Effectiveness of a structured intervention to make routine clinical meetings therapeutically effective (DIALOG+) for patients with depressive and anxiety disorders in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: DIALOG+ is a patient-centred, solution-focused intervention, which aims to make routine patient-clinician meetings therapeutically effective. Existing evidence suggests that it is effective for patients with psychotic disorders in high-income countries. We tested the effectiveness of DIALOG â€‹+ â€‹for patients with depressive and anxiety disorders in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a middle-income country. METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, cluster randomised controlled trial of DIALOG+ in an outpatient clinic in Sarajevo. Patients inclusion criteria were: 18 years and older, a diagnosis of depressive or anxiety disorders, and low quality of life. Clinicians and their patients were randomly allocated to either the DIALOG â€‹+ â€‹intervention or routine care in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome, quality of life, and secondary outcomes, psychiatric symptoms and objective social outcomes, were measured at 6- and 12-months by blinded assessors. RESULTS: Fifteen clinicians and 72 patients were randomised. Loss to follow-up was 12% at 6-months and 19% at 12-months. Quality of life did not significantly differ between intervention and control group after six months, but patients receiving DIALOG â€‹+ â€‹had significantly better quality of life after 12 months, with a medium effect size (Cohen's d â€‹= â€‹0.632, p â€‹= â€‹0.007). General symptoms as well as specifically anxiety and depression symptoms were significantly lower after six and 12 months, and the objective social situation showed a statistical trend after 12 months, all in favour of the intervention group. No adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS: Delivery of the intervention was variable and COVID-19 affected 12-month follow-up assessments in both groups. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest DIALOG â€‹+ â€‹could be an effective treatment option for improving quality of life and reducing psychiatric symptoms in patients with depressive and anxiety disorders in a low-resource setting.

Lifetime revision risk for medial unicompartmental knee replacement is lower than expected.

PURPOSE: Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is widely considered to be a pre-total knee replacement (TKR) particularly in the young. The implication of this is that it is sensible to do a UKR, even though it will be revised at some stage, as it will delay the need for a TKR. The chance of a UKR being revised during a patient's life time has not previously been calculated. The aim of this study was to estimate this lifetime revision risks for patients of different ages undergoing UKR. METHODS: Calculations were based on data from a designer series of 1000 medial Oxford UKR with mean 10-year follow up. These UKR were implanted for the recommended indications using the recommended surgical technique. Parametric survival models were developed for patients of different ages based on observed data, and were extrapolated using a Markov model to estimate lifetime revision risk. RESULTS: The estimated lifetime revision risk reduced with increasing age at surgery. Lifetime revision risk at age 55 was 15% (95% CI 12-19), at 65 it was 11% (8-13), at 75 it was 7% (5-9), and at 85 it was 4% (3-5). CONCLUSION: Provided UKR is used appropriately, the lifetime revision risk is markedly lower than expected. UKR should be considered to be a definitive knee replacement rather than a Pre-TKR even in the young. These lifetime estimates, alongside established benefits for UKR in speed of recovery, morbidity, mortality and function, can be discussed with appropriate patients when considering whether to implant a UKR or TKR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Lifetime risk of knee and hip replacement following a GP diagnosis of osteoarthritis: a real-world cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate lifetime risk of knee and hip replacement following a GP diagnosis of osteoarthritis and assess how this risk varies with patient characteristics. METHODS: Routinely collected data from Catalonia, Spain, covering 2006 to 2015, were used. Study participants had a newly recorded GP diagnosis of knee or hip osteoarthritis. Parametric survival models were specified for risk of knee/hip replacement and death following diagnosis. Survival models were combined using a Markov model and lifetime risk estimated for the average patient profile. The effects of age at diagnosis, sex, comorbidities, socioeconomic status, body mass index (BMI), and smoking on risk were assessed. RESULTS: 48,311 individuals diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis were included, of whom 2,561 underwent knee replacement. 15,105 individuals diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis were included, of whom 1,247 underwent hip replacement. The average participant's lifetime risk for knee replacement was 30% (95% CI: 25-36%) and for hip replacement was 14% (10-19%). Notable patient characteristics influencing lifetime risk were age at diagnosis for knee and hip replacement, sex for hip replacement, and BMI for knee replacement. BMI increasing from 25 to 35 was associated with lifetime risk of knee replacement increasing from 24% (20-28%) to 32% (26-37%) for otherwise average patients. CONCLUSION: Knee and hip replacement are not inevitable after an osteoarthritis diagnosis, with average lifetime risks of less than a third and a sixth, respectively. Patient characteristics, most notably BMI, influence lifetime risks.

The impact of BMI and smoking on risk of revision following knee and hip replacement surgery: evidence from routinely collected data.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the association of body mass index (BMI) and smoking with risk of revision following total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR). DESIGN: Primary care data, from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), was linked to inpatient hospital records, from Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care (HES APC), and covered 1997 to 2014. Parametric survival models, with BMI and smoking status included as explanatory variables, were estimated for 10-year risk of revision and mortality, and were extrapolated to estimate lifetime risk of revision. FINDINGS: TKR and THR cohorts included 10,260 and 10,961 individuals, respectively. For a change in BMI from 25 to 35, the 10-year risk of revision is expected change from 4.6% (3.3-6.4%) to 3.7% (2.6-5.1%) for TKR and 3.7% (2.8-5.1%) to 4.0% (2.8-5.7%) for THR for an otherwise average patient profile. Meanwhile, changing from a non-smoker to a current smoker is expected to change the risk of revision from 4.1% (3.1-5.5%) to 2.8% (1.7-4.7%) for TKR and from 3.8% (2.8-5.3%) to 2.9% (1.9-4.7%) for THR for an otherwise average patient profile. Estimates of lifetime risk were also similar for different values of BMI or smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity and smoking do not appear to have a meaningful impact on the risk of revision following TKR and THR.