NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/med/23067

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-24 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!gatech!pitt!ky3b!ky3b.pgh.pa.us!km
From: [e-mail] (Ken Mitchum)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Strep Throat
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 92 23:38:36 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: KY3B - Vax Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 26

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Cray) writes:

|> How can you tell the diference between a bad cold and strep throat?
|> I've been told that strep needs to be treated lest it damage the heart,
|> however I feel rather foolish showing up at the doctors office with what
|> is in all probability a cold.  Does strep really need to be treated, or is
|> the heart thing a rare occurance?

Streptococcal throat infections definitely need to be treated. Rheumatic heart
disease is a very serious matter, and it is really sad to see someone with
severe valvular heart disease which could have been prevented by a simple course
of penicillin. When I was in St Vincent several years ago I saw teenagers with
end-stage rheumatic heart disease - the disease doesn't progress that quickly
here, but the idea is the same.

Rheumatic heart disease IS an uncommon complication of Strept infection, but
it is not that uncommon, and it so serious, but so easily preventable, that
it is much better to culture a lot of viral throats and start people on penicillin
pending culture, than ignore it.

There really is NO reliable way for a physician to tell if a throat is due to
Strept or not, short of doing a culture. Since the physician can't tell, there
is little chance that you can. I don't know any doctor who thinks that patients
are foolish to come in with sore throats!

 -km