Economic burden of vulvar and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia: retrospective cost study at a German dysplasia centre

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Human papillomavirus is responsible for a variety of diseases including grade 2 and 3 vulvar and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia. The aim of this study was to assess parts of the burden of the last diseases including treatment costs. The direct medical resource use and cost of surgery associated with neoplasia and related diagnostic procedures (statutory health insurance perspective) were estimated, as were the indirect costs (productivity losses) associated with surgical treatment and related gynaecology visits for diagnostic purposes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data from 1991-2008 were retrospectively collected from patient records of the outpatient unit of the Gynaecological Dysplasia Clinic, Heinrich Heine University, Dusseldorf, Germany. Two subgroups of patients were analysed descriptively: women undergoing one surgical procedure related to a diagnosis of vulvar and/or vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia, and women undergoing two or more surgical procedures. Target measures were per-capita medical resource consumption, direct medical cost and indirect cost.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 94 women analysed, 52 underwent one surgical intervention and 42 two or more interventions (mean of 3.0 interventions during the total period of analysis). Patients undergoing one surgical intervention accrued €881 in direct costs and €682 in indirect costs; patients undergoing more than one intervention accrued €2,605 in direct costs and €2,432 in indirect costs.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The economic burden on German statutory health insurance funds and society induced by surgical interventions and related diagnostic procedures for grade 2/3 vulvar and vaginal neoplasia should not be underrated. The cost burden is one part of the overall burden attributable to human papillomavirus infections.</p

Transfer of manualized Short Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (STPP) for social phobia into clinical practice: study protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Psychodynamic psychotherapy is frequently applied in the treatment of social phobia. Nevertheless, there has been a lack of studies on the transfer of manualized treatments to routine psychodynamic practice. Our study is the first one to examine the effects of additional training in a manualized Short Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (STPP) procedure on outcome in routine psychotherapy for social phobia. This study is an extension to a large multi-site RCT (N = 512) comparing the efficacy of STPP to Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) of Social Phobia.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The manualized treatment is designed for a time limited approach with 25 individual sessions of STPP over 6 months. Private practitioners will be randomized to training in manualized STPP vs. treatment as usual without a specific training (control condition). We plan to enrol a total of 105 patients (84 completers). Assessments will be conducted before treatment starts, after 8 and 15 weeks, after 25 treatment sessions, at the end of treatment, 6 months and 12 months after termination of treatment. The primary outcome measure is the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale. Remission from social phobia is defined scoring with 30 or less points on this scale.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We will investigate how the treatment can be transferred from a controlled trial into the less structured setting of routine clinical care. This question represents Phase IV of psychotherapy research. It combines the benefits of randomized controlled and naturalistic research. The study is genuinely designed to promote faster and more widespread dissemination of effective interventions. It will answer the questions whether manualized STPP can be implemented into routine outpatient care, whether the new methods improve treatment courses and outcomes and whether treatment effects reached in routine psychotherapeutic treatments are comparable to those of the controlled, strictly manualized treatment of the main study.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) DRKS00000570</p

Systematic review of cost and cost-effectiveness of different TB-screening strategies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) for TB have the potential to replace the tuberculin skin test (TST) in screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). The higher per-test cost of IGRAs may be compensated for by lower post-screening costs (medical attention, chest x-rays and chemoprevention), given the higher specificity of the new tests as compared to that of the conventional TST. We conducted a systematic review of all publications that have addressed the cost or cost-effectiveness of IGRAs. The objective of this report was to undertake a structured review and critical appraisal of the methods used for the model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of TB screening programmes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using Medline and Embase, 75 publications that contained the terms "IGRA", "tuberculosis" and "cost" were identified. Of these, 13 were original studies on the costs or cost-effectiveness of IGRAs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The 13 relevant studies come from five low-to-medium TB-incidence countries. Five studies took only the costs of screening into consideration, while eight studies analysed the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies. Screening was performed in high-risk groups: close contacts, immigrants from high-incidence countries and healthcare workers. Two studies used the T-SPOT.TB as an IGRA and the other studies used the QuantiFERON-TB Gold and/or Gold In-Tube test. All 13 studies observed a decrease in costs when the IGRAs were used. Six studies compared the use of an IGRA as a test to confirm a positive TST (TST/IGRA strategy) to the use of an IGRA-only strategy. In four of these studies, the two-step strategy and in two the IGRA-only strategy was more cost-effective. Assumptions about TST specificity and progression risk after a positive test had the greatest influence on determining which IGRA strategy was more cost-effective.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The available studies on cost-effectiveness provide strong evidence in support of the use of IGRAs in screening risk groups such as HCWs, immigrants from high-incidence countries and close contacts. So far, only two studies provide evidence that the IGRA-only screening strategy is more cost-effective.</p