For incurable diseases, such as multiple sclerosis (MS), the prevention of progression and the preservation of quality of life play a crucial role over the entire therapy period. In MS, patients tend to become ill at a younger age and are so variable in terms of their disease course that there is no standard therapy. Therefore, it is necessary to enable a therapy that is as personalized as possible and to respond promptly to any changes, whether with noticeable symptoms or symptomless. Here, measurable parameters of biological processes can be used, which provide good information with regard to prognostic and diagnostic aspects, disease activity and response to therapy, so-called biomarkers Increasing digitalization and the availability of easy-to-use devices and technology also enable healthcare professionals to use a new class of digital biomarkers—digital health technologies—to explain, influence and/or predict health-related outcomes. The technology and devices from which these digital biomarkers stem are quite broad, and range from wearables that collect patients’ activity during digitalized functional tests (e.g., the Multiple Sclerosis Performance Test, dual-tasking performance and speech) to digitalized diagnostic procedures (e.g., optical coherence tomography) and software-supported magnetic resonance imaging evaluation. These technologies offer a timesaving way to collect valuable data on a regular basis over a long period of time, not only once or twice a year during patients’ routine visit at the clinic. Therefore, they lead to real-life data acquisition, closer patient monitoring and thus a patient dataset useful for precision medicine. Despite the great benefit of such increasing digitalization, for now, the path to implementing digital biomarkers is widely unknown or inconsistent. Challenges around validation, infrastructure, evidence generation, consistent data collection and analysis still persist. In this narrative review, we explore existing and future opportunities to capture clinical digital biomarkers in the care of people with MS, which may lead to a digital twin of the patient. To do this, we searched published papers for existing opportunities to capture clinical digital biomarkers for different functional systems in the context of MS, and also gathered perspectives on digital biomarkers under development or already existing as a research approach.

Background: Some countries have implemented stand-alone human papillomavirus (HPV) testing while others consider cotesting for cervical cancer screening. We compared both strategies within a population-based study. Methods: The MARZY cohort study was conducted in Germany. Randomly selected women from population registries aged ≥30 years (n = 5,275) were invited to screening with Pap smear, liquid-based cytology (LBC, ThinPrep), and HPV testing (Hybrid Capture2, HC2). Screen-positive participants [ASC-US+ or high-risk HC2 (hrHC2)] and a random 5% sample of screen-negatives were referred to colposcopy. Post hoc HPV genotyping was conducted by GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA with reverse line blotting. Sensitivity, specificity (adjusted for verification bias), and potential harms, including number of colposcopies needed to detect 1 precancerous lesion (NNC), were calculated. Results: In 2,627 screened women, cytological sensitivities (Pap, LBC: 47%) were lower than HC2 (95%) and PCR (79%) for CIN2+. Cotesting demonstrated higher sensitivities (HC2 cotesting: 99%; PCR cotesting: 84%), but at the cost of lower specificities (92%–95%) compared with HPV stand-alone (HC2: 95%; PCR: 94%) and cytology (97% or 99%). Cotesting versus HPV stand-alone showed equivalent relative sensitivity [HC2: 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00–1.21; PCR: 1.07, 95% CI, 1.00–1.27]. Relative specificity of Pap cotesting with either HPV test was inferior to stand-alone HPV. LBC cotesting demonstrated equivalent specificity (both tests: 0.99, 95% CI, 0.99–1.00). NNC was highest for Pap cotesting. Conclusions: Cotesting offers no benefit in detection over stand-alone HPV testing, resulting in more false positive results and colposcopy referrals. Impact: HPV stand-alone screening offers a better balance of benefits and harms than cotesting. See related commentary by Wentzensen and Clarke, p. 432

(1) Background: eHealth interventions play a growing role in shaping the future healthcare system. The integration of eHealth interventions can enhance the efficiency and quality of patient management and optimize the course of treatment for chronically ill patients. In this integrative review, we discuss different types of interventions, standards and advantages of quality eHealth approaches especially for people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). (2) Methods: The electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched to identify potential articles for eHealth interventions in pwMS; based on 62 articles, we consider different ways of implementing health information technology with various designs. (3) Results: There already exist some eHealth interventions for single users with a single-use case, interventions with a social setting, as well as eHealth interventions that integrate various single and social interventions and even those that may be used additionally for complex use cases. A key determinant of consumer acceptance is a high-quality user-centric design for healthcare practitioners and pwMS. In pwMS, the different neurological disabilities should be considered, and particular attention must be paid to the course of the treatment and the safety processes of each treatment option. (4) Conclusion: Depending on the field of application and the respective users, interventions are designed for single, social, integrated or complex use. In order to be accepted by their target group, interventions must be beneficial and easy to use.

In Germany, a biennial preventive health check-up has been available for individuals aged 35 and older since 1989. The check-up includes identification of cardiovascular disease risk factors and examinations for diabetes mellitus type 2 and kidney disease. Participation in preventive health check-ups among 19,351 women aged 35 to 74 in Germany in 2004 was investigated. Logistic regression was performed to examine associations between participation and age, marital status, education, socio-economic status (SES) and region of residence. In total, 53.4% of women attended at least every two years, 23.4% attended irregularly and 23.2% never attended. In adjusted models, single, divorced, separated or widowed women were less likely to have a preventive health check-up at least every two years compared to married women (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.57-0.71), while women in eastern Germany were less likely to participate (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75-0.86) than women in western Germany. Education showed no association with having a preventive health check-up at least every two years; however, women with low SES were less likely to participate compared to those with high SES (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74-0.92). About half of eligible women reported participating in health check-ups at least every two years, with participation varying according to socio-demographic characteristics. Women who are less likely to participate may benefit from receiving invitation letters within the framework of an organised programme. The benefits of general health checks, however, need to be evaluated.