the delivery of specialist cardiology services
• availability and accessibility of echocardiography
• referral practices and structures
• transportation for cases
• support structures and appropriate follow-up processes.
As has been highlighted throughout the developing world, the availability of and support for routine health care is essential to controlling
ARF/RHD. Indicators used to evaluate ARF/RHD control programmes should be relevant, structured, measurable, routinely available
and affordable. In particular, they should not overburden health care providers and should lead to improved clinical results. A list of
suggested indicators is provided in Table 21 (Grade D).
Table 21. Proposed Indicators for Evaluating ARF/RHD Control Programmes
Secondary prophylaxis
• The proportion of scheduled BPG injections delivered in the previous 12 months
• Individual, community and regional figures, expressed as:
• Median percentage of doses delivered
• Proportion who receive 80% or less of scheduled doses
• Proportion who receive 50% or less of scheduled doses
Medical review
• Proportion of registered individuals who are more than 3 months overdue for specialist or other medical review, as defined by local guidelines
• Proportion of individuals who have echocardiography performed within 3 months of scheduled timing
• Median time elapsed between recommendation and performance of valvular surgery
Epidemiology
• Yearly (or other appropriate time frame) age-specific incidence rates of ARF
• Proportion of ARF episodes in the register classified as recurrences
• Rates of ARF recurrence per 100 patient-years
• Number of deaths and age-standardised rates of mortality due to ARF/RHD in the previous 12 months (or other appropriate time frame)
• Yearly age-specific and overall point prevalence of RHD
• Proportion of ARF cases notified to and recorded by public health authorities in the previous 12 months (or other appropriate time frame)
• Proportion of newly registered individuals with an initial diagnosis being established of RHD (rather than ARF).

7

[ 14. Implementation]
There are a number of driving forces that will assist the implementation of this guideline. There is national practitioner demand for
standardisation of the diagnosis of ARF in order to minimise over- and under-diagnosis and ensure that the high-risk populations
receive appropriate care. There is also demand for effective and cost effective management and avoidance of ARF recurrence and
subsequent disabling RHD. Restraining forces that have the potential to hinder the implementation of this guideline include: reduced
access of cases to diagnostic tests and specialist services, limited resources available, reluctance of practitioners to change current
practice, incomplete understanding of ARF amongst primary and secondary care professionals and inconsistent access to certain
treatments including BPG.
Suggested implementation strategies include:

Streamlined processes for the diagnosis, management and prevention of ARF
• Consistent New Zealand standards for ARF diagnosis
• Consistent standards for streptococcal serology methodology, reporting and assay between laboratories.
Provision of streamlined specialist services

• W
here possible, regions have the opportunity for regular specialist rheumatic fever clinics (potentially involving
both paediatric and medical input, in close association with available cardiology services). These should
coordinate with rheumatic fever registers, the community services involved in BPG delivery and with primary care
providers (particularly Ma-ori and Pacifi c). This has the potential for reducing cases that are lost to follow-up and
to secondary prophylaxis and therefore reduce rheumatic fever recurrence, hospitalisations and RHD.
Ensure funding for training

• M
aintain echocardiography standards for ARF and training of echo technicians in all main centers of
ARF prevalence.
Education
• P
rofessional education targeting both primary and secondary care providers, doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacy,
medical and nursing students
• Increased understanding in primary care of early management, and the need for hospitalisation in ARF.
Community awareness and health promotion

• aise awareness, especially in families and communities at high risk, of the “sore throats do matter” message and
R
of the signs and symptoms of ARF.
Ensure regular supply of benzathine

• he supply of BPG has been inconsistent, with occasional periods where no BPG was available. These guidelines
T
provide the opportunity to discuss with PHARMAC the means of ensuring an uninterrupted supply of BPG,
including the possibility of having an alternative supplier.
• iscussions with hospitals pharmacies on storing back-up supplies of BPG could ensure a contingency plan
D
should supplies run out.
Resource and support for a local ARF register in each area

• Professional leadership
• Adequate administrative support.
Case follow-up
• ecause a number of ARF cases (particularly in Auckland) involve Pacifi c people, there is opportunity for greater
B
links to be forged between New Zealand and the Pacifi c Islands. Key contacts on each Pacifi c Island need
to be identifi ed. They should be able to access information on New Zealand registers and provide reciprocal
information to the New Zealand registers. This will improve the continuity of prophylaxis therapy and care for
cases that travel between these countries.

48
• In addition, there should be continued support for the outreach capacity of primary care providers in
order to reduce the number of cases that are non-compliant or do not present for prophylaxis.
Dissemination of guidelines
It is hoped that this guideline will be used widely. The following are suggestions for dissemination of this guideline:
• The National Heart Foundation of New Zealand through printed resources, including this guideline
and web-based information
• T
he Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ), specifically the launch of the guidelines
at the CSANZ meeting in Auckland in May, 2006
• D
issemination by members of the writing group, reviewers and contributors and the endorsing
organisations
• Production and distribution of an additional resource consisting of the algorithms from this and future
guidelines
• Published articles
• H
ealth promotion initiatives and discussion of this guideline in regions of relatively high prevalence of
ARF.

9

50

[ 15. Algorithms]
Algorithm 1: Guide for the diagnosis of ARF
Note: this algorithm is to help in the decision making process for the diagnosis of ARF with a clinical presentation of a major
criteria. The investigations and observations are not intended to be in chronological order, and the clustering of symptoms and signs
presented are commonly more complex.
Chorea Arthritis Carditis

(Can be stand-alone for (Polyarthritis or mono (Audible murmur
ARF diagnosis) with NSAID) and/or heart failure)
Clinical carditis Echo* Echo*
Yes No ARF ARF

carditis No carditis carditis No carditis
Echo* Consider
Other
Explore alt. serology further echo
major
for arthritis and do (algorithm 2)
carditis No carditis
strep. serology
Strep. Yes No
serology
Explore alt.
diagnosis and Strep. Strep.
+ve GAS and
repeat echo no alt. dx. serology serology
+ve
-ve GAS and
no alt. dx.
-ve
Minor criteria +ve +ve -ve

present -ve
Definite Definite
ARF ARF Definite RHD
Minor
ARF
criteria
present
Yes No
No 1 minor 2 minor
unlikely ARF.
If no other Consider
diagnosis Definite follow-up Probable Definite
definite ARF ARF ARF ARF
Possible ARF if no other diagnosis and high-risk group

Repeat echo at 2-4 weeks, repeat serology, consider prophylaxis

51
Note also that cases can fulfi ll the Jones criteria but not have ARF. Discussion with an experienced clinician, with reference to the full
guideline is recommended.
Subcutaneous Erythema
nodules or marginatum
These are rarely seen as sole major

criteria, therefore look for other major:
• Arthritis (including mono with
NSAID), or
• Carditis (including subclinical)
Yes No
Strep. Strep.
serology serology
-ve +ve -ve +ve
Consider
Definite Minor
alternative -ve
ARF criteria
diagnosis
+ve
Possible ARF if no other Fulfils Jones criteria, but with

diagnosis and high-risk group erythema marginatum or
subcutaneous nodules as sole
Repeat echo at 2-4 weeks, repeat major, follow-up for evolution of
serology, consider prophylaxis diagnosis
* Echo here refers to fulfilling the echocardiographic criteria of ARF. See guidelines for further details.
Abbreviations:
alt. = alternative GAS = group A streptococcus
ARF = acute rheumatic fever mono = monoarthritis
dx = diagnosis NSAID = non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug
Echo = echocardiogram RHD = rheumatic heart disease
Strep. = streptococcus

5
Algorithm 2: Guide for the use of echocardiography in ARF
Any person with suspected ARF and a cardiac

murmur, or any case of chorea, should have an
echocardiogram shortly after admission to hospital
Equivocal
Repeat at Abnormal
Normal
2-4 weeks Tables 6 & 7
Pursue alternative
diagnoses
Tables 8 & 9
Second echocardiogram Second echocardiogram

at 2-4 weeks if no alternative at 4-6 weeks if:
diagnosis. A second echo is • Signs progress
usually unnecessary with a • medication commenced
presentation of chorea • recommended by cardiologist
Normal Abnormal
Tables 6 & 7

53
Algorithm 3: Guide for the duration of secondary prophylaxis

New Zealand standard recommendations are for four-weekly (28-day) IM BPG prophylaxis. A 21-day schedule
of prophylaxis is recommended only for those cases with ARF recurrence while compliant with the four-weekly
schedule. Refer to the text of the guideline for further details.
Possible* ARF Probable* or definite* ARF Established RHD**
Consider prophylaxis
No or mild Moderate Severe
carditis carditis carditis Table 13
Age over 21 Age under 21

Prophylaxis for 10 years or
until age 30 (whichever is
Possible to longer), then review severity
Prophylaxis for
5 years consider 5 years
10 years or until
of disease, GAS
prophylaxis with prophylaxis exposure*** and discuss
21 (whichever is
regular review
Table 13 longer) consideration of continued
prophylaxis (probably
lifelong)
Prophylaxis
for 10 years
or until age 30
(whichever is
longer), then
review
Ongoing exposure
Low-risk GAS to high-risk GAS
environment*** environment***
Stop Consider
prophylaxis continuation of
after 10 years prophylaxis
* See Table 2 for definitions of possible, probable and definite ARF
** It is recommended that cases with established valvular disease have regular dental care and follow the guidelines for endocarditis
prophylaxis
*** Individuals working or living with children, or in a living situation where there is overcrowding or close proximity to others (such as
boarding schools, barracks, and hostels) have a higher risk of exposure to GAS and subsequent development of ARF.

54
16. References
1. Lennon D. Acute Rheumatic Fever. In Feigin R. and Cherry J. (Eds), Textbook of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, 5th ed, 2004.
Philadelphia, W B Saunders. 413-426.
2. Denny F et al. Prevention of rheumatic fever: treatment of the preceding streptococcal infection. JAMA.1950; 143: 151-153.
3. World Health Organisation, Rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease - Report of a WHO Study Group. 1988. World
Health Organisation: Geneva.
4 McDonald M et al. Acute rheumatic fever: a chink in the chain that links the heart to the throat? Lancet Infect Dis. 2004; 4:
240-245.
5. Martin DR et al. Acute rheumatic fever in Auckland, New Zealand: spectrum of associated group A streptococci different
from expected. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1994; 13: 264-269.
6. Gordis L. The virtual disappearance of rheumatic fever in the United States: lessons in the rise and fall of disease.
Circulation. 1985; 72: 1155-1162.
7. Quinn R. Comprehensive review of morbidity and mortality trends for rheumatic fever, streptococcal disease, and scarlet
fever: the decline of rheumatic fever. Rev Infect Dis. 1989; 11: 928-953.
8. Carapetis JR. A review of WHO activities. In: The Burden of and the Evidence for Strategies to Control Group A
Streptococcal Diseases: Part 3: The Current Evidence for the Burden of Group A Streptococcal Diseases. 2004. World
Health Organization: Geneva. 1-49.
9. Stanhope J. New Zealand trends in rheumatic fever 1885-1971. NZ Med J. 1975; 82: 297-299.
10. Carapetis JR et al. Acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease in the Top End of Australia’s Northern Territory. Med J
Aust. 1996; 164: 146-149.
11. Neutze J. Rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease in the Western Pacific region. NZ Med J. 1988; 101: 404-406.
12. Christmas B. Management of rheumatic fever: A review. NZ Med J. 1984; 97.
13. Neutze J, Clarkson P. Rheumatic fever: an unsolved problem in New Zealand. NZ Med J. 1984; 97: 591-593.
14. Thornley C et al. Rheumatic fever registers in New Zealand. Public Health Report. 2001; 8: 41-44.
15. Frankish JD et al. Rheumatic fever and streptococci: The Wairoa College study. NZ Med J. 1978; 87: 33-38.
16. Spinetto H. Recurrences of Rheumatic Fever in Auckland, 1993-1999. 2003. Thesis for Master of Health Science: University
of Auckland.
17. Spinetto H, Lennon D. Control of rheumatic fever recurrences in Auckland, New Zealand: questions answered (submitted).
2006.

18. Olivier C. Rheumatic fever - is it still a problem? J Antimicrob Chemother. 2000; 45: 13-21.
19. Stollerman GH. Rheumatic fever in the 21st century. Clinical Infectious Disease. 2001; 33: 806-814.
20. North D et al. Analysis of costs of acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease in Auckland. NZ Med J. 1993; 106: 400-403.
21. Carapetis JR et al. Cumulative incidence of rheumatic fever in an endemic region: a guide to the susceptibility of the
population? Epidemiol Infect. 2000; 124: 239-244.
22. McNicholas A et al. Overcrowding and infectious diseases--when will we learn the lessons of our past? NZ Med J. 2000;
113: 453-454.

55
23. Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited, Notifi able and Other Diseases in New Zealand. Annual Report,
2004. Wellington: Ministry of Health. Available online. URL: www.surv.esr.cri.nz Accessed April 2005.
24. Newman J et al. Patients with rheumatic fever recurrences. NZ Med J. 1984; 97: 678-680.
25. World Health Organisation Cardiovascular Diseases Unit and Principal Investigators. WHO programme for the prevention
of rheumatic fever/rheumatic heart disease in 16 developing countries: Report from phase I (1986-90). Bull World Health
Organ. 1992; 70: 213-218.
26. Statistics New Zealand, New Zealand Census of People and Dwellings, 2001. Available online.
URL: http://www.stats.govt.nz/ Accessed March 2006.
27. Kotloff K et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a recombinant multivalent group A streptococcal vaccine in healthy adults:
Phase I trial. JAMA. 2004; 292: 709.
28. World Health Organisation. Rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease: Report of a WHO expert consultation. World
Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 923. 2004; Geneva. Available online.
URL: http://www.who.int/cardiovasculardiseases/resources/trs923/en/ Accessed April 2006.
29. Dajani AS et al. Prevention of rheumatic fever. Circulation. 1988; 78: 1082-1086.
30. Baker M, Chakraborty M. Rheumatic fever in New Zealand in the 1990’s: still cause for concern. New Zealand Public Health
Report. 1996. Wellington, Ministry of Health.
31. Wannamaker L et al. Prophylaxis of acute rheumatic fever by treatment of the preceding streptococcal infection with various
amounts of depot penicillin. Am J Med. 1951; 10: 673-681.
32. Lennon D. Acute rheumatic fever in children: Recognition and treatment. Paediatr Drugs. 2004; 6: 363-373.
33. Guash J et al. Studies of the role of continuing or recurrent streptococcal infection in rheumatic valvular heart disease.
American Medical Science. 1962; 224: 290.
34. Strasser T. Cost-effective control of rheumatic fever in the community. Health Policy. 1985; 5: 159-164.
35. Wood HF et al. Rheumatic fever in children and adolescents. A long term epidemiological study of subsequent prophylaxis,
streptococcal infections and clinical sequelae. III. Comparative effectiveness of three prophylaxis regimes in preventing
streptococcal infections and rheumatic recurrences. Ann Intern Med. 1964; 60(Suppl. 5): 31-46.
36. Jones TD. Diagnosis of rheumatic fever. JAMA. 1944; 126: 481-484.
37. Special Writing Group of the Committee on Rheumatic Fever and Kawasaki Disease of the Council on Cardiovascular
Disease in the young of the American Heart Association, Guidelines for the Diagnosis of Rheumatic Fever. Jones criteria
1992 update. JAMA. 1992; 268: 2069-2073.
38. World Health Organisation. Report of a WHO Expert Consultation on Rheumatic Fever and Rheumatic Heart Disease 29
October-1 November 2001. 2001. World Health Organisation: Geneva.
39. Rutstein DD et al. Report of the committee on standards and criteria for programmes of care of the council of rheumatic
fever and congenital heart disease of American Heart Association. Jones criteria (modifi ed) for guidance in the diagnosis of
rheumatic fever. Circulation. 1956; 13: 617-620.
40. Abernethy M et al. Doppler echocardiography and the early diagnosis of acute rheumatic fever. Aust N Z J Med. 1994; 24:
530-535.
41. Voss LM et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin in acute rheumatic fever: a randomized control trial. Circulation. 2001; 103:
401-406.
42. Brewer EJ Jr. New criteria for juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Tex Med. 1973; 69: 84-92.

56
43. Edwards WD et al. Active valvulitis associated with chronic rheumatic valvular disease and active myocarditis. Circulation.
1978; 57: 181-185.
44. Marcus RH et al. The spectrum of severe rheumatic mitral valve disease in a developing country. Correlations among clinical
presentation, surgical pathologic findings, and hemodynamic sequelae. Ann Intern Med. 1994, 120: 177-183.
45. Gentles TL et al. Left ventricular mechanics during and after acute rheumatic fever: contractile dysfunction is closely related
to valve regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 1: 201-207.
46. Wilson NJ et al. The natural history of acute rheumatic fever to one year in the echocardiographic era. In: Proceedings of the
2nd World Congress of Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery. 1997. Imai Y, Momma K. (Eds). Futura Publishing Co:
New York. 971-972.
47. Markowitz M, Gordis L. Rheumatic Fever. 2nd ed. 1972. W.B.Saunders: Philadelphia.
48. Lessof M. Sydenham’s chorea. Guys Hosp Rep. 1958; 107: 185-206.
49. Carapetis JF, Currie BJ. Mortality due to acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease in the Northern Territory: a
preventable cause of death in Aboriginal people. Aust N Z J Public Health. 1999; 23: 159-163.
50. Taranta A, Stollerman GH. The relationship of Sydenham’s chorea to infection with group A streptococci. Am J Med. 1956;
20: 170-175.
51. Taranta A. Relation of isolated recurrences of Sydenham’s chorea to preceding streptococcal infections. N Engl J Med.
1959; 260: 1204-1210.
52. Ayoub EM, Wannamaker LW. Streptococcal antibody titers in Sydenham’s chorea. Pediatrics. 1966; 38: 846-956.
53. Bland EF. Chorea as a manifestation of rheumatic fever: a long-term perspective. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 1943; 73:
209-213.
54. Carapetis JR, Currie BJ. Rheumatic fever in a high incidence population: the importance of monoarthritis and low grade
fever. Arch Dis Child. 2001; 85: 223-227.
55. Centers for Disease Control. Acute rheumatic fever - Utah. MMWR. 1987; 36: 108.
56. Sanyal SK et al. Sequelae of the initial attack of acute rheumatic fever in children from North India. A prospective 5-year
follow-up study. Circulation. 1982; 65: 375-379.
57. Veasy LG et al. Persistence of acute rheumatic fever in the intermountain area of the United States. J Pediatr. 1994; 124:
9-16.
58. Park MK. Pediatric Cardiology for Practitioners, 2nd Edition. 1988. Year Book Medical Publishers: Chicago.
59. Carapetis JR Currie BJ. Rheumatic chorea in northern Australia: a clinical and epidemiological study. Arch Dis Child. 1999;
80: 353-358.
60. Kaplan EL et al. Comparison of the antibody response to streptococcal cellular and extracellular antigens in acute
pharyngitis. J Pediatr. 1974; 84: 21-28.
61. McCarty M. The antibody response to streptococcal infections. In: Streptococcal Infections, 1954. M. McCarty (Ed),
Columbia University Press: New York. 130-142.
62. Stollerman GH et al. Relationship of immune response to group A streptococci to the course of acute, chronic and recurrent
rheumatic fever. Am J Med. 1956; 20: 163-169.
63. Shet A, Kaplan EL. Clinical use and interpretation of group A streptococcal antibody tests: a practical approach for the
pediatrician or primary care physician. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2002; 21: 420-430.

57
64. Vasan RS et al. Echocardiographic evaluation of patients with acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic carditis. Circulation.
1996; 94: 73-82.
65. Wilson NJ, Neutze JM. Echocardiographic diagnosis of subclinical carditis in acute rheumatic fever. Int J Cardiol. 1995; 50:
1-6.
66. World Health Organisation, WHO Workshop for the Development of Standard Defi nitions and Methods for Epidemiological
Studies and Vaccine Trials for Group A Streptococcus, 22-24 September 2005, Cairns, Australia.
67. Carapetis J et al. Seminar: acute rheumatic fever. Lancet. 2005; 366: 155-168.
68. De Cunto CL et al. Prognosis of children with poststreptococcal reactive arthritis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1988; 7: 683-686.
69. Shulman ST, Ayoub EM. Poststreptococcal reactive arthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002; 5: 562-565.
70. Swedo SE et al. Identifi cation of children with pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with
streptococcal infections by a marker associated with rheumatic fever. Am J Psychiatry. 1997; 154: 110-112.
71. Kurlan R, Kaplan EL. The pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infection
(PANDAS) etiology for tics and obsessive-compulsive symptoms: hypothesis or entity? Practical considerations for the
clinician. Pediatrics. 2004; 113: 883-886.
72. Homer C, Shulman ST. Clinical aspects of acute rheumatic fever. J Rheumatol. 1991; 18(Suppl. 29): 2-13.
73. Zomorrodi A, Wald ER. Sydenham’s chorea in Western Pennsylvania. Pediatrics. 2006; 117: 675-679.
74. Albert DA et al. The treatment of rheumatic carditis: a review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 1995; 74: 1-12.
75. Cilliers AM et al. Anti-infl ammatory treatment for carditis in acute rheumatic fever. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;
CD003176.
76. American Academy of Pediatrics. Red Book: Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases. 2003. 26th Ed. Elk Grove
Village, IL.: USA.
77. Melcher GP et al. Comparative effi cacy and toxicity of roxithromycin and erythromycin ethylsuccinate in the treatment of
streptococcal pharyngitis in adults. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988; 22: 549-556.
78. IIIingworth RS et al. Acute rheumatic fever in children: a comparison of six forms of treatment in 200 cases. Lancet.
1957; 2: 653-659.
79. Dorfman A et al. The treatment of acute rheumatic fever. Pediatrics. 1961; 27: 692-706.
80. Bywaters EGL, Thomas GT. Bed rest, salicylates and steroid in rheumatic fever. BMJ. 1961; 1: 1628-1634.
81. Thatai D, Turi DG. Current guidelines for the treatment of patients with rheumatic fever. Drugs. 1999; 57: 545-555.
82. Silva NA, Pereira BA. Acute rheumatic fever: still a challenge. Rheumatic Disease Clin N America. 1997; 23: 545-568.
83. Stollerman G. Rheumatic Fever and Streptococcal Infection. 1975. Grune & Stratton: New York.
84. Hashkes PJ et al. Naproxen as an alternative to aspirin for the treatment of arthritis of rheumatic fever: a randomized trial.
Pediatric J. 2003; 143: 399-401.
85. Uziel Y et al. The use of naproxen in the treatment of children with rheumatic fever. J Pediatr. 2000; 137: 268-271.
86. Taran LM. The treatment of acute rheumatic fever and acute rheumatic heart disease. Am J Med. 1947; 2: 285-295.
87. al Kasab S et al. Valve surgery in rheumatic heart disease. Chest. 1988; 94: 830-833.

58
88. Lessof MH, Bywaters EG. The duration of chorea. BMJ. 1956; 1520-1523.
89. Aron AM et al. The natural history of Sydenham’s Chorea. Review of the literature and long-term evaluation with emphasis
on cardiac sequelae. Am J Med. 1965; 38: 83-95.
90. al-Eissa A. Sydenham’s Chorea: a new look at an old disease. Br J Clin Pract. 1993; 47: 14-16.
91. Swedo SE. Sydenham’s Chorea: a model for childhood autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders. JAMA. 1994; 1788-1791.
92. Daoud AD et al. Effectiveness of sodium valproate in the treatment of Sydenham’s Chorea. Neurology. 1990; 40: 1140-1141.
93. Genel F et al. Sydenham’s Chorea: clinical findings and comparison of the efficacies of sodium valproate and
carbamazepine regimens. Brain Dev. 2002; 24: 73-76.
94. Pena J et al. Comparison of the efficacy of carbamazepine, haloperidol and valproic acid in the treatment of children with
Sydenham’s Chorea. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2002; 60: 374-377.
95. Bisno AL et al. Practical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of group A streptococcal pharyngitis. CID. 2003; 35:
113-125.
96. Dingle JH, Badger G, Jordan WS Jr. Eds. Illness in the home. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press. 1964;
97-119.
97. Carter ME et al. Rheumatic fever treated with penicillin in bactericidal dosage for six weeks. Report of a small controlled trial.
BMJ. 1962; 1: 965-967.
98. Mortimer EA et al. The effect of penicillin on acute rheumatic fever and valvular heart disease. N Engl J Med; 1959. 260: 101-112.
99. Party RFW. The natural history of rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease: ten-year report of a cooperative clinical trial
of ACTH, cortisone and aspirin. Circulation. 1965; 32: 457-476.
100. Medsafe New Zealand. Datasheets containing detailed prescribing information on specific medicines. Available online.
URL: http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs.htm Accessed March 2006.
101. Manyemba J, Mayosi BM. Penicillin for secondary prevention of rheumatic fever. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002; 3.
CD002227.
102. Feinstein AR et al. The prognosis of acute rheumatic fever. Am Heart J. 1964; 68: 817-834.
103. Majeed H et al. Acute rheumatic fever and the evolution of rheumatic heart disease: a prospective 12 year follow-up report.
J Clin Epidemiol. 1992; 8: 871-875.
104. Lue HC et al. Clinical and epidemiological features of rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease in Taiwan and the Far
East. Indian Heart J. 1983; 35: 139-146.
105. Dajani A et al. Treatment of acute streptococcal pharyngitis and prevention of rheumatic fever: a statement for health
professionals. Committee on rheumatic fever, endocarditis, and Kawasaki disease of the Council on Cardiovascular Disease
in the Young, the American Heart Association. Pediatrics. 1995; 96: 758-764.
106. Rheumatic Fever Working Party. Circular Letter to Medical Practitioners, New Zealand Department of Health (HP 2/87)
1987: Rheumatic Fever Secondary Prophylaxis.
107. Kaplan E et al. Pharmacokinetics of benzathine penicillin G: serum levels during the 28 days after intramuscular injection of
1,200,000 units. J Pediatr. 1989; 115: 146-150.
108. Lue HC et al. Rheumatic fever recurrences: controlled study of 3 week versus 4 week benzathine penicillin prevention
programmes. J Pediatr. 1986; 108: 299-304.
109. Padmavati S et al. Penicillin for rheumatic fever prophylaxis 3 weekly or 4 weekly schedule. J Assoc Physicians India.
1987; 35: 753-755.

59
110. Lue HC et al. Long term outcome of patients with rheumatic fever receiving benzathine penicillin G prophylaxis every three
weeks versus every 4 weeks. J Pediatr. 1994; 125: 812-816.
111. Lue HC et al. Three versus four week administration of benzathine penicillin G: effects on incidence of streptococcal
infections and recurrences of rheumatic fever. J Paediatr. 1996; 97(6 part 2): 984-988.
112. Currie B et al. Penicillin concentrations after increased doses of benzathine penicillin G for prevention of secondary
rheumatic fever. Antimicrobial Agents Chemother. 1994; 38: 1203-1204.
113. Kassem AS et al. Guidelines for management of children with rheumatic fever (RF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD) in
Egypt. The Egyptian Society of Cardiology and the Egyptian Society of Pediatric Cardiologists: Alexandria.
114. Feinstein A et al. A controlled study of three methods of prophylaxis against streptococcal infection in a population of
rheumatic children. N Engl J Med. 1959; 260: 697-702.
115. Dajani A. Adherence to physicians’ instructions as a factor in managing streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatrics. 1996; 97:
976-980.
116. World Health Organisation (Division of Drug Management and Policies), WHO Model Prescribing Information. Drugs used in
the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis and prevention of rheumatic fever. 1999. World Health Organisation: Geneva.
117. International Rheumatic Fever Study Group, Allergic reactions to long-term benzathine penicillin prophylaxis for rheumatic
fever. Lancet. 1991; 337: 1308-1310.
118. Markowitz M, Lue HC. Allergic reactions in rheumatic fever patients on long-term benzathine penicillin G: The role of skin
testing for penicillin allergy. Pediatrics. 1996; 97: 981-983.
119. Hardman JG et al. Goodman and Gillman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 10th Ed. McGraw Hill Publishing. 2001.
120. Weiss ME, Adkinson NF. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to penicillin and related antibiotics. Clin Allergy. 1988; 18:
515.
121. Briggs G et al. Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation 6th Ed Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. 2002.
122. Sweetman S. Ed. Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference. 34th ed. London; Chicago: Pharmaceutical Press, 2005.
123. Baxter K. Ed. Stockley’s Drug Interactions: A Source Book of Interactions, Their Mechanisms, Clinical Importance and
Management. 7th ed. London: Pharmaceutical Press, 2006.
124. Szarewski A, Guillebaud J. Contraception: A User’s Handbook. 2nd ed. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
125. Mehta D, Ed. British National Formulary. 49th ed. London: British Medical Association: Royal Pharmaceutical Society of
Great Britain; 2005.
126. Dickinson BD et al. Drug interactions between oral contraceptives and antibiotics. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 98: 853-860.
127. Frankish JD. Rheumatic fever prophylaxis: Gisborne experience. NZ Med J. 1984; 97: 674-675.
128. Barnhill BJ et al. Using pressure to decrease the pain of intramuscular injections. J Pain Symptom Manage.1996; 12: 52-58.
129. Amir J et al. Lidocaine as a dilutent for administration of benzathine penicillin G. Ped Inf Dis J. 1998; 17: 890-893.
130. Bass J. A review of the rationale and advantages of various mixtures of benzathine penicillin G. J Pediatr. 1996; 96:
960-963.
131. Bass J et al. Streptococcal pharyngitis in children: a comparison of four treatment schedules with intramuscular penicillin G
benzathine. JAMA. 1976; 235: 1112-1116.

60
132. Bassili A et al. Profile of secondary prophylaxis among children with rheumatic heart disease in Alexandria, Egypt. Eastern
Mediterr Health J. 2000; 6: 437-446.
133. Arya R. Awareness about sore throat, rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease in a rural community. Indian J Public
Health. 1992; 36: 63-67.
134. Iyengar S et al. A rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease control programme in a rural community of North India. Nat
Med J India. 1991; 4: 268-271.
135. Bach J et al. 10 year educational programme aimed at rheumatic fever in two French Caribbean Islands. Lancet. 1996; 347:
644-648.
136. Flight RJ. The Northland rheumatic fever register. NZ Med J. 1984; 97: 671-673.
137. Strasser T et al. The community control of rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease: Report of a WHO international
cooperative project. Bull World Health Organ. 1981; 59: 285-294.
138. Carapetis J et al. Ten-year follow-up of a cohort with rheumatic heart disease. Aust N Z J Med. 1997; 27: 691-697.
139. Lennon D. Rheumatic fever, a preventable disease? The New Zealand experience. In: Streptococci and Streptococcal
Disease: Entering the New Millenium, Martin DR, Tagg JR (Eds). 2000: ESR: Porirua. 503-512.
140. Lennon D, Trotman J, Lello J et al. Rheumatic Fever Recurrences: Delivery of penicillin via a computer register. Proceedings
of NZ Paediatric Society, 1992. Pediatr Res. abstract #557, 95A.
141. Stollerman GH. The use of antibiotics for the prevention of rheumatic fever. American J Med. 1954; 17: 757-767.
142. Diehl AM et al. Long acting repository penicillin in the prophylaxis of recurrent rheumatic fever. JAMA. 1954.
155:1466-1470
144. Padmavati S. Rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease in developing countries. Bull World Health Organ. 1978; 56: 543.
145. Lue HC, Chen CL, Wei H. Outcomes of children with rheumatic fever not diagnosed by revised (1965) Jones criteria. Jpn
Heart J. 1976; 17: 560-569.
146. World Health Organisation. The WHO Global Programme for the Prevention of Rheumatic Fever and Rheumatic Heart
Disease: Report of a Consultation to Review Progress and Develop Future Activities 29 November-1 December 1999. 2000.
World Health Organisation: Geneva.
147. Kumar R et al. Compliance of secondary prophylaxis for controlling rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease in a rural
area of Northern India. Indian Heart J. 1997; 49: 283-288.
148. Kumar R et al. A community based rheumatic fever/rheumatic heart disease cohort: twelve year experience. Indian Heart J.
2002; 54: 54-558.
149. Brown A et al. Central Australian Rheumatic Heart Disease Control Programme: A report to the Commonwealth November
2002. NT Disease Control Bull. 2003; 10: 1-8.
150. Gordis L et al. An evaluation of the Maryland rheumatic fever registry. Public Health Report. 1969; 84: 333-339.
151. Ellis-Pegler R, Hay KD, Lang SD, Neutze JM, Swinburn B. Prevention of infective endocarditis associated with dental
treatment and other interventions (Review) NZ Med J. 2000; 113: 289-292.
152. Rice M, Kaplan E. Rheumatic fever in Minnesota 2: evaluation of hospitalized patients and utilization of a state rheumatic
fever registry. Am J Public Health. 1979; 69: 767-771.
153. MacQueen J. State registries and the control of rheumatic fever. Am J Public Health. 1979; 69: 761-762.
154. National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability. Screening to Improve Health in New Zealand: Criteria to Assess
Screening Programmes, 2003. Available online. URL: http://www.nhc.govt.nz Accessed March 2006.

1
155. Bland EF, Jones TD. Rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease: A twenty-year report on 1,000 patients followed since
childhood. Circulation. 1951; 4: 836-843.
156. Folger GM, Hajar R. Doppler echocardiographic fi ndings of mitral and aortic valvular rergurgitation in children manifesting
only rheumatic arthritis. Am J Cardiol. 1989; 63: 1278-1280.
157. Hardy M et al. High rates of rheumatic heart disease in Tongan children, and a protocol for echo-based screening in
developing countries (abstract). In: 16th Lancefi eld International Symposium on Streptococci and Streptococcal Disease.
2005. Cairns.
158. Committee of Rheumatic Fever and Bacterial Endocarditis of the American Heart Association. Jones criteria (revised) for
guidance in the diagnosis of rheumatic fever. Circulation. 1984; 69: 204A-08A.
159. Stollerman GH et al. Jones criteria (revised) for guidance in the diagnosis of rheumatic fever. Circulation. 1965; 32: 664-668.
160. Ferrieri P et al. Proceedings of the Jones criteria workshop. Circulation. 2002; 106: 2521-2523.
161. Marcus RH et al. Functional anatomy of severe mitral regurgitation in active rheumatic carditis. Am J Cardiol. 1989; 63:
577-584.
162. Wu YN et al. Rupture of chordae tendineae in acute rheumatic carditis: report of one case. Acta Paediatrica Sinica. 1992;
33: 376-382.
163. Zhou LY, Lu K. Infl ammatory valvular prolapse produced by acute rheumatic carditis: echocardiographic analysis of 66 cases
of acute rheumatic carditis. Int J Cardiol. 1997; 58: 175-178.
164. Lembo NJ et al. Mitral valve prolapse in patients with prior rheumatic fever. Circulation. 1988; 77: 830-836.
165. Jaffe WM et al. Clinical evaluation versus Doppler echocardiography in the quantitative assessment of valvular heart disease.
Circulation. 1988; 78: 267-275.
166. Perry GL et al. Evaluation of aortic insuffi ciency by Doppler color fl ow mapping. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987; 9: 952-959.
167. Thomas L et al. The mitral regurgitation index: an echocardiographic guide to severity. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 33: 16-22.
168. Wilson NJ et al. Colour-Doppler demonstration of pathological valve regurgitation should be accepted as evidence of carditis
in acute rheumatic fever. NZ Med J. 1995; 108: 200.
169. Yoshida K et al. Colour Doppler evaluation of valvular regurgitation in normal subjects. Circulation. 1988; 78: 840-847.
170. Berger M et al. Pulsed and continuous wave Doppler echocardiographic assessment of valvular regurgitation in normal
subjects. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989; 13: 1540-1545.
171. Sahn DJ, Maciel BC. Physiological valvular regurgitation: Doppler echocardiography and the potential for iatrogenic heart
disease. Circulation. 1988; 78: 1075-1077.
172. Choong CY et al. Prevalence of valvular regurgitation by Doppler echocardiography in patients with structurally normal
hearts by two dimensional echocardiography. Am Heart J. 1989; 117: 636-642.
173. Veasy LG et al. Resurgence of acute rheumatic fever in the intermountain area of the United States. N Engl J Med. 1987;
316: 421-427.
174. Minich LL et al. Doppler echocardiography distinguishes between physiologic and pathologic “silent” mitral regurgitation in
patients with rheumatic fever. Clin Cardiol. 1997; 11: 924-926.
175. Folger GM et al. Occurrence of valvular heart disease in acute rheumatic fever without evident carditis: colour fl ow Doppler
identifi cation. Br Heart J. 1992; 67: 434-438.
176. Mota CC. Doppler echocardiographic assessment of subclinical valvulitis in the diagnosis of acute
rheumatic fever. Cardiol Young. 2001; 11: 251-254.

62
177. Figueroa FE et al. Prospective comparison of clinical and echocardiographic diagnosis of rheumatic carditis: long term
follow-up of patients with subclinical disease. Heart. 2001; 85: 407-410.
178. Lionet P et al. Significance and importance of the discovery of a subclinical aortic regurgitation for the diagnosis of rheumatic
carditis. In: 2nd International Cardiology Congress of South Pacific. 2001.
179. Regmi PR, Pandey MR. Prevalence of rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease in school children of Kathmandu city.
Indian Heart J. 1997; 49: 518-520.
180. Cotrim C et al. O ecocardiograma no primeiro surto de fibre reumatica no crianca (The echocardiogram in the first attack of
rheumatic fever in childhood). Rev Port Cardiol (Portuguese J Cardiol). 1994; 13: 581-586.
181. Agarwal PK et al. Usefulness of echocardiography in detection of subclinical carditis in acute rheumatic polyarthritis and
rheumatic chorea. J Assoc Physicians India. 1998; 46: 937-938.
182. Narula J, Kaplan EL. Echocardiographic diagnosis of rheumatic fever. Lancet. 2001; 358: 2000.

3

[ 17. Appendices]
Appendix A: Guideline development process
• Relevant literature regarding ARF was identifi ed primarily using computerised Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest and other databases.
Publications were limited to those in the English language. Articles found through this methodology were then searched
for relevant information and further articles identifi ed through bibliographic references. A substantial physical library of ARF
references held at the School of Population Health was also reviewed for key articles. In addition to journal article searches,
regular review and searches were made of internet sites such as the World Health Organisation, New Zealand Ministry of
Health, New Zealand Environment Scientifi c Research (ESR) and the New Zealand Department of Statistics
• In 2005, a steering group which arose out of the New Zealand members of the writing group for the Australian guidelines met
and agreed to develop the New Zealand version of guidelines for the diagnosis, management and prevention of ARF
• a writing group comprising experts in the area reviewed the Australian draft and reached consensus on areas of disagreement
• selected individuals re-wrote the Australian guidelines for the New Zealand context, and according to the outline recommended
by the New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG)
• members of the writing group with experience in ARF/RHD diagnosis, management, and prevention then reviewed each
chapter and their suggestions were incorporated into a second draft
• the revised draft was widely distributed to a range of stakeholders, who were then invited to comment
• the stakeholders reviewed the draft and reached consensus on areas of disagreement
• the comments were then incorporated into a fi nal draft, which was endorsed by the stakeholders.

64
Appendix B: Jones criteria for the diagnosis of ARF
There is no single symptom, sign, or laboratory test that is diagnostic for ARF. The Jones criteria were introduced in 1944. Major
manifestations (least likely to lead to an incorrect diagnosis) at that time included carditis, joint symptoms, subcutaneous nodules and
chorea. Historical evidence of ARF or RHD was also a major manifestation. Minor manifestations (suggestive, but not sufficient for the
diagnosis) included clinical signs such as fever, erythema marginatum, and abdominal pain and laboratory markers of inflammation such
as ESR and leukocytosis. Since a previous history of ARF was considered a major criterion, cases only needed minor manifestations
in order to fulfil the diagnosis (one major and two minor).21,28
In order to improve specificity, in 1956 arthritis replaced joint symptoms as a major manifestation, and erythema marginatum was
reconsidered as a major manifestation. A preceding ARF or RHD was reclassified as a minor manifestation, and other minor
manifestations of arthralgia, and evidence of a preceding GAS infection were added.39 In subsequent revisions in 1965 and 1984,
evidence of a GAS infection was considered essential.28,158,159
Manifestations Original Jones AHA AHA WHO AHA Update WHO

criteria 1944 Modified 1956 Revised 1965 1988 1992 2003
(1984)
Carditis
Long PRa
Arthritis
Arthralgia
Subcutaneous
nodules
Chorea
Erythema
marginatum
Pre-existing
RF/RHD
Fever
WBC, ESR, CRPa
Epistaxis,
abdominal pain, anemia,
pulmonary findings
Recent streptococoal
infection
Essential Major Minor Special Consideration
Source: World Health Organisation (2004). Page 20. 28

a
PR = PR interval in the electrocardiogram; WBC = leukocytosis; ESR = erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP = C-reactive protein.

5
The current Jones Criteria (1992)37 are designed to establish the diagnosis of the initial attack of ARF and a previous history of ARF
or RHD is excluded from the list of minor manifestations. The sensitivity of ARF arthritis to NSAIDs and salicylates, and therefore the
potential for the use of these medications to aid in diagnosis, is described. In addition, the 1992 criteria defi ne three circumstances
in which the diagnosis of ARF can be made without strictly adhering to the Jones criteria.
These are:
• chorea occuring as the only manifestation of ARF
• indolent carditis occurring as the only manifestation of ARF
• a presumptive diagnosis of rheumatic fever recurrence may be made when a single major or several minor
manifestations are present in a patient with a reliable history of ARF or established RHD, provided there is
evidence of a recent GAS infection.37
The Jones criteria Working Group met again in 2000 to review the adequacy of existing guidelines for the diagnosis of the initial
attack of ARF. The consensus opinion at this time was that no new version of the criteria was justifi ed. It was reiterated that the
epidemiological setting where diagnosis is being made is important, and that strict adherence to the Jones criteria in areas of high
prevalence may result in under-diagnosis.160 This group determined that echocardiography is useful for confi rming clinical fi ndings,
assessing severity of valvular disease, chamber size and ventricular function, and noting the presence and size of pericardial effusions.
Echocardiography was also noted to be useful for the management of ARF, and to exclude ARF as a cause of murmur. However, the
use of echocardiography in the diagnosis of ARF was determined by this working group to be too controversial to classify as a major
or minor criterion. Controversy arose because of ‘normal’ valvular regurgitation (which increases with age), regurgitation with febrile
illnesses unrelated to ARF, and the uncertainty over the long-term prognostic signifi cance of echocardiography.160

66
Appendix C: Use of echocardiography in ARF

Echocardiography is now recommended for all suspected cases of ARF. The uses of echocardiography in ARF are presented in
Table 22.
Table 22. Uses of Echocardiography in ARF
DIAGNOSIS
Echocardiographic evidence of subclinical carditis is sufficient as a major manifestation of ARF
PERICARDITIS
Confirming the presence of a pericardial effusion
Revealing inaudible or subclinical valvular regurgitation in presence of a friction rub
MYOCARDITIS AND CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE
Defining left ventricular function
Confirming the severity of valvulitis (valvulitis is usually present in ARF with heart failure)
VALVULITIS
Visualisation of anatomy of the valves, especially in mitral regurgitation. This is paramount in surgical decision-making
Defining the severity of mitral, aortic and/or tricuspid regurgitation
Defining the severity of mixed valve disease
Identifying subclinical evidence of rheumatic valve damage.
The anatomy and physiology of ARF as shown by echocardiography M-mode and 2-dimensional echocardiography (2DE) are used in
evaluating chamber size and ventricular function. More complex formulae based on 2DE can also be used to calculate left ventricular
function (e.g. single plane ellipse and Simpson’s methods of discs).45 2DE allows visualisation of the functional anatomy of acute mitral
regurgitation. The degree of annular dilatation is easily shown by relating annular size to body surface area. Mitral valve prolapse is
a frequent finding with greater degrees of mitral regurgitation. Chordal elongation and sometimes chordal rupture may occur in the
presence of significant valve prolapse.161,162,163,164
Valvular regurgitation can be accurately graded with pulsed and colour Doppler echocardiography as nil, physiological, mild, moderate
and severe for both rheumatic40 and non-rheumatic valve disease.165,166,167,168 Colour Doppler echocardiography shows the direction of
the regurgitant jet, which is directed posteriorly with anterior mitral valve leaflet prolapse, and anteriorly with the less common posterior
leaflet prolapse.
Echocardiography and physiological valvular regurgitation

Trivial valvular regurgitation is commonly detected on echocardiography as a normal finding. It can now be readily distinguished from
pathological regurgitation. First, valve closure is associated with physiological displacement of a small amount of blood, the closing
volume, which is detectable by colour flow Doppler imaging. Second, true regurgitant jets, albeit trivial in nature, may be observed in
normal individuals of all ages46,169 These leaks extend beyond the valve coaptation point, but usually by only 1cm or less.46,169,170 They
may have a high velocity component, generally for only part of systole or diastole.

7
Trivial right-sided regurgitation is very common,171 but trivial aortic regurgitation is uncommon, occurring in 0-1% of normal subjects,
except in one study46 where closing volumes were included. The characteristic Doppler echocardiographic feature of trivial mitral
regurgitation in normal subjects is an aliasing fl ow pattern in early systole, with a velocity usually <1m/s.46,169,172 One study reported
holosystolic fl ow signals, but they were recorded only at the valve leafl ets, and had a poorly defi ned spectral envelope.170 Sometimes
a brief high velocity component may be detected.170
Subclinical evidence of rheumatic valve damage

In those with suspected ARF and a murmur, reliance on clinical fi ndings alone may result in misclassifi cation of carditis.38,40,65 Some
cases have been shown on echocardiography to have a physiological or fl ow murmur, or even congenital heart disease. The likelihood
of misclassifi cation has increased in recent years, as physicians’ auscultatory skills have become less profi cient.38 There is convincing
evidence that subclinical or silent rheumatic valve damage detected by echocardiography is part of the spectrum of rheumatic carditis
and should not be ignored. This has been confi rmed by investigators in many regions around the world with high rates of rheumatic
fever, including New Zealand 40,41,65 Australia, USA,57,173,174 Qatar,156,175 Brazil,176 Turkey, Chile,177 Tahiti,178 Nepal,179 Portugal,180 Egypt
and India.181 A single report from India describing 28 patients with polyarthritis or chorea failed to detect any subclinical carditis.64
In experienced hands, subclinical rheumatic valve damage can usually be differentiated on echocardiography from physiological
regurgitation.40,171,177 However, there are some authors who advocate against the concept of subclinical rheumatic valve damage.182
A World Health Organisation expert committee concurred that subclinical rheumatic valve damage exists.38 However, because the
clinical signifi cance of this fi nding is not yet known, they decided against recommending its inclusion in the Jones criteria. In the
opinion of the authors of this review, echocardiographic diagnosis of subclinical valve damage can help experienced clinicians in
making the diagnosis of ARF, or in confi rming the presence of carditis in cases of ARF without an obviously pathological heart murmur.
Therefore, it is recommended that echocardiographically suggested valve damage (subclinical or otherwise), diagnosed by a clinician
with experience in echocardiography of patients with ARF/RHD, be included as a major manifestation (Table 3) (Level IV, Grade C).
Subclinical valve damage infl uences the diagnosis of ARF in relatively few individuals. Most cases have either migratory polyarthritis,
or clinically overt carditis that can be confi rmed by echocardiography. However, there are some cases in which the fi nding may
help to confi rm the diagnosis, and to reinforce in the minds of cases and their families the importance of adherence to a secondary
prophylactic regimen (Table 23).
Table 23. Diagnostic and Clinical Utility of Subclinical Rheumatic Valve Damage in ARF
MAIN CLINICAL FEATuRES OF ARF IMPLICATIONS OF A FINDING OF SuBCLINICAL VALVE DAMAGE
DIAGNOSTICALLY CLINICALLY
Polyarthritis Usually none, as Jones criteria fulfi lled, but can

increase confi dence in diagnosis of ARF Helps to reinforce the importance of 2°
prophylaxis
Monoarthritis or arthralgia May confi rm the diagnosis as ARF, as long as

other causes of joint disease are excluded
Chorea Confi rms the diagnosis as ARF. Avoids the need to

exclude other causes of chorea.
Erythema marginatum Nil, because clinical carditis or polyarthritis usually

present
Subcutaneous nodules Nil, because clinical carditis or polyarthritis usually

present
Clinical carditis Nil Defi nes involvement of second valve if only

1 valve has clinical carditis.

68
Appendix D: Medications used in ARF
Table 24. Medications Used in ARF
MEDICATION INDICATION REGIMEN DURATION
Benzathine penicillin G IM Treat streptococcal 900mg (1,200,000 U) >20kg Single dose

infection 450mg (600,000 U) ≤20kg
or
Penicillin V PO 250mg bd 10 days
or
Erythromycin ethyl succinate 40mg/kg per day in 2-4 divided doses 10 days
PO maximum 1g/day (children)
400mg bd (adolescents and adults)
Paracetamol PO Arthritis or arthralgia 60mg/kg/day (max 4g) given in 4-6 Until symptoms
- mild or until diagnosis doses/day. May increase to relieved or NSAID
confirmed 90mg/kg/day if needed, under started
medical supervision
Codeine PO Arthritis or arthralgia until 0.5-1.0mg/kg/dose

diagnosis confirmed (adults 15-60mg/ dose) 4- 6h
Aspirin PO Arthritis or severe 80-100mg/kg/day (4-8 g/d in adults) Until joint

arthralgia (when ARF given in 4-5 doses/day symptoms relieved
diagnosis confirmed)
Reduce to 60-70mg/kg/day when
symptoms improve
Consider ceasing in the presence

of acute viral illness, and consider
influenza vaccine if administered during
autumn/winter
Naproxen PO Arthritis 10-20mg/kg/day (max 1250mg) given As for aspirin

(if aspirin-intolerant) bd
Prednisone or Prednisolone Severe carditis, heart 1-2mg/kg/day (max 80mg). If used >1 Usually 1 to 3 weeks
PO failure, pericarditis with week, taper by 20-25% per week
effusion
Frusemide PO/IV (can also be Heart failure Children: 1-2mg/kg stat, then Until failure controlled and
given IM) 0.5-1mg/kg/dose 6-24 hrly carditis improved
(max 6mg/kg/dose)
Adults: 20-40mg/dose 12-24 hrly

up to 250-500mg/day

9

MEDICATION INDICATION REGIMEN DuRATION
Spironolactone PO Heart failure 1-3mg/kg/day (max 100-200mg/day) As for frusemide

in 1-3 doses. Round dose to multiple
of 6.25mg (quarter of a tab)
Enalapril PO Heart failure Children: 0.1mg/kg/day in 1-2 doses As for frusemide

increased gradually over 2 wks to max
of 1mg/kg/day in 1-2 doses
Adults Initial: 2.5mg daily Maintenance:

10-20mg daily (max 40mg)
Lisinopril PO Heart failure Children: 0.1- 0.2mg/kg once daily up As for frusemide
to 1mg/kg/dose
Adults: 2.5-20mg once daily

(max 40mg/day)
Digoxin PO/IV Heart failure/atrial Children: 15mcg/kg stat and then Seek advice from
fi brillation 5mcg/kg after 6 hrs, then specialist
3-5 mcg/kg/dose (max 125 mcg)
12-hourly.
Adults: 125-250 mcg daily
Check serum levels
Carbamazepine PO Severe chorea 7-20mg/kg/day (7-10mg/kg/day Until chorea

usually suffi cient) given tds. controlled for
several weeks,
then trial off
medication
Valproic acid PO Severe chorea (may affect Usually 15-20mg/kg/day (can increase As for
salicylate metabolism) to 30mg/kg/day) given tds carbamazepine.

70
Appendix E: Comparison of intramuscular penicillin and oral penicillin for secondary

prevention
A search was conducted by Manyemba and Mayosi (2002).101 The search strategy included the Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane
Library Issue 2, 2001), Medline (January 1996 to July 2000), Embase (January 1985 to July 2000), reference lists of articles and
consulatation with experts.
Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing: (i) oral with intramuscular penicillin; and (ii) two-weekly or three-weekly with
four-weekly intramuscular penicillin in patients with previous ARF. Two reviewers independently assessed the trial quality and extracted
the data of six included studies (1,707 patients).
Four trials (1,098 patients) compared IM with oral penicillin and all showed that IM penicillin was more effective than oral in reducing
recurrence of ARF and streptococcal throat infections.
One trial compared two-weekly with four-weekly IM penicillin. Penicillin given every two weeks was better at reducing ARF recurrence
(relative risk (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-0.83) and streptococcal throat infections (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.85).
One trial (249 patients) showed that three-weekly IM penicillin injections were more effective than four-weekly IM penicillin at reducing
streptococcal throat infections (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.92).
The conclusions made therefore were that IM penicillin seemed to be more effective than oral penicillin in preventing ARF recurrence
and streptococcal throat infections. Two-weekly or three-weekly injections appeared to be more effective than four-weekly injections.
However, the evidence was based on poor-quality trials and the use of outdated formulations of oral penicillin.101

71
Appendix F: Anaphylaxis recognition and management
The signs and symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction include: rapid weak pulse, wheeze, tightness in chest, pruritis, urticaria, giddiness
or headache, fl ushing and/or periorbital oedema.
Response procedure:
• do not leave the patient alone
• call for assistance
• lie patient in recovery position (may be better sitting up if severe respiratory distress)
• ensure airway is clear, apply oxygen if available
• give adrenaline (Table 25)
• ring 111 for ambulance
• check vital signs, note colour, tone and perfusion
• if signs of further deterioration, repeat adrenaline after 10 minutes
• up to 3 doses of adrenaline can be given.
Adrenaline dosage:
Table 25. Recommended Dose of Adrenaline in Anaphylaxis*
12 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER
0.5ml of 1:1000 adrenaline, deep IM injection
uNDER 12 YEARS OF AGE
Approximately 0.01ml/kg of 1:1000 adrenaline, deep IM injection
• Age 0-3 years: 0.1ml
Source: Starship Hospital Clinical Practice Manual, Auckland District Health Board (2006).
* Up to 3 doses of adrenaline can be given

7
Appendix G: Protocol for follow-up of non-compliant cases
Case is non-compliant with injections on 3-4 concurrent

occasions. All attempts at contact are clearly documented in
the patients file. These attempts should include the use
of multiple modalities for contact including telephone
calls, visits, texting and the use of the local knowledge of
community health workers
Discuss with primary nurse and refer to community health worker,

public health nurse, or other community staff as fitting in the area for
follow up. Note also opportunity to involve staff from Ma-ori or Pacific
primary health providers, if appropriate
Community health worker (or other community staff responsible)

follows up with case (and family) to determine reason for non-
compliance. Where necessary and appropriate, provides on going
support, education, and arranges appointments for review at
outpatient clinic
If compliance is no If non-compliance continues, letter of

longer a problem, planning to discharge is copied to the
continue routine case, case file, and GP after discussion
secondary prophylaxis with primary nurse and community
health worker
Case file goes “on hold”

for up to six months
(local area policy may suggest
regular attempts at contact while
case is on hold)
At the end of the holding period, the

primary nurse and community health
worker review the case and if
considered appropriate a discharge
letter is to be sent to the case, with a
copy to the patient file, GP, and rheumatic
fever register (if available)

73
Appendix H: Wallet card for infective endocarditis prevention
PLEASE CARRY THIS CARD WITH YOU
■ Children Under 10 years ■ Children Under 10 years

Amoxycillin 250 mg in 5 ml, oral Clarithromycin 125 mg/5 ml oral
suspension 50 mg/kg (max 2 liquid 15 mg/kg (max 500 mg)
g) one hour prior to procedure one hour prior to procedure.
then,25 mg/kg (max 1 g) six A single dose only required.
hours later. INFECTIVE ENDOCARDITIS
■ Genitourinary and PROPHYLAXIS
■ Patients with Penicillin Gastrointestinal (excluding
allergy or treated with oesophageal) procedures Name:
Penicillin or Cephalosporin For standard risk patients who NHI:
within the last two weeks, have not received Penicillin/
or on long term Penicillin Cephalosporin in the last two Diagnosis:
prophylaxis Adults and weeks and are not on long term
Children Over 10 years Penicillin, Amoxycillin as per
Clarithromycin tab 500 mg orally previous dosages. GP:
one hour prior to procedure.
A single dose only is required. For all other patients including high
risk, discuss with Paediatrician/ Hospital Doctor:
Physician/Cardiologist.
Standard Risk ■ High Risk ■
Information For Patient/ HOSPITAL CHECK UPS DO instrumentation through the apex
Parents/Guardians NOT REPLACE VISITS TO of the tooth.
YOUR LOCAL DENTIST/
DENTALTHERAPIST. ■ Dental/Oral/Respiratory
has a heart disorder and therefore
3 Using a mouth guard for Tract/Oesophageal Procedures
needs antibiotic protection to
be given before some of the contact sports will help Patients who have not received
procedures that dentists and protect teeth. Penicillin or Cephalosporin in the
doctors may need to do. 4 Antibiotics are not needed for last two weeks and are not on
natural loss of baby teeth. long term Penicillin:
YOU MUST SHOW THIS CARD
TO ANY DENTIST/DENTAL
THERAPIST OR DOCTOR ■ Information for ■ Adults and Children Over
BEFORE TREATMENT IS Doctor/Dentist/Dental 10 years
STARTED. Therapist 2 g Amoxycillin orally one hour
General Advice This patient is at risk of prior to procedure.
bacterial endocarditis and 1 g Amoxycillin orally six hours
1 Regular teeth cleaning and
requires prophylaxis as detailed after the first dose.
avoiding sugary foods and
below. Antibiotic prophylaxis
drinks will reduce the need
is necessary for all procedures
for dental surgery.
involving manipulation/bleeding
2 Regular dental check ups will
of the gingival tissues and any
help keep teeth healthy.

74
18. Glossary
2DE............................................... 2-dimensional echocardiography

alt................................................. alternative
ANA.............................................. anti nuclear antibody
anti-DNase B............................... antideoxyribonuclease B
ARF.............................................. acute rheumatic fever
ASO.............................................. antistreptolysin O
BP................................................. blood pressure
BPG.............................................. benzathine penicillin G
CRP.............................................. C-reactive protein
CSANZ......................................... Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand
ECG.............................................. electrocardiogram
Echo............................................. echocardiography
ESR.............................................. erythrocyte sedimentation rate
GAS.............................................. group A streptococcus
HR................................................ heart rate
IM................................................. intramuscular
INR............................................... international normalised ratio
IV.................................................. intravenous
mU................................................ megaunits
NHF.............................................. The National Heart Foundation of New Zealand
NHI............................................... National Hospital Index
NSAID........................................... non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug
PANDAS....................................... paediatric auto-immune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections
PO................................................ per oral
RAST............................................ RadioAllergoSorbent Test
RHD.............................................. rheumatic heart disease
ULN.............................................. upper limits of normal
WHO............................................. World Health Organisation

75

[ 19. Notes]

76

Endorsed by:

Endorsed by:

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in New
Zealand, accounting for 40 percent of all deaths annually (approx.
10,500 people).
Since its inception in 1968, the Heart Foundation has played a major
role in reducing the high incidence of death from cardiovascular
disease, including:
•F unding vital heart-related medical and scientific research in
New Zealand
• Working with at-risk groups through intervention programmes
• Supporting and implementing cardiac rehabilitation programmes
• Working with food industry groups to promote healthier foods
• Providing education programmes promoting healthy eating and
physical activity
• Providing heart health resources to health professionals and the
general public
• Working with Pacific people through Pacific Islands Heartbeat (PIHB).
Without the generosity of New Zealanders’ donations and legacies, the

Heart Foundation could not achieve many of these goals. Any help you
can give is greatly appreciated.
For more information on heart health and/or

supporting the Heart Foundation, visit our website
www.heartfoundation.org.nz or please contact:
The National Heart Foundation of New Zealand

PO Box 17-160, Greenlane, Auckland, 1546
Tel: 0064 9 571 9191
Fax: 0064 9 571 9190
Email: info@nhf.org.nz
Published June 2006
ISBN: 0-9582743-0-4

Rheumatic Fever Guideline 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rheumatic Fever Guideline 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Zealand

Evidence-based, best practice

NHF0239 80pp Cover 4C.indd 2 21/6/06 12:12:39

NHF0239 80pp Cover 4C.indd 3-4 21/6/06 12:34:58

1. Scope and Purpose of Guideline 5

DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT 13

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 2 21/6/06 12:11:52

Evidence-based, best practice

He korokoro ora he manawa ora,

( A healthy throat, a healthy heart for us all)

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 1 3/7/06 11:13:26

12. Prevention of Infective Endocarditis 44

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 3 21/6/06 12:11:53

Table 1. Levels of evidence for clinical interventions and grades of recommendation 6

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 4 21/6/06 12:11:53

The objectives of this guideline are:

The development process is described in Appendix A.

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 5 21/6/06 12:11:53

Outline of grading methodology used

Table 1. Levels of Evidence for Clinical Interventions and Grades of Recommendation

I Evidence obtained from a systematic review of all relevant A

II Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed B

III-3 Evidence obtained from comparative studies with historical C

IV Evidence obtained from case series, either post-test or C

Insufficient evidence available – expert opinion or D/I

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 6 21/6/06 12:11:53

New Zealand guidelines: Writing group

Professor Diana Lennon (Co-chair)

Dr Nigel Wilson (Co-chair)

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 7 21/6/06 12:11:54

Other Reviewers and Contributors

Australian Guidelines Writing Group

Australian Guidelines reviewers and contributors

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 8 21/6/06 12:11:54

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 9 21/6/06 12:11:54

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 10 21/6/06 12:11:55

Cost to New Zealand

Prevention of ARF and RHD

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 11 21/6/06 12:11:55

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 12 21/6/06 12:11:55

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 13 21/6/06 12:11:57

[ 4. Diagnosis of Acute Rheumatic Fever (ARF)]

Current approaches to diagnosis

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 14 21/6/06 12:11:58

Table 2. New Zealand Guidelines for the Diagnosis of ARF

DIAGNOSTIC REQuIREMENTS CATEGORY

Recurrent attack of ARF 2 major or 1 major and 2 minor or several** minor

Minor manifestations Fever

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 15 21/6/06 12:11:58

Clinical features of acute rheumatic fever - major manifestations

Table 3. Major Manifestations of ARF

• Large joints are usually affected, especially knees and ankles

• The rheumatic aetiology can usually be confirmed by a typical appearance on echocardiography

• The natural history of valve regurgitation is a 25-50% improvement by one year46

• If pericarditis is present, the friction rub may obscure valvular murmurs.

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 16 21/6/06 12:11:58

• Useful signs include:47

• This manifestation affects females predominantly, particularly in adolescence48,49

• Strongly associated with carditis

Erythema • Rare as well as diffi cult to detect (especially in dark-skinned people)

• Not itchy or painful and not affected by anti-infl ammatory medication

NHF0239 80pp Inside.indd 17 21/6/06 12:11:59

Clinical features of acute rheumatic fever - minor manifestations

MINOR POINTS FOR DIAGNOSIS

• The rheumatic aetiology can usually be confirmed by a typical appearance on echocardiography