Zygosity diagnosis in the absence of genotypic data: An approach using latent class analysis

For zygosity diagnosis in the absence of genotypic data, or in the recruitment phase of a twin study where only single twins from same-sex pairs are being screened, or to provide a test for sample duplication leading to the false identification of a dizygotic pair as monozygotic, the appropriate analysis of respondents' answers to questions about zygosity is critical. Using data from a young adult Australian twin cohort (N = 2094 complete pairs and 519 singleton twins from same-sex pairs with complete responses to all zygosity items), we show that application of latent class analysis (LCA), fitting a 2-class model, yields results that show good concordance with traditional methods of zygosity diagnosis, but with certain important advantages. These include the ability, in many cases, to assign zygosity with specified probability on the basis of responses of a single informant (advantageous when one zygosity type is being oversampled); and the ability to quantify the probability of misassignment of zygosity, allowing prioritization of cases for genotyping as well as identification of cases of probable laboratory error. Out of 242 twins (from 121 like-sex pairs) where genotypic data were available for zygosity confirmation, only a single case was identified of incorrect zygosity assignment by the latent class algorithm. Zygosity assignment for that single case was identified by the LCA as uncertain (probability of being a monozygotic twin only 76%), and the co-twin's responses clearly identified the pair as dizygotic (probability of being dizygotic 100%). In the absence of genotypic data, or as a safeguard against sample duplication, application of LCA for zygosity assignment or confirmation is strongly recommended.

The cost-effectiveness of the MobileMums intervention to increase physical activity among mothers with young children: A Markov model informed by a randomised controlled trial

Objectives: To determine the cost-effectiveness of the MobileMums intervention. MobileMums is a 12-week programme which assists mothers with young children to be more physically active, primarily through the use of personalised SMS text-messages. Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model to estimate and compare the costs and consequences of MobileMums and usual care. Setting: This study considers the cost-effectiveness of MobileMums in Queensland, Australia. Participants: A hypothetical cohort of over 36 000 women with a child under 1 year old is considered. These women are expected to be eligible and willing to participate in the intervention in Queensland, Australia. Data sources: The model was informed by the effectiveness results from a 9-month two-arm community-based randomised controlled trial undertaken in 2011 and registered retrospectively with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12611000481976). Baseline characteristics for the model cohort, treatment effects and resource utilisation were all informed by this trial. Main outcome measures: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of MobileMums compared with usual care. Results: The intervention is estimated to lead to an increase of 131 QALYs for an additional cost to the health system of 1.1 million Australian dollars (AUD). The expected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for MobileMums is 8608 AUD per QALY gained. MobileMums has a 98% probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 64 000 AUD. Varying modelling assumptions has little effect on this result. Conclusions: At a cost-effectiveness threshold of 64 000 AUD, MobileMums would likely be a cost-effective use of healthcare resources in Queensland, Australia. Trial registration number: Australian Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12611000481976.

The cost-effectiveness of exercise referral schemes

Background Exercise referral schemes (ERS) aim to identify inactive adults in the primary care setting. The primary care professional refers the patient to a third party service, with this service taking responsibility for prescribing and monitoring an exercise programme tailored to the needs of the patient. This paper examines the cost-effectiveness of ERS in promoting physical activity compared with usual care in primary care setting. Methods A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ERS from a UK NHS perspective. The costs and outcomes of ERS were modelled over the patient's lifetime. Data were derived from a systematic review of the literature on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ERS, and on parameter inputs in the modelling framework. Outcomes were expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses investigated the impact of varying ERS cost and effectiveness assumptions. Sub-group analyses explored the cost-effectiveness of ERS in sedentary people with an underlying condition. Results Compared with usual care, the mean incremental lifetime cost per patient for ERS was £169 and the mean incremental QALY was 0.008, generating a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ERS at £20,876 per QALY in sedentary individuals without a diagnosed medical condition. There was a 51% probability that ERS was cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY and 88% probability that ERS was cost-effective at £30,000 per QALY. In sub-group analyses, cost per QALY for ERS in sedentary obese individuals was £14,618, and in sedentary hypertensives and sedentary individuals with depression the estimated cost per QALY was £12,834 and £8,414 respectively. Incremental lifetime costs and benefits associated with ERS were small, reflecting the preventative public health context of the intervention, with this resulting in estimates of cost-effectiveness that are sensitive to variations in the relative risk of becoming physically active and cost of ERS. Conclusions ERS is associated with modest increase in lifetime costs and benefits. The cost-effectiveness of ERS is highly sensitive to small changes in the effectiveness and cost of ERS and is subject to some significant uncertainty mainly due to limitations in the clinical effectiveness evidence base.