Abstract

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). 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.