TY - JOUR
T1 - Utility and direct costs: Ankylosing spondylitis compared with rheumatoid arthritis
AU - Verstappen, S. M M
AU - Jacobs, J. W G
AU - Van Der Heijde, D. M.
AU - Van Der Linden, Sj
AU - Verhoef, C. M.
AU - Bijlsma, J. W J
AU - Boonen, A.
PY - 2007/6
Y1 - 2007/6
N2 - Objectives: To compare utility and disease-specific direct costs between patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the Netherlands. Methods: Patients with AS and those with RA completed questions on disease characteristics, the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) to assess utility, and questionnaire resource utilisation. Resource utilisation was assessed prospectively in AS, but retrospectively in RA. True cost estimates (2003) were used to calculate the costs. Differences in disease characteristics between AS and RA were described, and determinants of EQ-5D utility and costs were explored by Cox proportional hazard regressions. Results: 576 patients with RA and 132 with AS completed the questionnaires. EQ-5D utility (0.63 vs 0.7) was lower, and annual direct costs higher in RA (€5167 vs €2574). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard regressions, there was no difference in utility between the diagnostic groups, but patients with RA incurred higher direct costs after controlling for age, gender and disease duration. Conclusions: In patients with RA and patients with AS, who are under the care of a rheumatologist, utility is equally reduced, but healthcare costs are higher in RA after controlling for age, gender and disease duration. These data can be helpful to provide insights into the differences and similarities between the healthcare needs of both patient groups and to identify issues for further research and for policy in healthcare organisations.
AB - Objectives: To compare utility and disease-specific direct costs between patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the Netherlands. Methods: Patients with AS and those with RA completed questions on disease characteristics, the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) to assess utility, and questionnaire resource utilisation. Resource utilisation was assessed prospectively in AS, but retrospectively in RA. True cost estimates (2003) were used to calculate the costs. Differences in disease characteristics between AS and RA were described, and determinants of EQ-5D utility and costs were explored by Cox proportional hazard regressions. Results: 576 patients with RA and 132 with AS completed the questionnaires. EQ-5D utility (0.63 vs 0.7) was lower, and annual direct costs higher in RA (€5167 vs €2574). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard regressions, there was no difference in utility between the diagnostic groups, but patients with RA incurred higher direct costs after controlling for age, gender and disease duration. Conclusions: In patients with RA and patients with AS, who are under the care of a rheumatologist, utility is equally reduced, but healthcare costs are higher in RA after controlling for age, gender and disease duration. These data can be helpful to provide insights into the differences and similarities between the healthcare needs of both patient groups and to identify issues for further research and for policy in healthcare organisations.
U2 - 10.1136/ard.2006.061283
DO - 10.1136/ard.2006.061283
M3 - Article
C2 - 17172249
SN - 0003-4967
VL - 66
SP - 727
EP - 731
JO - Annals of the rheumatic diseases
JF - Annals of the rheumatic diseases
IS - 6
ER -