Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic QCT-based osteoporosis screening for the prediction of incident vertebral fractures.

Objectives: Opportunistic quantitative computed tomography (oQCT) derived from non-dedicated routine CT has demonstrated high accuracy in diagnosing osteoporosis and predicting incident vertebral fractures (VFs). We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of oQCT screening compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as the standard of care for osteoporosis screening. Methods: Three screening strategies ("no osteoporosis screening", "oQCT screening", and "DXA screening") after routine CT were simulated in a state-transition model for hypothetical cohorts of 1,000 patients (women and men aged 65 years) over a follow-up period of 5 years (base case). The primary outcomes were the cumulative costs and the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) estimated from a U.S. health care perspective for the year 2022. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $70,249 per QALY. The secondary outcome was the number of prevented VFs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the models' robustness. Results: Compared to DXA screening, oQCT screening increased QALYs in both sexes (additional 2.40 per 1,000 women and 1.44 per 1,000 men) and resulted in total costs of $3,199,016 and $950,359 vs. $3,262,934 and $933,077 for women and men, respectively. As a secondary outcome, oQCT screening prevented 2.6 and 2.0 additional VFs per 1,000 women and men, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, oQCT screening remained cost-effective in 88.3% (women) and 90.0% (men) of iterations. Conclusion: oQCT screening is a cost-effective ancillary approach for osteoporosis screening and has the potential to prevent a substantial number of VFs if considered in daily clinical practice.

Diagnosis and Therapy Before Assisted Reproductive Treatments. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k Level, AWMF Register Number 015-085, February 2019) - Part 1, Basic Assessment of the Woman.

Introduction Supporting and counselling couples with fertility issues prior to starting ART is a multidisciplinary diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. The first German/Austrian/Swiss interdisciplinary S2k guideline on "Diagnosis and Therapy Before Assisted Reproductive Treatments (ART)" was published in February 2019. This guideline was developed in the context of the guidelines program of the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) in cooperation with the Swiss Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (SGGG) and the Austrian Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (OEGGG). Aims One third of the causes of involuntary childlessness are still unclear, even if the woman or man have numerous possible risk factors. Because the topic is still very much taboo, couples may be socially isolated and often only present quite late to a fertility center. At present, there is no standard treatment concept, as currently no standard multidisciplinary procedures exist for the diagnostic workup and treatment of infertility. The aim of this guideline is to provide physicians with evidence-based recommendations for counselling, diagnostic workup and treatment. Methods This S2k guideline was developed on behalf of the Guidelines Commission of the DGGG by representative members from different professional medical organizations and societies using a structured consensus process. Recommendations The first part of this guideline focuses on the basic assessment of affected women, including standard anatomical and endocrinological diagnostic procedures and examinations into any potential infections. Other areas addressed in this guideline are the immunological workup with an evaluation of the patient's vaccination status, an evaluation of psychological factors, and the collection of data relating to other relevant factors affecting infertility. The second part will focus on explanations of diagnostic procedures compiled in collaboration with specialists from other medical specialties such as andrologists, human geneticists and oncologists.

Health technology assessment of utilization, practice and ethical issues of self-pay services in the German ambulatory health care setting.

OBJECTIVES: The provision of self-pay medical services is common across health care systems, but understudied. According to the German Medical Association, such services should be medically necessary, recommended or at least justifiable, and requested by the patient. We investigated the empirical evidence regarding frequency and practice of self-pay services as well as related ethical, social, and legal issues (ELSI). METHODS: A systematic literature search in electronic databases and a structured internet search on stakeholder websites with qualitative and quantitative information synthesis. RESULTS: Of 1,345 references, we included 64 articles. Between 19 and 53 % of insured persons received self-pay service offers from their physician; 16-19 % actively requested such services. Intraocular pressure measurement was the most common service, followed by ultrasound investigations. There is a major discussion about ELSI in the context of individual health services. CONCLUSIONS: Self-pay services are common medical procedures in Germany. However, the empirical evidence is limited in quality and extent, even for the most frequently provided services. Transparency of their provision should be increased and independent evidence-based patient information should be supplied.

Individual health services.

BACKGROUND: The German statutory health insurance (GKV) reimburses all health care services that are deemed sufficient, appropriate, and efficient. According to the German Medical Association (BÄK), individual health services (IGeL) are services that are not under liability of the GKV, medically necessary or recommendable or at least justifiable. They have to be explicitly requested by the patient and have to be paid out of pocket. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: The following questions regarding IGeL in the outpatient health care of GKV insurants are addressed in the present report: What is the empirical evidence regarding offers, utilization, practice, acceptance, and the relation between physician and patient, as well as the economic relevance of IGeL?What ethical, social, and legal aspects are related to IGeL? FOR TWO OF THE MOST COMMON IGEL, THE SCREENING FOR GLAUCOMA AND THE SCREENING FOR OVARIAN AND ENDOMETRIAL CANCER BY VAGINAL ULTRASOUND (VUS), THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE ADDRESSED: What is the evidence for the clinical effectiveness?Are there sub-populations for whom screening might be beneficial? METHODS: The evaluation is divided into two parts. For the first part a systematic literature review of primary studies and publications concerning ethical, social and legal aspects is performed. In the second part, rapid assessments of the clinical effectiveness for the two examples, glaucoma and VUS screening, are prepared. Therefore, in a first step, HTA-reports and systematic reviews are searched, followed by a search for original studies published after the end of the research period of the most recent HTA-report included. RESULTS: 29 studies were included for the first question. Between 19 and 53% of GKV members receive IGeL offers, of which three-quarters are realised. 16 to 19% of the insurants ask actively for IGeL. Intraocular tension measurement is the most common single IGeL service, accounting for up to 40% of the offers. It is followed by ultrasound assessments with up to 25% of the offers. Cancer screening and blood or laboratory services are also frequent and represent a major proportion of the demand. The ethical, social, and legal aspects discussed in the context of IGeL concern eight subject areas: autonomous patient decisions versus obtrusion,commercialization of medicine, duty of patient information, benefit, evidence, and (quality) control, role and relation of physicians and patients,relation to the GKV, social inequality,formally correct performance. For glaucoma screening, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) is identified that shows a patient relevant benefit. For VUS three RCT are included. However, they do not yet present mortality data concerning screened and non-screened persons. VUS screening shows a high degree of over-diagnosis in turn leading to invasive interventions. To diagnose one invasive carcinoma, 30 to 35 surgical procedures are necessary. CONCLUSION: IGeL are a relevant factor in the German statutory health care system. To provide more transparency, the requests for evidence-based and independent patient information should be considered. Whether official positive and negative-lists could be an appropriate instrument to give guidance to patients and physicians, should be examined. Generally, IGeL must be seen in the broader context of the discussions about the future design and development of the German health care system.