Rheumatology International

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 1813–1819 | Cite as

The economic burden of the ankylosing spondylitis in the Czech Republic: comparison between 2005 and 2008

  • Alena PetříkováEmail author
  • Tomáš Doležal
  • Jiří Klimeš
  • Milan Vocelka
  • Liliana Šedová
  • Jozef Kolář
Original Article


To investigate the burden of ankylosing spondylitis in the Czech Republic as a baseline for future health economic evaluations. Data were obtained from two cross-sectional studies Beda I (2005) and Beda II (2008), performed in 1,008 and 509 patients, respectively. Methodology used was Cost-of-Illness prevalence-based analysis bottom-up approach. Analysis was performed from payer (health insurance companies) and societal perspective (including productivity costs using friction cost approach). Mean age of sample in Beda I and Beda II was 50.2 and 52.5 years, male were present by 61.0 and 62.7 %; average disease duration was 23.0 and 26.4 years, respectively. Mean total annual costs per patient in the sample were €4,782 in Beda I and €5806 in Beda II. Average direct costs per patient in the sample per year are estimated at €1,812 (Beda I) and €2,588 (Beda II) with the average productivity costs €2,970 (Beda I) and €3,218 (Beda II). We observed a small decrement in percentage (6.7 %) of productivity costs for Beda II as an influence of higher consumption of biologic drugs, hence higher direct costs and possible productivity preservation. The largest direct cost burdens were spa procedures (45.3 %, Beda I) and biological drugs (52.8 %, Beda II). Unique analysis of the burden of the AS in the Central-Eastern Europe presents health care resource and cost consumption by comparing two cross-sectional prevalence-based studies. Further analysis should be carried to obtain data connecting health status with costs consumption in order to analyse the AS from this perspective.


Health economics Ankylosing spondylitis Drug therapy Quality of health care Biologic agents 



Authors would like to acknowledge Mr. Vedral from patient´s organisation for the cooperation and consultation during the manuscript writing. This work was supported by grant number 000 000 23728 – Ministry of Health of Czech Republic, by grant number SVV 265 005 - Charles University in Prague.


  1. 1.
    Keat A, Barkham N, Bhalla A, Gaffney K, Marzo-Ortega H, Paul S et al (2005) BSR guidelines for prescribing TNF-alpha blockers in adults with ankylosing spondylitis. report of a working party of the British Society for rheumatology. Rheumatology 44:939–947PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McLeod C, Bagust A, Boland A, Dagenais P, Dickson R, Dundar Y et al (2007) Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 11:1–158Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boonen A, van der Linden SM (2006) The burden of ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 78(Suppl):4–11Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boonen A, van der Heijde D, Landewe R, Guillemin F, Rutten-van Molken M, Dougados M (2003) Direct costs of ankylosing spondylitis and its determinants: an analysis among three European countries. Ann Rheum Dis 62:732–740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boonen A, van der Heijde D, Landewe R, Spoorenberg A, Shouten H, Rutten-van Molken M (2002) Work status and productivity costs due to ankylosing spondylitis: comparison of three European countries. Ann Rheum Dis 61:429–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hanova P, Pavelka K, Dostal C, Holcatova I, Pikhart H (2006) Epidemiology of rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis and gout in two regions of the Czech Republic in a descriptive population-based survey in 2002–2003. Clin Exp Rheum 24(5):499–507Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pavelka K (2006) Early diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis. Vnitr Lek 52(7–8):726–729 CzechPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zochling J, van der Heijde D, Burgos-Vargas R, Collantes E, Davis JC Jr, Dijkmans B et al (2006) ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 65(4):442–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pavelka K, Stolfa J, Vencovsky J (2004) Supplement of standard protocol for treatment ofankylosing spondylitis. Ces Revmatol 1:30–035 CzechGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Braun J, Pham T, Sieper J, Davis J, van der Linden S, Dougados M et al (2003) International ASAS consensus statement for the use of the anti-tumour necrosis factor agents in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 62(9):817–824PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kobelt G, Sobocki P, Mulero J, Gratacos J, Pocovi A, Collantes-Estevez E (2006) The burden of ankylosing spondylitis in Spain. Value Health 11(3):408–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Forejtova S, Mann H, Stolfa J, Vedral K, Fenclova I, Nemethova D et al (2008) Factors influencing health status and disability of patients with ankylosing spondylitis in the Czech Republic. Clin Rheumatol 27:1005–1013PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sleglova O, Dusek J, Olejarova M, Hornatova H, Draska L, Vencovsky J (2004) Evaluation of status and quality of life in patients with ankylosing spondylitis––validation of Czech versions of bath questionnaires––BAS-G, BADAI and BASFI. Ces Revmatol 2:43–54 CzechGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, Holman HR (1980) Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthr Rheum 23(2):137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garrett S, Jetkinson T, Kennedy LG, Whitelock H, Gaisford P, Callin A (1994) A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: the bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity Index. J Rheumatol 21(12):2286–2291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garrison LP Jr, Mansley EC, Abbott TA, Bresnahan BW, Hay JW, Smeeding J (2010) Good research practices for measuring drug costs In cost-effectiveness analyses: a societal perspective: the Ispor drug cost task force report: part II. Value Health 13(1):8–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    [Price list of VZP, version 650. Health Insurance Companies]. (accessed 19 September 2011) [Czech]
  18. 18.
    Larg A, Moss JR (2011) Cost-of-Illness Studies. A Guide to Critical Evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 29(8):653–671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Asselt AD, Dirksen CD, Arntz A, Severens JL (2008) Difficulties in calculating productivity costs: work disability associated with borderline personality disorder. Value Health 11(4):637–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    [Central bank exchange rate fixing –averages]. (accessed 5 June 2011) [Czech]
  21. 21.
    Ara RM, Packham JC, Haywood KL (2008) The direct costs associated with ankylosing spondylitis patients attending a UK secondary care rheumatology unit. Rheumatology 47:68–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kobelt G, Andlin-Sobocki P, Brophy S, Jonsson L, Calin A, Braun J (2004) The burden of ankylosing spondylitis and the cost-effectiveness of treatment with infliximab. Rheumatology 43:1158–1166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kobelt G, Andlin-Sobocki P, Maksymowych W (2006) Cost and quality of life of patients with ankylosing spondylitis in Canada. J Rheumatol 33:289–295PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hanova P, Pavelka K, Holcatova I, Pikhart H (2010) Incidence and prevalence of psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and reactive arthritis in the first descriptive population-based study in the Czech Republic. Scand J Rheumatol 39:310–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alena Petříková
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tomáš Doležal
    • 3
    • 4
  • Jiří Klimeš
    • 1
    • 3
  • Milan Vocelka
    • 3
    • 5
  • Liliana Šedová
    • 6
  • Jozef Kolář
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of PharmacyCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Applied Pharmacy, Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical SciencesBrnoCzech Republic
  3. 3.Institute of Health Economics and Technology Assessment (iHETA )PragueCzech Republic
  4. 4.Department of Pharmacology, 2nd Medical FacultyCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  5. 5.Department of Pharmacology, 3rd Medical FacultyCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  6. 6.Institue of RheumatologyPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations