The Impact of the Approach to Accounting for Age and Sex in Economic Models on Predicted Quality-Adjusted Life-Years.

Abstract

Background: The method used to model general population mortality estimates in cohort models can make a meaningful difference in appraisals; particularly in scenarios involving potentially curative treatments where a prior National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) appraisal demonstrated that this assumption alone could make a difference of ~£10,000 to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Objective: Our objective was to evaluate the impact of different methods for calculating general population mortality estimates on the predicted total quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) as well as absolute and proportional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) shortfall calculations.

Methods: We employed three distinct methods for deriving general population mortality estimates: firstly, utilizing the population mean age at baseline; secondly, modelling the distribution of mean age at baseline by fitting a parametric distribution to patient-level data sourced from the Health Survey for England (HSE); and thirdly, modelling the empirical age distribution. Subsequently, we simulated patient age distributions to explore the effects of mean starting age and variance levels on the predicted QALE and applicable severity modifiers. Provided sample code in R and Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) facilitates the utilization of individual patient age and sex data to generate weighted average survival and health-related quality of life (utility) outputs.

Results: We observed differences of up to 10.4% (equivalent to a difference of 1.01 QALYs in quality-adjusted life-expectancy) between methods using the HSE dataset. In our simulation study, increasing variance in baseline age diminished the accuracy of predictions relying solely on mean age estimation. Differences of -0.30 to 2.24 QALYs were found at a standard deviation of 20%; commonly observed in trials. For potentially curative treatments this would represent a difference in economically justifiable price of -£4,500-+£33,600 at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £30,000 per QALY for a treatment with a 50% cure rate. For lower baseline ages, the population mean method tended to overestimate QALE, whereas for higher baseline ages, it tended to underestimate QALE compared with individual patient age-based approaches. The severity modifier assigned did not vary, however, apart from simulations with means at the extremes of the age distribution or with very high variance.

Conclusions: Our analysis underscores the necessity of accounting for the distribution of mean age at baseline, as failure to do so can lead to inaccurate QALE estimates, thereby affecting calculations of incremental costs and QALYs in models, which base survival and quality of life predictions on general population expectations. We would recommend that patient age and sex distribution should be accounted for when incorporating general population mortality in economic models. Provided sufficient sample size, utilizing the observed empirical distribution for the expected population in clinical practice is likely to yield the most accurate results. However, in the absence of patient-level data, selecting a suitable parametric distribution is recommended.