Objectives
Critics of quality-adjusted life-years argue that it discriminates against older individuals. However, little empirical evidence has been produced to inform this debate. This study aimed to compare published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) on patients aged ≥65 years and those aged <65 years.
Methods
We used the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry to identify CEAs published in MEDLINE between 1976 and 2021. Eligible CEAs were categorized according to age (≥65 years vs <65 years). The distributions of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were compared between the age groups. We used logistic regression to assess the association between age groups and the cost-effectiveness conclusion adjusted for confounding factors. We conducted sensitivity analyses to explore the impact of mixed age and age-unknown groups and all ICERs from the same CEAs. Subgroup analyses were also conducted.
Results
A total of 4445 CEAs categorized according to age <65 years (n = 3784) and age ≥65 years (n = 661) were included in the primary analysis. The distributions of ICERs and the likelihood of concluding that the intervention was cost-effective were similar between the 2 age groups. Adjusted odds ratios ranged from 1.132 (95% CI 0.930-1.377) to 1.248 (95% CI 0.970-1.606) (odds ratio >1 indicating that CEAs for age ≥65 years were more likely to conclude the intervention was cost-effective than those for age <65 years). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses found similar results.
Conclusion
Our analysis found no systematic differences in published ICERs using quality-adjusted life-years between CEAs for individuals aged ≥65 years and those for individuals aged <65 years.