Structured Early detection of Asymptomatic Liver fibrosis and cirrhosis (SEAL) is a population-based screening programme using non-invasive tests for the early detection of liver fibrosis. This study evaluates the cost implications if the SEAL programme were to be implemented in routine care in Germany.

This study models cost differences with and without the SEAL screening programme. We regress costs of care on patient characteristics (age, comorbidities, sex, liver diseases, liver cancer and liver fibrosis and cirrhosis (LCI) stage) using statutory health insurance (SHI) data from routine care patients with LCI (n=4177). Based on these results, we predict per-patient costs for the patients newly diagnosed with LCI by SEAL (n=45). Costs with and without screening are estimated using patient age and LCI stage distributions from either SEAL or routine care.

SEAL was conducted in two German states. Initial screening was performed by patients’ primary care physicians.

Individuals insured by SHI without a prior diagnosis of LCI, eligible for Check-up 35, a general health check-up programme primarily targeting adults aged 35 and older, conducted by primary care physicians.

Screening via aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index in primary care, for further evaluation serological diagnostics and ultrasound examinations in secondary care and specific assessment for definite diagnosis including transient elastography and liver biopsy for selected cases in tertiary care.

Primary outcome measures: expected 5-year cost changes for SEAL patients diagnosed with fibrosis or cirrhosis compared to costs without a screening programme. Secondary outcome measures: case mix of leading chronic liver disease and LCI stages among patients diagnosed with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis in SEAL versus routine care without screening.

Screening leads to fewer decompensated cases at initial diagnosis (4.6% in SEAL vs 22.8% in routine care) and thus savings in the costs of care within the first years of diagnosis: total expected costs per case were 2175 lower (bias-corrected bootstrap CIs (BCI): 527 to 3734), and LCI-associated costs were reduced by 1218 (BCI: 296 to 2164). Comparing the savings to the additional costs of diagnosis (range: 1575–1726 per detected LCI case) reveals that average changes in costs with screening range from moderate savings to moderate extra costs.

SEAL liver screening identifies patients in less advanced stages of LCI. If only costs were considered that are directly attributable to LCI, savings within 5 years are unlikely to fully outweigh the costs of screening. However, since this approach might miss additional LCI-related costs, SEAL appears to be cost-neutral compared with routine care when considering total healthcare costs.

The SEAL registration number is DRKS00013460. This study relates to its results.

Persistent pain after finishing breast cancer treatment is a common and disabling problem. The current state-of-the-art pain management advocates, in addition to biomedical (non-)pharmacological approaches, a biopsychosocial rehabilitation approach to address persistent pain, combining pain science education with promoting an active lifestyle through self-regulation techniques. We propose testing an innovative eHealth self-management support programme for this purpose in the breast cancer population with persistent pain after finishing cancer treatment. This delivery mode is believed to reduce barriers to pain self-management by providing timely, safe and cost-effective assistance addressing the biopsychosocial needs of patients. Utilising a chatbot format, the eHealth programme delivers pain science education and promotes physical activity (PA), personalised through decision-tree-based algorithms to support pain self-management. The programme aims to empower patients with understanding, coping skills and self-management techniques to reduce pain-related disability and enhance participation in daily life. The primary objective is to determine programme effectiveness compared with (1) usual care (superiority) and (2) a similar face-to-face pain self-management support programme (non-inferiority).

A pragmatic, three-arm randomised controlled trial was started in April 2024 at the University Hospitals of Antwerp and Leuven and primary care settings in Belgium. Participants are breast cancer survivors with persistent pain after finishing cancer treatment. Two hundred seventy participants will be randomised to one of three trial arms: (1) eHealth self-management support programme, (2) usual care or (3) a face-to-face self-management support programme. The ‘eHealth self-management support programme’ begins with a pain science education (PSE) module to initially convey key pain-related concepts and provide personalised pain management tips. Then, the programme progresses to daily activity planning to promote an active lifestyle. Guided by the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) model, participants set and review daily activity goals and track progress. The eHealth self-management programme uses a chatbot and is accessible on any digital device. The ‘usual care programme’ involves sending the participants a study-specific brochure by postal mail and does not include any formal PSE and/or PA programmes. They may pursue or continue self-initiated care. In Belgium, usual care primarily involves pharmacological treatment, general advice on PA and the provision of informational brochures. The ‘face-to-face self-management support programme’ mirrors the eHealth intervention, combining PSE with PA coaching. It starts with three individual sessions with a trained physical therapist for biopsychosocial assessment and PSE, followed by six sessions on goal setting and active lifestyle coaching. The educational content is delivered both verbally and in written form. The primary outcome will be pain-related disability 6 months after baseline assessment. As a key secondary outcome, the effect on pain beliefs and attitudes will be investigated after the educational part of the eHealth and face-to-face programme (ie, at 6 weeks after baseline). Other secondary outcomes related to other dimensions of pain and physical-, psychosocial- and health-economic outcomes will be assessed at 12 weeks and 6 and 12 months after baseline as well.

The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2024). The protocol has been approved by the ethical committee of the University Hospitals of Leuven and Antwerp. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed scientific journals and presentations at congresses. Ethical Committee of the University Hospitals Leuven and Antwerp: BUN B3002023000132.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06308029.

To seek consensus among global experts on concepts, measures and approaches to guide national and global action to address HIV-related stigma and formulate a call to action. This outlines priorities to unite actors in more effectively responding to and resourcing efforts to address HIV-related stigma.

An adapted Delphi consensus-building process using two rounds of online questionnaires.

Online questionnaires sent to a global expert panel.

50 global experts on HIV-related stigma and discrimination representing sectors including civil society, people living with HIV and key populations, research and academia, clinical practice, law, non-profit organisations, the United Nations, and policy and donor organisations.

The panel reached consensus on 55 points relating to the 12 broad themes extracted from the evidence base. These comprised the importance of addressing HIV-related stigma at scale; HIV-related stigma terms and definitions; Frameworks; Programming and approaches; Community leadership in HIV-related stigma-reduction implementation; Intersectional stigma and discrimination; Stigma and discrimination measures and assessment scales; Monitoring and evaluation; Stakeholder and community participation in monitoring and evaluation; Knowledge gaps and research needs; Funding and Commitment calls. From these, a consensus statement and call to action were formulated on priorities for strong political and financial commitments by all countries to reduce and mitigate HIV-related stigma and achieve global HIV targets adopted in 2021.

This study illustrated that global experts across sectors consider that action is needed to support the three critical enablers of the HIV response—society, systems and services—to ensure that HIV services are non-discriminatory and person-centred. The importance of attention and action to reduce stigma is critical in the current geopolitical and funding crisis affecting HIV and global health.