Skip to main content
Log in

Discretely Integrated Condition Event (DICE) Simulation for Pharmacoeconomics

  • Practical Application
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several decision-analytic modeling techniques are in use for pharmacoeconomic analyses. Discretely integrated condition event (DICE) simulation is proposed as a unifying approach that has been deliberately designed to meet the modeling requirements in a straightforward transparent way, without forcing assumptions (e.g., only one transition per cycle) or unnecessary complexity. At the core of DICE are conditions that represent aspects that persist over time. They have levels that can change and many may coexist. Events reflect instantaneous occurrences that may modify some conditions or the timing of other events. The conditions are discretely integrated with events by updating their levels at those times. Profiles of determinant values allow for differences among patients in the predictors of the disease course. Any number of valuations (e.g., utility, cost, willingness-to-pay) of conditions and events can be applied concurrently in a single run. A DICE model is conveniently specified in a series of tables that follow a consistent format and the simulation can be implemented fully in MS Excel, facilitating review and validation. DICE incorporates both state-transition (Markov) models and non-resource-constrained discrete event simulation in a single formulation; it can be executed as a cohort or a microsimulation; and deterministically or stochastically.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Howard RA. The foundations of decision analysis revisited. http://www.docdatabase.net/details-the-foundations-of-decision-analysis-revisited-1018284.html. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  2. Metropolis N, Rosenbluth AW, Rosenbluth MN, Teller AH, Teller E. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys. 1953;21:1087–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Berg BA. Introduction to Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations and their statistical analysis. In: Kendall WS, Liang F, Wanf J-S, editors. Markov Chain Monte Carlo: innovations and applications. Singapore, Hackensack: World Scientific; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Goldsman D, Nance RE, Wilson JR. A brief history of simulation revisited. In: Johansson B, Jain S, Montoya-Torres J, Hugan J, Yucesan, editors. Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference. Baltimore: Winter Simulation Conference Foundation; 2010.

  5. Radzicki MJ, Taylor RA. Origin of system dynamics. Forrester JW. The history of system dynamics. In: US Department of Energy’s introduction to system dynamics. http://www.systemdynamics.org/DL-IntroSysDyn/start.htm. Accessed 1 March 2016.

  6. Stahl JE. Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment: an overview and guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:131–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ. 2006;15:1295–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McIntosh ME, Donaldson C, Ryan M. Recent advances in the methods of cost-benefit analysis in healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15:357–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, Caro JJ, et al. Budget impact analysis: principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health. 2014;17:5–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nord E. The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Health Policy. 1993;24:227–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Karlsson G, Johannesson M. The decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996;9:113–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Robinson R. Cost-utility analysis. BMJ. 1993;307:859–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Rochau U, Jahn B, Qerimi V, et al. Decision-analytic modeling studies: an overview for clinicians using multiple myeloma as an example. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2015;94:164–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3. Value Health. 2012;15:812–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nutaro J, Kuruganti PT, Protopopescu V, Shankar M. The split system approach to managing time in simulations of hybrid systems having continuous and discrete event components. Simulation. 2012;88:281–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M, ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. Value Health. 2012;15:804–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick E, et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-6. Value Health. 2012;15:835–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, et al. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Value Health. 2012;15:843–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Caro JJ, Möller J, Karnon J, Stahl J, Ishak J. Discrete event simulation for health technology assessment. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis; 2015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The assistance of Jörgen Möller in developing the example DICE available online is much appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Jaime Caro.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for the work reported in this paper.

Conflicts of interest

The author is an employee of a consultancy, Evidera, which develops pharmacoeconomic models. The DICE method is, however, freely available to anyone who wishes to use it, without restrictions.

Additional information

Supplementary file is a plain Excel workbook that has been locked to prevent inadvertent modification. In order to open the file, please obtain LockXLS runtime from http://www.lockxls.com/download.asp. Follow the instructions for downloading and installing the runtime version (either 32 or 64 bit, depending on your installation of Windows). Then, open the MS Excel workbook named DICEd2-02L.xlsm. Note, this version only works with Windows MS Excel.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 138 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (XLSM 101 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Caro, J.J. Discretely Integrated Condition Event (DICE) Simulation for Pharmacoeconomics. PharmacoEconomics 34, 665–672 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0394-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0394-z

Keywords

Navigation