Rheumatology International

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 963–969 | Cite as

Health-related quality of life and utility in patients receiving biological and non-biological treatments in rheumatoid arthritis

  • András Inotai
  • Bernadette Rojkovich
  • Angéla Fülöp
  • Emese Jászay
  • Tamás Ágh
  • Ágnes Mészáros
Original Article


Biological treatments earn increasing significance in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but are associated with high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared to conventional antirheumatic treatments such as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. As the most important objective of medical technologies should be to increase life years and/or patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measuring QoL and utility in RA patients treated with biological therapies is crucial. The objective of this study is to compare the utility and QoL of patients treated with biological (n = 85) and non-biological (n = 168) antirheumatic drugs in Hungary in a cross-sectional non-interventional study. A measure of impairment (Disease Activity Score (DAS)-28), QoL measure (EuroQol five Dimension (EQ-5D) Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life (RAQoL)) and utility measures (indirect: EQ-5D index, direct: time trade-off (TTO)) were applied using an interview method. The Pearson correlation was used to assess the strength of the relationship of different measures in the total study group (n = 253). The EQ-5D index (biological treatment: 0.608, non-biological treatment: 0.483; P = 0.012) and DAS-28 (biological treatment: 3.8, non-biological treatment: 4.5; P = 0.003) showed statistically significant difference between the two subcohorts after adjusting data by age, gender and disease duration. Our results indicate that patients on biological treatment have lower disease activity and higher utility; however, it was not statistically significant in all cases. According to our knowledge, TTO was not used previously in Hungarian RA patients. Utility data concerning biological treatments are essential for cost-utility models in health technology assessment reports for public reimbursement.


Rheumatoid arthritis Health-related quality of life Utility Biological therapies Disease-specific quality of life Time trade-off 


Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. This study was not funded by a pharmaceutical company/medical device manufacturer or any other profit-making stakeholders.


  1. 1.
    Kaló Z, Péntek M (2005) Az életminőség mérése. In: Gulácsi L (ed) Egészséggazdaságtan, 1st edn edn. Medicina Könyvkiadó Rt, Budapest, pp 161–189Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger ML, Bingefors K, Hedblom EC, Pashos CL, Torrance GW (2003) Health care, cost, quality and outcomes—Ispor book of terms. ISPOR, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Currey SS, Rao JK, Winfield JB, Callahan LF (2003) Performance of a generic health-related quality of life measure in a clinic population with rheumatic disease. Arthritis Rheum 49:658–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The EuroQoL Group (1990) EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
  5. 5.
    de Jong Z, van der Heijde D, McKenna SP, Whalley D (1997) The reliability and validity of the RAQoL: a rheumatoid arthritis-specific quality of life instrument. Br J Rheumatol 36:878–883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haroon N, Aggarwal A, Lawrence A, Agarwal V, Misra R (2007) Impact of rheumatoid arthritis on quality of life. Mod Rheumatol 17:290–295. doi: 10.1007/s10165-007-0604-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, Shojania K, Offer R, Brazier JE, Esdaile JM, Anis AH (2005) A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 60:1571–1582. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.034 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bingham CO (2008) Emerging therapeutics for rheumatoid arthritis. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 66:210–215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaffo A, Saag KG, Curtis JR (2006) Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Health Syst Pharm 63:2451–2465. doi: 10.2146/ajhp050514 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brodszky V, Kárpáti K, Gulácsi L, Péntek M, Orlewska E (2008) A rituximab kezelés költség-hasznosságának modellezése rheumatoid arthritisben TNF-alfa gátló kezelés után Magyarországon. IME 8:41–46Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen YF, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Jowett S, Bryan S, Clark W, Fry-Smith A, Burls A (2006) A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults and an economic evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. Health Technol Assess 10:iii–iv, xi–xiii, 1–229Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kobelt G (2007) Thoughts on health economics in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 66(Suppl 3):iii35–iii39. doi: 10.1136/ard.2007.078964 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rashidi AA, Anis AH, Marra CA (2006) Do visual analogue scale (VAS) derived standard gamble (SG) utilities agree with health utilities index utilities? A comparison of patient and community preferences for health status in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:25. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-25 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kobelt G, Eberhardt K, Jönsson L, Jönsson B (1999) Economic consequences of the progression of rheumatoid arthritis in Sweden. Arthritis Rheum 42:347–356. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199902)42:2<347:AID-ANR18>3.0.CO;2-P PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC (2000) Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health 21:587–611. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.587 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marra CA, Marion SA, Guh DP, Najafzadeh M, Wolfe F, Esdaile JM, Clarke AE, Gignac MA, Anis AH (2007) Not all “quality-adjusted life years” are equal. J Clin Epidemiol 60:616–624. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dolan P (2001) Output measures and valuation in health. In: Drummond M, McGuire A (eds) Economic evaluation in health care merging theory with practice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 46–67Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Drummond MF, Schulper MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Torrance GW (1987) Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis 40:593–600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tijhuis GJ, Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Zwinderman AH, Hazes JM, Vlieland TP (2000) Value of the time trade off method for measuring utilities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 59:892–897. doi: 10.1136/ard.59.11.892 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Torrance GW (1986) Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 5:1–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA et al (1988) The American rheumatism association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 31:315–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hungarian Ministry of Health (2008) Biological therapies in rheumatic diseases – Protocol of the Ministry of Health. Accessed 22 Oct 2009
  24. 24.
    Lillegraven S, Kvien TK (2007) Measuring disability and quality of life in established rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 21:827–840. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2007.05.004 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rojkovich B, Lovas K, Tatárné EH, Szabó CS, Korányi A (2002) Rheumatoid arthritis életminőség skála (RAQoL) hazai validálása. Komplex fizioterápia és oktatás hatása a rheumatoid arthritises betegek életminőségére. Magy Reumatol 43:136Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hurst NP, Kind P, Ruta D, Hunter M, Stubbings A (1997) Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Br J Rheumatol 36:551–559. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/36.5.551 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brodszky V, Bálint P, Géher P, Hodinka L, Horváth G, Koó É, Péntek M, Polgár A, Seszták M, Szántó S, Ujfalussy I, Gulácsi L (2009) Disease burden of psoriatic arthritis compared to rheumatoid arthritis, Hungarian experiment. Rheumatol Int 30:199–205. doi: 10.1007/s00296-009-0936-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whalley D, McKenna SP, de Jong Z, van der Heijde D (1997) Quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 36:884–888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ariza-Ariza R, Hernandez-Cruz B, Carmona L et al (2006) Assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison between time trade-off and the EuroQol. Arthritis Rheum 55:751–756. doi: 10.1002/art.22226 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bansback N, Marra C, Tsuchiya A, Anis A, Guh D, Hammond T, Brazier J (2007) Using the health assessment questionnaire to estimate preference-based single indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 57:963–971. doi: 10.1002/art.22885 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35:1095–1108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Péntek M, Szekanecz Z, Czirják L, Gy Poór et al (2008) Impact of disease progression on health status, quality of life and costs in rheumatoid arthritis in Hungary [A betegségprogresszió hatása az egészségi állapotra, életminőségre és költségekre rheumatoid arthritisben Magyarországon]. Orv Hetil 149:733–741. doi: 10.1556/OH.2008.28294 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Péntek M, Kobelt G, Czirják L, Szekanecz Z, Rojkovich B, Polgár A, Genti G, Kiss CG, Brodszky V, Májer I, Gulácsi L (2007) Costs of rheumatoid arthritis in Hungary. J Rheumatol 34:1437–1439PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Witney AG, Treharne GJ, Tavakoli M, Lyons AC, Vincent K, Scott DL, Kitas GD (2006) The relationship of medical, demographic and psychosocial factors to direct and indirect health utility instruments in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 45:975–981. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kel027 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scott DL, Khoshaba B, Choy EH, Kingsley GH (2007) Limited correlation between the Health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) and EuroQol in rheumatoid arthritis: questionable validity of deriving quality adjusted life years from HAQ. Ann Rheum Dis 66:1534–1537. doi: 10.1136/ard.2007.073726 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Guh D et al (2004) A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care 42:1125–1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bejia I, Salem KB, Touzi M, Bergaoui N (2006) Measuring utilities by the time trade-off method in Tunisian rheumatoid arthritis patients. Clin Rheumatol 25:38–41. doi: 10.1007/s10067-005-1125-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • András Inotai
    • 1
  • Bernadette Rojkovich
    • 2
  • Angéla Fülöp
    • 2
  • Emese Jászay
    • 2
  • Tamás Ágh
    • 1
  • Ágnes Mészáros
    • 1
  1. 1.Semmelweis University, University Pharmacy Department of Pharmacy AdministrationBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Polyclinic of the Hospitaller Brothers of St. John of GodBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations