Assessing micro- vs macro-costing approaches for treating appendicitis in children with appendicectomy or non-operatively.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a health economic sub-study within a feasibility RCT comparing a non-operative treatment pathway as an alternative to appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children. The objectives were to understand and assess data collection tools and methods and to determine indicative costs and benefits assessing the feasibility of conducting a full economic evaluation within the definitive trial. METHODS: We compared different methods of estimating treatment costs including micro-costing, hospital administrative data (PLICS) and health system (NHS) reference costs. We compared two different HRQoL instruments (CHU-9D and EQ-5D-5L) in terms of data completeness and sensitivity to change over time, including potential ceiling effects. We also explored how the timing of data collection and duration of the analysis could affect QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) and the results of the cost-utility analysis (CUA) within the future RCT. RESULTS: Using a micro-costing approach, the total per treatment costs were in alignment with hospital administrative data (PLICS). Average health system reference cost data (macro-costing using NHS costs) could potentially underestimate these treatment costs, particularly for non-operative treatment. Costs incurred following hospital discharge in the primary care setting were minimal, and limited family borne costs were reported by parents/carers. While both HRQoL instruments performed relatively well, our results highlight the problem of ceiling effect and the importance of the timing of data collection and the duration of the analysis in any future assessment using QALYs and CUA. CONCLUSIONS: We highlighted the importance of obtaining accurate individual-patient cost data when conducting economic evaluations. Our results suggest that timing of data collection and duration of the assessment are important considerations when evaluating cost-effectiveness and reporting cost per QALY. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15830435.

Conservative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis in children: the CONTRACT feasibility study, including feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Although non-operative treatment is known to be effective for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children, randomised trial data comparing important outcomes of non-operative treatment with those of appendicectomy are lacking. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to ascertain the feasibility of conducting a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway with appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods study, which included a feasibility randomised controlled trial, embedded and parallel qualitative and survey studies, a parallel health economic feasibility study and the development of a core outcome set. SETTING: This study was set in three specialist NHS paediatric surgical units in England. PARTICIPANTS: Children (aged 4-15 years) clinically diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis participated in the feasibility randomised controlled trial. Children, their families, recruiting clinicians and other health-care professionals involved in caring for children with appendicitis took part in the qualitative study. UK specialist paediatric surgeons took part in the survey. Specialist paediatric surgeons, adult general surgeons who treat children, and children and young people who previously had appendicitis, along with their families, took part in the development of the core outcome set. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the feasibility randomised controlled trial were randomised to a non-operative treatment pathway (broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation) or appendicectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited to the feasibility trial. DATA SOURCES: Data were sourced from NHS case notes, questionnaire responses, transcribed audio-recordings of recruitment discussions and qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Overall, 50% (95% confidence interval 40% to 59%) of 115 eligible patients approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. There was high acceptance of randomisation and good adherence to trial procedures and follow-up (follow-up rates of 89%, 85% and 85% at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months, respectively). More participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated. Qualitative work enabled us to communicate about the trial effectively with patients and families, to design and deliver bespoke training to optimise recruitment and to understand how to optimise the design and delivery of a future trial. The health economic study indicated that the main cost drivers are the ward stay cost and the cost of the operation; it has also informed quality-of-life assessment methods for future work. A core outcome set for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children and young people was developed, containing 14 outcomes. There is adequate surgeon interest to justify proceeding to an effectiveness trial, with 51% of those surveyed expressing a willingness to recruit with an unchanged trial protocol. LIMITATIONS: Because the feasibility randomised controlled trial was performed in only three centres, successful recruitment across a larger number of sites cannot be guaranteed. However, the qualitative work has informed a bespoke training package to facilitate this. Although survey results suggest adequate clinician interest to make a larger trial possible, actual participation may differ, and equipoise may have changed over time. CONCLUSIONS: A future effectiveness trial is feasible, following limited additional preparation, to establish appropriate outcome measures and case identification. It is recommended to include a limited package of qualitative work to optimise recruitment, in particular at new centres. FUTURE WORK: Prior to proceeding to an effectiveness trial, there is a need to develop a robust method for distinguishing children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis from those with more advanced appendicitis, and to reach agreement on a primary outcome measure and effect size that is acceptable to all stakeholder groups involved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15830435. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Appendicitis is usually treated with an operation to remove the appendix. But we have learned, from other research, that some children with appendicitis may not need an operation, and could be treated with antibiotics instead. To find out how these two different treatments compare with one another, we need to do a big study. First, though, we need to see if doing that kind of study would even be possible (or 'feasible'). We carried out a feasibility study that had several parts. First, we did a small study with children who had appendicitis, whereby children were randomly allocated to have either antibiotics or an operation, with an equal chance of having either treatment. Second, we asked parents and health-care staff about why they wanted, or did not want, to take part in that small study. This helped us to understand how to make a bigger future study as acceptable as possible to children, families and surgeons. Third, we asked parents, patients and surgeons what they think are the most important things ­ or 'outcomes' ­ we should look at in future research on children who have appendicitis. From that, we developed a list of outcomes that should be included in our future big study, so we can be certain that the research we do is likely to help parents and surgeons. Overall, we established that a future big study is feasible and we have plenty of information to help us with how to plan it best, so that it has the greatest possible chance of success. We were also guided in all of these steps of the research by a group of parents, children and young people, some of whom had appendicitis and some of whom did not.

Serial prophylactic exchange blood transfusion in pregnant women with sickle cell disease (TAPS-2): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancies in women with sickle cell disease (SCD) are associated with a higher risk of sickle and pregnancy complications. Limited options exist for treating SCD during pregnancy. Serial prophylactic exchange blood transfusion (SPEBT) has been shown to be effective in treating SCD outside pregnancy, but evidence is lacking regarding its use during pregnancy. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a future phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of SPEBT in pregnant women with SCD. METHODS: The study is an individually randomised, two-arm, feasibility trial with embedded qualitative and health economic studies. Fifty women, 18 years of age and older, with SCD and a singleton pregnancy at ≤ 18 weeks' gestation will be recruited from six hospitals in England. Randomisation will be conducted using a secure online database and minimised by centre, SCD genotype and maternal age. Women allocated to the intervention arm will receive SPEBT commencing at ≤ 18 weeks' gestation, performed using automated erythrocytapheresis every 6-10 weeks until the end of pregnancy, aiming to maintain HbS% or combined HbS/HbC% below 30%. Women in the standard care arm will only receive transfusion when clinically indicated. The primary outcome will be the recruitment rate. Additional endpoints include reasons for refusal to participate, attrition rate, protocol adherence, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Women will be monitored throughout pregnancy to assess maternal, sickle, and foetal complications. Detailed information about adverse events (including hospital admission) and birth outcomes will be extracted from medical records and via interview at 6 weeks postpartum. An embedded qualitative study will consist of interviews with (a) 15-25 trial participants to assess experiences and acceptability, (b) 5-15 women who decline to participate to identify barriers to recruitment and (c) 15-20 clinical staff to explore fidelity and acceptability. A health economic study will inform a future cost effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. DISCUSSION: This feasibility study aims to rigorously evaluate SPEBT as a treatment for SCD in pregnancy and its impact on maternal and infant outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIH registry (www.clinicaltrials.gov), registration number NCT03975894 (registered 05/06/19); ISRCTN (www.isrctn.com), registration number ISRCTN52684446 (retrospectively registered 02/08/19).

Health economics and quality of life in a feasibility RCT of paediatric acute appendicitis: a protocol study.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common acute surgical emergencies in children and accounts for an annual cost of approximately £50 million to the National Health Service. Investigating alternative treatment options offers the best prospect of enhancing the quality of care for patients and potential opportunities for cost savings through better allocative efficiency. A feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing a non-operative treatment pathway with appendicectomy for children with acute uncomplicated appendicitis is underway (CONTRACT feasibility RCT). AIMS: The prime objective of this economic substudy conducted alongside the CONTRACT feasibility RCT is to better understand and assess: (1) cost data collection tools and cost drivers by identifying patients' pathways and (2) patient quality of life by assessing alternative paediatric health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments. Outcomes from this study will inform a future efficacy RCT assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-operative treatment pathway for the treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. METHODS: The economic substudy will use individual-level data and will be conducted from the health system perspective over the study's 6-month follow-up period. Microcosting will include health resource and service use, while potential benefits acquired will be measured using the HRQoL measures, Child Health Utility 9D (CHU-9D) and Euroqol-5 dimensions and 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L). We will assess the appropriateness of using the cost per quality-adjusted life year framework in the future RCT, as well as testing and identifying the most suitable HRQoL instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of the investigational economic substudy will be used to inform the design of our future definitive RCT. However, the result from this economic study will also provide a detailed description and account of the issues inherent in paediatric Economic Evaluations Alongside Clinical Trials with an emphasis on costing methods of interventions taking place in secondary care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN1583043.

Adding emollient bath additives to standard eczema management for children with eczema: the BATHE RCT.

BACKGROUND: Childhood eczema is very common. Treatment often includes emollient bath additives, despite there being little evidence of their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of emollient bath additives in the management of childhood eczema. DESIGN: Pragmatic, randomised, open-label, multicentre superiority trial with two parallel groups. SETTING: Ninety-six general practices in Wales, the west of England and southern England. Invitation by personal letter or opportunistically. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged between 12 months and 12 years fulfilling the UK Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Eczema. Children with inactive or very mild eczema (a score of ≤ 5 on the Nottingham Eczema Severity Scale) were excluded, as were children who bathed less than once per week or whose parents/carers were not prepared to accept randomisation. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group were prescribed bath additives by their usual clinical team and were asked to use them regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued standard eczema management, including regular leave-on emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCSs) when required. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was eczema control measured by Patient Oriented Eczema Measure [POEM, 0 (clear) to 28 (severe)] weekly for 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were eczema severity over 1 year (4-weekly POEM), number of eczema exacerbations, disease-specific quality of life (QoL) (Dermatitis Family Impact Questionnaire), generic QoL (Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions) and type and quantity of topical steroid/calcineurin inhibitors prescribed. Children were randomised (1 : 1) using online software to either bath additives plus standard eczema care or standard eczema care alone, stratified by recruiting centre, and there was open-label blinding. RESULTS: From December 2014 to May 2016, 482 children were randomised: 51% were female, 84% were white and the mean age was 5 years (n = 264 in the intervention group, n = 218 in the control group). Reported adherence to randomised treatment allocation was > 92% in both groups, with 76.7% of participants completing at least 12 (80%) of the first 16 weekly questionnaires for the primary outcome. Baseline POEM score was 9.5 [standard deviation (SD) 5.7] in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. Average POEM score over the first 16 weeks was 7.5 (SD 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, TCS use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additive group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additive group (95% confidence interval -0.27 to 1.10), which is well below the published minimal clinically important difference of 3 points. There was no difference between groups in secondary outcomes or in adverse effects such as redness, stinging or slipping. LIMITATIONS: Simple randomisation resulted in an imbalance in baseline group size, although baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. CONCLUSION: This trial found no evidence of clinical benefit of including emollient bath additives in the standard management of childhood eczema. FUTURE WORK: Further research is required on optimal regimens of leave-on emollients and the use of emollients as soap substitutes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Emollient bath additives for the treatment of childhood eczema (BATHE): multicentre pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of including emollient bath additives in the management of eczema in children. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised open label superiority trial with two parallel groups. SETTING: 96 general practices in Wales and western and southern England. PARTICIPANTS: 483 children aged 1 to 11 years, fulfilling UK diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis. Children with very mild eczema and children who bathed less than once weekly were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the intervention group were prescribed emollient bath additives by their usual clinical team to be used regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued with standard eczema management, including leave-on emollients, and caregivers were given standardised advice on how to wash participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was eczema control measured by the patient oriented eczema measure (POEM, scores 0-7 mild, 8-16 moderate, 17-28 severe) weekly for 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were eczema severity over one year (monthly POEM score from baseline to 52 weeks), number of eczema exacerbations resulting in primary healthcare consultation, disease specific quality of life (dermatitis family impact), generic quality of life (child health utility-9D), utilisation of resources, and type and quantity of topical corticosteroid or topical calcineurin inhibitors prescribed. RESULTS: 483 children were randomised and one child was withdrawn, leaving 482 children in the trial: 51% were girls (244/482), 84% were of white ethnicity (447/470), and the mean age was 5 years. 96% (461/482) of participants completed at least one post-baseline POEM, so were included in the analysis, and 77% (370/482) completed questionnaires for more than 80% of the time points for the primary outcome (12/16 weekly questionnaires to 16 weeks). The mean baseline POEM score was 9.5 (SD 5.7) in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. The mean POEM score over the 16 week period was 7.5 (SD. 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group. No statistically significant difference was found in weekly POEM scores between groups over 16 weeks. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, topical corticosteroid use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additives group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additives group (95% confidence interval -0.27 to 1.10), below the published minimal clinically important difference for POEM of 3 points. The groups did not differ in secondary outcomes, economic outcomes, or adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: This trial found no evidence of clinical benefit from including emollient bath additives in the standard management of eczema in children. Further research is needed into optimal regimens for leave-on emollient and soap substitutes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309.

Societal costs of permanent childhood hearing loss at teen age: a cross-sectional cohort follow-up study of universal newborn hearing screening.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects in adolescence of bilateral permanent childhood hearing loss (PCHL) > 40 dB and of exposure to universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) on societal costs accrued over the preceding 12 months. DESIGN SETTING PARTICIPANTS: An observational cohort study of a sample of 110 adolescents aged 13-20 years, 73 with PCHL and 37 in a normally hearing comparison group (HCG) closely similar in respect of place and date of birth to those with PCHL, drawn from a 1992-1997 cohort of 157 000 births in Southern England, half of whom had been exposed to a UNHS programme. INTERVENTION: Birth in periods with and without UNHS. OUTCOME MEASURES: Resource use and costs in the preceding 12-month period, estimated from interview at a mean age of 16.9 years and review of medical records. Effects on costs were examined in regression models. RESULTS: Mean total costs for participants with PCHL and the HCG were £15 914 and £5883, respectively (difference £10 031, 95% CI £6460 to £13 603), primarily driven by a difference in educational costs. Compared with the HCG, additional mean costs associated with PCHL of moderate, severe and profound severity were £5916, £6605 and £18 437, respectively. The presence of PCHL and an additional medical condition (AMC) increased costs by £15 385 (95% CI £8532 to £22 238). An increase of one unit in receptive language z-score was associated with £1616 (95% CI £842 to £2389) lower costs. Birth during periods of UNHS was not associated with significantly lower overall costs (difference £3594, 95% CI -£2918 to £10 106). CONCLUSIONS: The societal cost of PCHL was greater with more severe losses and in the presence of AMC and was lower in children with superior language scores. There was no statistically significant reduction in costs associated with birth in periods with UNHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN03307358, pre-results.

CONTRACT Study - CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children (feasibility): study protocol for a randomised controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the routine treatment for acute appendicitis in the United Kingdom is an appendicectomy. However, there is increasing scientific interest and research into non-operative treatment of appendicitis in adults and children. While a number of studies have investigated non-operative treatment of appendicitis in adults, this research cannot be applied to the paediatric population. Ultimately, we aim to perform a UK-based multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost effectiveness of non-operative treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children, as compared with appendicectomy. First, we will undertake a feasibility study to assess the feasibility of performing such a trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The study involves a feasibility RCT with a nested qualitative research to optimise recruitment as well as a health economic substudy. Children (aged 4-15 years inclusive) diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis that would normally be treated with an appendicectomy are eligible for the RCT. Exclusion criteria include clinical/radiological suspicion of perforated appendicitis, appendix mass or previous non-operative treatment of appendicitis. Participants will be randomised into one of two arms. Participants in the intervention arm are treated with antibiotics and regular clinical assessment to ensure clinical improvement. Participants in the control arm will receive appendicectomy. Randomisation will be minimised by age, sex, duration of symptoms and centre. Children and families who are approached for the RCT will be invited to participate in the embedded qualitative substudy, which includes recording of recruitment consultants and subsequent interviews with participants and non-participants and their families and recruiters. Analyses of these will inform interventions to optimise recruitment. The main study outcomes include recruitment rate (primary outcome), identification of strategies to optimise recruitment, performance of trial treatment pathways, clinical outcomes and safety of non-operative treatment. We have involved children, young people and parents in study design and delivery. DISCUSSION: In this study we will explore the feasibility of performing a full efficacy RCT comparing non-operative treatment with appendicectomy in children with acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Factors determining success of the present study include recruitment rate, safety of non-operative treatment and adequate interest in the future RCT. Ultimately this feasibility study will form the foundation of the main RCT and reinforce its design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15830435 . Registered on 8 February 2017.

Reslizumab for Treating Asthma with Elevated Blood Eosinophils Inadequately Controlled by Inhaled Corticosteroids: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the manufacturer of reslizumab (Teva) submitted evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of eosinophilic asthma inadequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroids. NICE commissioned Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC) as an independent Evidence Review Group (ERG) to provide a critique of the manufacturer's submitted evidence. Reslizumab is compared with best standard of care and omalizumab, for a small 'overlap' population of patients who have both eosinophilic and IgE-mediated severe asthma. This paper provides a summary of the ERG's review of the manufacturer's submission, and summarises the NICE Appraisal Committee's subsequent guidance (issued in August 2017). The ERG considered that there were limitations in the approach proposed by the manufacturer for the exacerbation rate and the utility for severe exacerbation. The company amended their initial analysis, following comments from the ERG and the NICE committee, whereby the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was £29,870 per QALY gained for reslizumab compared with best standard care. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) concluded that reslizumab was recommended as an option for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma that is inadequately controlled in adults despite maintenance therapy with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus another drug, only if (1) the blood eosinophil count has been recorded as 400 cells per microlitre or more and (2) the patient has had three or more asthma exacerbations in the past 12 months, and (3) the company provides reslizumab with the discount agreed in the patient access scheme.

A comparison of the clinical effectiveness and cost of specialised individually delivered parent training for preschool attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and a generic, group-based programme: a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of the New Forest Parenting Programme versus Incredible Years.

The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and cost of specialised individually delivered parent training (PT) for preschool children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) against generic group-based PT and treatment as usual (TAU). This is a multi-centre three-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial conducted in National Health Service Trusts. The participants included in this study were preschool children (33-54 months) fulfilling ADHD research diagnostic criteria. New Forest Parenting Programme (NFPP)-12-week individual, home-delivered ADHD PT programme; Incredible Years (IY)-12-week group-based, PT programme initially designed for children with behaviour problems were the interventions. Primary outcome-Parent ratings of child's ADHD symptoms (Swanson, Nolan & Pelham Questionnaire-SNAP-IV). Secondary outcomes-teacher ratings (SNAP-IV) and direct observations of ADHD symptoms and parent/teacher ratings of conduct problems. NFPP, IY and TAU outcomes were measured at baseline (T1) and post treatment (T2). NFPP and IY outcomes only were measured 6 months post treatment (T3). Researchers, but not therapists or parents, were blind to treatment allocation. Analysis employed mixed effect regression models (multiple imputations). Intervention and other costs were estimated using standardized approaches. NFPP and IY did not differ on parent-rated SNAP-IV, ADHD combined symptoms [mean difference - 0.009 95% CI (- 0.191, 0.173), p = 0.921] or any other measure. Small, non-significant, benefits of NFPP over TAU were seen for parent-rated SNAP-IV, ADHD combined symptoms [- 0.189 95% CI (- 0.380, 0.003), p = 0.053]. NFPP significantly reduced parent-rated conduct problems compared to TAU across scales (p values < 0.05). No significant benefits of IY over TAU were seen for parent-rated SNAP, ADHD symptoms [- 0.16 95% CI (- 0.37, 0.04), p = 0.121] or parent-rated conduct problems (p > 0.05). The cost per family of providing NFPP in the trial was significantly lower than IY (£1591 versus £2103). Although, there were no differences between NFPP and IY with regards clinical effectiveness, individually delivered NFPP cost less. However, this difference may be reduced when implemented in routine clinical practice. Clinical decisions should take into account parental preferences between delivery approaches.

Preschool hyperactivity is associated with long-term economic burden: evidence from a longitudinal health economic analysis of costs incurred across childhood, adolescence and young adulthood.

BACKGROUND: Preschool hyperactivity is an early risk factor for adult mental health problems and criminality. Little is known about; (a) the patterns of long-term service costs associated with this behavioural marker in the general population and (b) the specific factors predicting hyperactivity-related costs. We undertook a prospective study investigating associations between preschool hyperactivity and average individual annual service costs up to late adolescent and young adulthood. METHODS: One-hundred and seventy individuals rated as hyperactive by their parents and 88 nonhyperactive controls were identified from a community sample of 4,215 three years olds. Baseline information about behaviour/emotional problems and background characteristics were collected. At follow-up (when individuals were aged between 14 and 25 years) information was obtained on service use, and associated costs since the age of three. Based on this information we calculated the average cost per annum incurred by each individual. RESULTS: Compared to controls, preschoolers with hyperactivity had 17.6 times higher average costs per annum across domains (apart from nonmental health costs). These were £562 for each hyperactive individual compared with £30 for controls. Average annual costs decreased as a function of age, with higher costs incurred at younger ages. The effects of hyperactivity remained significant when other baseline factors were added to the model. Effects were fully mediated by later psychiatric morbidity. When the hyperactive group were examined separately, costs were consistently predicted by male gender and, for some cost codes, by conduct problems. CONCLUSIONS: Preventative approaches targeting early hyperactivity may be of value. Services should be targeted towards high-risk individuals with careful consideration given to the cost-to-benefit trade-off of early intervention strategies.

Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of a specialist and a generic parenting programme for the treatment of preschool ADHD.

BACKGROUND: The New Forest Parenting Programme (NFPP) is a home-delivered, evidence-based parenting programme to target symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in preschool children. It has been adapted for use with 'hard-to-reach' or 'difficult-to-treat' children. This trial will compare the adapted-NFPP with a generic parenting group-based programme, Incredible Years (IY), which has been recommended for children with preschool-type ADHD symptoms. METHODS/DESIGN: This multicentre randomized controlled trial comprises three arms: adapted-NFPP, IY and treatment as usual (TAU). A sample of 329 parents of preschool-aged children with a research diagnosis of ADHD enriched for hard-to-reach and potentially treatment-resistant children will be allocated to the arms in the ratio 3:3:1. Participants in the adapted-NFPP and IY arms receive an induction visit followed by 12 weekly parenting sessions of 1½ hours (adapted-NFPP) or 2½ hours (IY) over 2.5 years. Adapted-NFPP will be delivered as a one-to-one home-based intervention; IY, as a group-based intervention. TAU participants are offered a parenting programme at the end of the study. The primary objective is to test whether the adapted-NFPP produces beneficial effects in terms of core ADHD symptoms. Secondary objectives include examination of the treatment impact on secondary outcomes, a study of cost-effectiveness and examination of the mediating role of treatment-induced changes in parenting behaviour and neuropsychological function. The primary outcome is change in ADHD symptoms, as measured by the parent-completed version of the SNAP-IV questionnaire, adjusted for pretreatment SNAP-IV score. Secondary outcome measures are: a validated index of behaviour during child's solo play; teacher-reported SNAP-IV (ADHD scale); teacher and parent SNAP-IV (ODD) Scale; Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory - Oppositional Defiant Disorder scale; Revised Client Service Receipt Inventory - Health Economics Costs measure and EuroQol (EQ5D) health-related quality-of-life measure. Follow-up measures will be collected 6 months after treatment for participants allocated to adapted-NFPP and IY. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence as to whether the adapted-NFPP is more effective and cost-effective than the recommended treatment and TAU. It will also provide information about mediating factors (improved parenting and neuropsychological function) and moderating factors (parent and child genetic factors) in any increased benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN39288126.