BackgroundThe EQ-5D, a generic health status questionnaire that is widely used in health economic evaluation, was recently expanded to the EQ-5D-5L to address criticisms of unresponsiveness and ceiling effect.AimsTo describe the validity, responsiveness and minimum important difference of the EQ-5D-5L in COPD.MethodsStudy 1: The validity of the EQ-5D-5L utility index and visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) was compared with four established disease-specific health status questionnaires and other measures of disease severity in 616 stable outpatients with COPD. Study 2: The EQ-5D-5L utility index and EQ-VAS were measured in 324 patients with COPD before and after 8 weeks of pulmonary rehabilitation. Distribution and anchor-based approaches were used to estimate the minimum important difference.ResultsThere were moderate-to-strong correlations between utility index and EQ-VAS with disease-specific questionnaires (Pearson's r=0.47–0.72). A ceiling effect was seen in 7% and 2.6% of utility index and EQ-VAS. Utility index decreased (worsening health status) with indices of worsening disease severity. With rehabilitation, mean (95% CI) changes in utility index and EQ-VAS were 0.065 (0.047 to 0.083) and 8.6 (6.5 to 10.7), respectively, with standardised response means of 0.39 and 0.44. The mean (range) anchor estimates of the minimum important difference for utility index and EQ-VAS were 0.051 (0.037 to 0.063) and 6.9 (6.5 to 8.0), respectively.ConclusionsThe EQ-5D-5L is a valid and responsive measure of health status in COPD and may provide useful additional cost-effectiveness data in clinical trials.

No abstract

Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism: a systematic review. Health Technol Assessment 1997; 1(11). NHS R&D HTA Programme T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources. The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA). This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Population Screening Panel (see inside back cover). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health.

UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA), project number 07/32/05.

SummaryBackgroundIncreased mortality rates associated with weekend hospital admission (the so-called weekend effect) have been attributed to suboptimum staffing levels of specialist consultants. However, evidence for a causal association is elusive, and the magnitude of the weekend specialist deficit remains unquantified. This uncertainty could hamper efforts by national health systems to introduce 7 day health services. We aimed to examine preliminary associations between specialist intensity and weekend admission mortality across the English National Health Service.MethodsEligible hospital trusts were those in England receiving unselected emergency admissions. On Sunday June 15 and Wednesday June 18, 2014, we undertook a point prevalence survey of hospital specialists (consultants) to obtain data relating to the care of patients admitted as emergencies. We defined specialist intensity at each trust as the self-reported estimated number of specialist hours per ten emergency admissions between 0800 h and 2000 h on Sunday and Wednesday. With use of data for all adult emergency admissions for financial year 2013–14, we compared weekend to weekday admission risk of mortality with the Sunday to Wednesday specialist intensity ratio within each trust. We stratified trusts by size quintile.Findings127 of 141 eligible acute hospital trusts agreed to participate; 115 (91%) trusts contributed data to the point prevalence survey. Of 34 350 clinicians surveyed, 15 537 (45%) responded. Substantially fewer specialists were present providing care to emergency admissions on Sunday (1667 [11%]) than on Wednesday (6105 [42%]). Specialists present on Sunday spent 40% more time caring for emergency patients than did those present on Wednesday (mean 5·74 h [SD 3·39] vs 3·97 h [3·31]); however, the median specialist intensity on Sunday was only 48% (IQR 40–58) of that on Wednesday. The Sunday to Wednesday intensity ratio was less than 0·7 in 104 (90%) of the contributing trusts. Mortality risk among patients admitted at weekends was higher than among those admitted on weekdays (adjusted odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·08–1·11; p<0·0001). There was no significant association between Sunday to Wednesday specialist intensity ratios and weekend to weekday mortality ratios (r −0·042; p=0·654).InterpretationThis cross-sectional analysis did not detect a correlation between weekend staffing of hospital specialists and mortality risk for emergency admissions. Further investigation is needed to evaluate whole-system secular change during the implementation of 7 day services. Policy makers should exercise caution before attributing the weekend effect mainly to differences in specialist staffing.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme.