Preoperative psychosocial risk factors for poor outcomes at 1 and 5 years after total knee replacement

<p><b>Background and purpose — Psychosocial factors are important risk factors for poor outcomes in the first year after total knee replacement (TKR), however their impact on long-term outcomes is unclear. We aimed to identify preoperative psychosocial risk factors for poor outcomes at 1 year and 5 years after TKR.</b></p> <p><b>Patients and methods — 266 patients were recruited prior to TKR surgery. Knee pain and function were assessed preoperatively and at 1 and 5 years postoperative using the WOMAC Pain score, WOMAC Function score and American Knee Society Score (AKSS) Knee score. Preoperative depression, anxiety, catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy and social support were assessed. Statistical analyses involved multiple linear regression and mixed effect linear regression.</b></p> <p><b>Results — Higher anxiety was a risk factor for worse pain at 1 year postoperative. No psychosocial factors were associated with any outcomes at 5 years postoperative. Analysis of change over time found that patients with higher pain self-efficacy had lower preoperative pain and experienced less improvement in pain up to 1 year postoperative. Higher pain self-efficacy was associated with less improvement in the AKSS up to 1 year postoperative but more improvement between 1 and 5 years postoperative.</b></p> <p><b>Interpretation — Preoperative anxiety was found to influence pain at 1 year after TKR. However, none of the psychosocial variables were risk factors for a poor outcome at 5 years post­operative, suggesting that the negative effects of anxiety on outcome do not persist in the longer-term.</b></p

A comparison of relative-efficacy estimate(s) derived from both matching-adjusted indirect comparisons and standard anchored indirect treatment comparisons

ObjectivesWe present an empirical comparison of relative-efficacy estimate(s) from matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) with estimates from corresponding standard anchored indirect treatment comparisons.MethodsA total of 80 comparisons were identified from 17 publications through a systematic rapid review. A standardized metric that used reported relative treatment efficacy estimates and their associated uncertainty was used to compare the methods across different treatment indications and outcome measures.ResultsOn aggregate, MAICs presented for connected networks tended to report a more favorable relative-efficacy estimate for the treatment for which individual-level patient data were available relative to the reported indirect treatment comparison estimate.ConclusionsAlthough we recognize the importance of MAIC and other population adjustment methods in certain situations, we recommend that results from these analyses are interpreted with caution. Researchers and analysts should carefully consider if MAICs are appropriate where presented and whether MAICs would have added value where omitted.</p

Understanding the challenges and uncertainties of seroprevalence studies for SARS-CoV-2

SARS-CoV-2 continues to widely circulate in populations globally. Under detection is acknowledged and is problematic when attempting to capture the true prevalence. Seroprevalence studies, where blood samples from a population sample are tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that react to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, are a common method for estimating the proportion of people previously infected with the virus in a given population. However, obtaining reliable estimates from seroprevalence studies is challenging for a number of reasons, and the uncertainty in the results is often overlooked by scientists, policy makers, and the media. This paper reviews the methodological issues that arise in designing these studies, and the main sources of uncertainty that affect the results. We discuss the choice of study population, recruitment of subjects, uncertainty surrounding the accuracy of antibody tests, and the relationship between antibodies and infection over time. Understanding these issues can help the reader to interpret and critically evaluate the results of seroprevalence studies

Absence of evidence or evidence of absence - a review of the evidence for hydroxychloroquine as a potential candidate for prophylaxis against COVID-19

Clinical trials are investigating several agents as potential options for pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis to prevent infection with COVID-19. A particular focus has been high risk groups including healthcare workers. Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are the predominant agents in terms of numbers of clinical trials listed on Clinicaltrials.gov. However, CQ/HCQ have not been proven as an effective treatment option for COVID-19, and it is currently unclear what benefit, if any, is available to support their use in a prophylactic role. Four randomised control trials have been published so far which have examined the effect of HCQ as pre-exposure (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). This study summarises the evidence to date for HCQ as a potential prophylactic option for PEP and PrEP, presents both the aggregated and disaggregated data and details the gaps in the evidence base. The absolute risk differences for the pre-exposure prophylaxis studies were -0.3% to -2% and for the post prophylaxis studies were -0.6% and -2.4%. There were more adverse events noted in the hydroxychloroquine arms across all four studie