Skip to main content
Log in

Pharmacoeconomic analyses using discrete event simulation

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To date, decision trees and Markov models have been the most common methods used in pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Both of these techniques lack the flexibility required to appropriately represent clinical reality. In this paper an alternative, more natural, way to model clinical reality — discrete event simulation — is presented and its application is illustrated with a real world example.

A discrete event simulation represents the course of disease very naturally, with few restrictions. Neither mutually exclusive branches nor states are required, nor is a fixed cycle. All relevant aspects can be incorporated explicitly and efficiently. Flexibility in handling perspectives and carrying out sensitivity analyses, including structural variations, is incorporated and the entire model can be presented very transparently. The main limitations are imposed by lack of data to fit realistic models.

Discrete event simulation, though rarely employed in pharmacoeconomics today, should be strongly considered when carrying out economic evaluations, particularly those aimed at informing policy makers and at estimating the budget impact of a pharmaceutical intervention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Homberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices: modeling studies. Value Health 2003; 6: 9–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. Format for formulary submissions: version 2.0. AMCP, 2002 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.amep.org/data/navcontent/formatv20%2Epdf [Accessed 2002 Oct]

  3. Greenberg PE, Arcelus A, Birnbaum HG, et al. Pharmacoeconomics and health policy. Current applications and prospects for the future. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 425–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chang K Nash D. The role of pharmacoeconomic evaluations in disease management. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14: 11–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Weinstein MC, Toy EL, Sandberg EA, et al. Modeling for health care and other policy decisions: uses, roles and validity. Value Health 2001; 4: 348–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Baltussen R, Leidl R, Ament A. Real world designs in economic evaluation: bridging the gap between clinical research and policy-making. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 449–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Caro JJ. Disease simulation models and health care decisions. CMAJ 2000; 162: 1001–2

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Akehurst R, Anderson P, Brazier J, et al. Decision analytic modeling in the economic evaluation of health technologies. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17: 443–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 322–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Briggs A, Sculpher M. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 397–409

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Beck JR, Pauker SG. The Markov process in medical prognosis. Med Decis Making 1983; 3: 419–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Eisenberg JM. Why a journal of pharmacoeconomics? Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1: 2–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Freund DA, Dittus RS. Principles of pharmacoeconomic analysis of drug therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1: 20–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Strakowski SM, DelBello MP, Adler CM. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of drug treatments for bipolar disorder. CNS Drugs 2001; 15: 701–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Young RC, Biggs IT, Ziegler VE, et al. A rating scale for mania: reliability, validity, and sensitivity. Br J Psychiatry 1978; 133: 429–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Banks J, Carson IS, Nelson BL. discrete event system simulation. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jonasson O. Waiting in line: should selected patients ever be moved up? Transpl Proc 1989; 21: 3390–4

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Law AM, Kelton WD. Simulation modeling and analysis. Boston (MA): McGraw-Hill, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  19. Caro JJ, Huybrechts KIT, Klittich WS, et al. for the CORE Study Group. Allocating funds to prevention of cardiovascular disease in light of the NCEP ATPIII guidelines. Am J Managed Care 2003; 9: 477–89

    Google Scholar 

  20. Caro JJ, O JA, Klittich WS, et al. The economic impact of warfarin prophylaxis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Dis Manag Clin Outcomes 1997; 1: 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  21. Caro JJ, Salas M, O’Brien JA, et al. Modeling the efficiency of reaching a target intermediate endpoint: a case study in type 2 diabetes in the US. Value Health 2004; 7: 13–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Caro JJ, Huybrechts K. Stroke Treatment Economic Model (STEM): predicting long-term costs from functional status. Stroke 1999; 30: 2574–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Caro JJ, Ward A, O’Brien J. Lifetime costs of complications resulting from type 2 diabetes in the US. Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 476–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Caro JJ, O’Brien JA, Migliaccio-Walle K, et al. Economic analysis of initial HIV treatment: efavirenz versus indinavir. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19: 95–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Pegden CD, Shannon RE, Sadowski RP. Introduction to simulation using siman. Boston (MA): McGraw-Hill, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  26. Davies HTO, Davies R. Simulating health systems: modeling problems and software solutions. Fur J Oper Res 1995; 87: 3544

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bowden RO. The spectrum of simulation software. HE Solutions 1998; 30: 44–6

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kelton WD, Sadowski RP, Sadowski DA. Simulation with ARENA. Boston (MA): McGraw-Hill, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  29. Law AM. Statistical analysis of the output data from terminating simulations. Naval Res Logist Quart 1980; 27: 131–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Alexopoulos C, Seila AF. Output data analysis. In: Banks J, editor. Handbook of simulation. New York: John Wiley, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pawlikowski K. Steady-state estimation of queuing processes: a survey of problems and solutions. Commun Assoc Comput Mach 1990; 22: 123–70

    Google Scholar 

  32. Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies: recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine: panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11: 159–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hatoum HT, Kong SX. How much faith can we have in pharmacoeconomic analyses? Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 6: 584–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Sheldon TA. Problems of using modeling in the economic evaluation of health care. Health Econ 1996; 5: 1–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296: 716–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Glick H, Kinosian B, Shulman K. Decision analytic modeling: some uses in the evaluation of new pharmaceuticals. Drug Inf J 1994; 28: 691–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hazen G. Stochastic trees: a new technique for temporal medical decision modeling. Med Decis Making 1992; 12: 163–78

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Schmidt JW, Taylor RE. Simulation and analysis of industrial systems. Homewood: Richard D Irwin, 1970

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jun JB, Jacobson SH, Swisher JR. Application of discrete event simulation in health care and clinics: a survey. J Oper Res Soc 1999; 50: 109–23

    Google Scholar 

  40. Agro KE, Bradley CA, Mittmann N, et al. Sensitivity analysis in health economic and pharmacoeconomic studies: an appraisal of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11: 75–88

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Fu MC. Optimization via simulation: a review. Ann Operations Res 1994; 53: 199–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996; 313: 275–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Schruben LW. Simulation modeling with event graphs. Commun Assoc Comput Mach 1983; 26: 957–63

    Google Scholar 

  44. Law AM. Simulation model’s level of detail determines effectiveness. Ind Eng 1991; 23: 16–8

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kamon J. Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation. Health Econ 2003; 12 (10): 83748

    Google Scholar 

  46. Barton P, Bryan S, Robinson S. Modelling in the economic evaluation of health care: selecting the appropriate approach. J Health Serv Res Policy 2004; 9 (2): 110–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kamon J, Brown J. Selecting a decision model for economic evaluation: a case study and review. Health Care Manag Sci 1998; 1: 133–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Avramidis AN, Wilson JR. Integrated variance reduction strategies for simulation. Oper Res 1996; 44: 327–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported, in part, by a grant from Astra Zeneca AB. The author has no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the contents of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Jaime Caro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Caro, J.J. Pharmacoeconomic analyses using discrete event simulation. Pharmacoeconomics 23, 323–332 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523040-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523040-00003

Keywords

Navigation