Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Spain

  • Gisela Kobelt
  • J. Berg
  • P. Lindgren
  • G. Izquierdo
  • O. Sánchez-Soliño
  • J. Pérez-Miranda
  • M. A. Casado
  • Associación Española de Esclerosis Múltiple
Original Paper


This cost-of-illness analysis is based on information from 1.848 patients in Spain and is part of a Europe-wide study on the costs of multiple sclerosis. The objective was to analyze the costs and quality of life (QOL) related to the level of disease severity and progression. Patients were identified by the Asociación Española de Esclerosis Múltiple (AEDEM) and participated in the survey by answering a mail questionnaire (response rate 31.8%). In addition to details on the disease (type of disease, relapses, level of functional disability), the questionnaire asked for information on all resource consumption, medical, non-medical, work absence and informal care, as well as utility (QOL). The mean age of the cohort was 45 years, and only 5.5% of patients were 65 years of age or more. Approximately 36% of patients had mild disease (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score of 0–3), 44.8% had moderate disease (EDSS score of 4–6.5) and 17.7% had severe disease (EDSS score ≥7). The mean EDSS score in the sample was 4.5 (median 5.0), with a utility of 0.554. Costs and utility are highly correlated with disease severity. Workforce participation decreases from around 70% in early disease to less than 5% in the very late stages. Hospitalization is very infrequent in early disease, representing less than € 1.300 per patient per year for patients at EDSS scores <6, but increases steeply for patients at scores ≥7. Ambulatory care increases fivefold between early and late disease, while investments and services increase from basically no cost to just over € 6.000 at EDSS scores ≥7. Productivity losses increase more than eightfold, and informal care increases from € 593 at EDSS scores of 0–1 to nearly € 34.228 at scores of 8–9. Hence, total mean costs per patient are driven by the distribution of the severity levels in the sample, increasing from € 10.425 at EDSS scores of 0–1 to € 45.264 at a score of 7, and € 65.693 at scores of 8–9. The same is true for utility, which decreases from 0.865 to 0.084 as patients progress from the mildest to the most severe disability levels. However, the utility loss compared to the age- and gender-matched general population is high at all levels of the disease (∼0.25 in patients below 30 years of age with an EDSS score of 2–3, and ∼0.4 in patients over 60 years of age and a score of ≥6), leading to an estimated annual loss of 0.276 quality-adjusted life-year per patient. Relapses for patients with an EDSS score below 5 are associated with a cost of approximately € 2.750 and a utility loss of 0.1 during the quarter in which they occur.


Multiple sclerosis Costs Utility Quality of life Spain 



S. Hass (Elan Corporation, San Diego, CA, USA); U. Lilja (Stockholm Health Economics, Sweden)

Conflict of interest

No information supplied.


  1. 1.
    Kobelt, G, Berg J, Lindgren P et al. (2006) Costs and quality of life of multiple sclerosis in Europe. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychatry. Online publication, May 11 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Casquero P, Villoslada P, Montalban X, Torrent M (2001) Frequency of multiple sclerosis in Menorca, Balearic Islands, Spain. Neuroepidemiology 20: 129–133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Modrego Pardo P, Pina Latorre M, Lopez A, Errea J (1997) Prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the province of Teruel, Spain. J Neurol 244: 182–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benito-Leon J, Martin E, Vela L et al. (1998) Multiple sclerosis in Mostoles, central Spain. Acta Neurol Scand 98: 238–242 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aladro Y, Alemany M, Perez-Vieitez M et al. (2005) Prevalence and incidence of multiple sclerosis in Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain. Neuroepidemiology 24: 70–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosati G (2001) The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the world: an update. Neurol Sci 22: 117–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pugliatti M, Rosati R, Carton H et al. (2006) The prevalence and incidence of multiple sclerosis in Europe. Eur J Neurology 13: 1–23 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16: 199–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dolan P (1995) A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. Centre for Health Economics, University of York: York Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kurtzke J (1983) Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis and expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33: 1444–1452PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The EuroQol Group (2004) Measuring self-reported population health: an international perspective based on EQ-5D. Szende A, Williams A (eds) Hungary: Spring Med Publishing Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henriksson F, Fredrikson S, Jönsson B (2000) Costs, quality of life and disease severity in multiple sclerosis─a cross-sectional study in Sweden. SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance No. 361. Stockholm School of Economics; Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kobelt, G, Lindgren P, Smala A, Jönsson B, Group Gms (2001) Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. A cross-sectional observational study in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 2: 60–68 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kobelt G, Lindgren P, Parkin D, Jönsson B (2000) Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis. A cross-sectional observational study in the United Kingdom. SEE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance No. 399. Stockholm School of Economics; Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eichler H, Kong S, Gerth W et al. (2004) Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 7: 518–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hohol M, Orav E, Weiner H (1995) Disease steps in multiple sclerosis: a simple approach to evaluate disease progression. Neurology 45: 251–255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kobelt G, Jönsson L, Fredrikson S (2003) A new disease model to estimate the cost of disease progression for different types of MS and different subgroups of patients. Eur J Health Econ 4: 50–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rubio-Terres C, Aristegui-Ruiz I, Medina-Redondo F, Izquirdo-Ayuso G (2003) Analisis cost-utilidad del tratamiento de la esclerosis ultiple remitente-recidivante con aceto de glatiramero o interferon beta en Espagna. Farmacia Hospitalaria 27: 159–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morales-Gonzalez J, Benito-Leon J, Rivera-Navarro J, Mitchell A (2000) A systematic approach to analyse health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis: the GEDMA study. Mult Scler 10: 47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gisela Kobelt
    • 1
  • J. Berg
    • 2
  • P. Lindgren
    • 2
  • G. Izquierdo
    • 3
  • O. Sánchez-Soliño
    • 4
  • J. Pérez-Miranda
    • 4
  • M. A. Casado
    • 5
  • Associación Española de Esclerosis Múltiple
  1. 1.European Health EconomicsSperacedesFrance
  2. 2.Stockholm Health EconomicsStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Hospital Virgen de la MacarenaSevillaSpain
  4. 4.Biogen Idec Iberia S.L.MadridSpain
  5. 5.PORIBMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations