, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 159–165

Comparison of Markov Model and Discrete-Event Simulation Techniques for HIV

  • Kit N. Simpson
  • Alvin Strassburger
  • Walter J. Jones
  • Birgitta Dietz
  • Rukmini Rajagopalan
Original Research Article


Background: Markov models have been the standard framework for predicting long-term clinical and economic outcomes using the surrogate marker endpoints from clinical trials. However, they are complex, have intensive data requirements and are often difficult for decision makers to understand. Recent developments in modelling software have made it possible to use discrete-event simulation (DES) to model outcomes in HIV. Using published results from 48-week trial data as model inputs, Markov model and DES modelling approaches were compared in terms of clinical outcomes at 5 years and lifetime cost-effectiveness estimates.

Methods: A randomly selected cohort of 100 antiretroviral-naive patients with a mean baseline CD4+ T-cell count of 175 cells/mm3 treated with lopinavir/ritonavir was selected from Abbott study M97-720. Parameter estimates from this cohort were used to populate both a Markov and a DES model, and the long-term estimates for these cohorts were compared. The models were then modified using the relative risk of undetectable viral load as reported for atazanavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in the published BMS 008 study. This allowed us to compare the mean cost effectiveness of the models. The clinical outcomes included mean change in CD4+ T-cell count, and proportion of subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA (viral load [VL]) <50 copies/mL, VL 50–400 copies/mL and VL >400 copies/mL. US wholesale acquisition costs (year 2007 values) were used in the mean cost-effectiveness analysis, and the cost and QALY data were discounted at 3%.

Results: The results show a slight predictive advantage of the DES model for clinical outcomes. The DES model could capture direct input of CD4+ T-cell count, and proportion of subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA VL <50 copies/mL, VL 50–00 copies/mL and VL >400 copies/mL over a 48-week period, which the Markov model could not. The DES and Markov model estimates were similar to the actual clinical trial estimates for 1-year clinical results; however, the DES model predicted more detailed outcomes and had slightly better long-term (5-year) predictive validity than the Markov model. Similar cost estimates were derived from the Markov model and the DES. Both models predict cost savings at 5 and 10 years, and over a lifetime for the lopinavir/ritonavir treatment regimen as compared with an atazanavir regimen.

Conclusion: The DES model predicts the course of a disease naturally, with few restrictions. Thismay give themodel superior face validity with decision makers. Furthermore, this model automatically provides a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, which is cumbersome to perform with a Markov model. DES models allow inclusion of more variables without aggregation, which may improve model precision. The capacity of DES for additional data capture helps explain why this model consistently predicts better survival and thus greater savings than the Markov model. The DES model is better than the Markov model in isolating long-term implications of small but important differences in crucial input data.

Supplementary material

40273_2012_27020159_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (417 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 427 KB.


  1. 1.
    Weinstein M, O’Brien B, Hornberger 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): 9–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stahl JE. Modeling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment: an overview and guide. Pharmaceconomics 2008; 26 (2): 131–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caro JJ. Pharmacoeconomic analyses using discrete event simulation. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (4): 323–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patten SB. An animated depiction of major depression epidemiology. BMC Psychiatry 2007; 7: 23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matta ME, Patterson SS. Evaluating multiple performance measures across several dimensions at a multi-facility outpatient center. Health Care Manag Sci 2007; 10 (2): 173–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Application 21–567 statistical review(s) 2002 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 Nov 7]
  7. 7.
    Hicks C. Long-term safety and durable antiretroviral activity of lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naïve patients: 4-year follow-up study. AIDS 2004; 18: 775–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson M, Grinsztejn B, Rodrigues C, et al. Atazanavir plus ritonavir or saquinavir, and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients experiencing multiple virological failures. AIDS 2005; 19 (7): 685–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson M, Grinsztejn B, Rodrigues C, et al. 96-week comparison of once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir and twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with multiple virological failures. AIDS 2006; 20 (5): 711–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gathe J, Podzamczer D, Johnson M, et al. Once-daily vs twice-daily lopinavir in antiretroviral-naive patients: 48-week results [poster #570]. 11th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2004 Feb 8–11; San Francisco (CA) [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2007 Oct 22]
  11. 11.
    Walmsley S, Bernstein B, King M, et al. Lopinavir-ritonavir vs. nelfinavir for the initial treatment of HIV infection. N Engl J Med 2002; 346 (26): 2039–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Simpson KN, Voit EO, Goodman R, et al. Estimating the social and economic benefits of pharmaceutical innovations: modeling clinical trial results in HIV-disease. Res Hum Cap Dev 2001; 14: 175–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simpson KN, Luo MP, Chumney ECG, et al. Cost effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir versus nelfinavir as the first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy regimen for HIV infection. HIV Clin Trials 2004; 5 (5): 294–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simpson KN, Luo M, Chumney ECG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir compared to atazanavir in antiretroviral-naïve patients: modeling the combined effects of HIV and heart disease. Clin Drug Invest 2007; 27 (1): 67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simpson KN, Jones WJ, Rajagopalan R, et al. Cost effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir compared with atazanavir plus ritonavir in antiretroviral-experienced patients in the US. Clin Drug Invest 2007; 27 (7): 443–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Murphy R, daSilva B, McMillan F, et al. Seven year follow-up of a lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen in antiretroviral-naïve subjects [poster PE7.9–7]. 10th European AIDS Conference; 2005 Nov 17–20; DublinGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weinstein MC. Recent developments in decision-analytic modeling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (11): 1043–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weinstein MC, Coxon PG, Williams LW, et al. Forecasting coronary heart disease incidence, mortality, and cost: the coronary heart disease policy model. Am J Public Health 1907; 77 (11): 1417–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hunink MG, Goldman L, Tosteson AN, et al. The recent decline in mortality from coronary heart disease, 1980–1990: the effect of secular trends in risk factors and treatment. JAMA 1997; 277 (7): 535–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simpson KN. Design and assessment of cost effectiveness studies in AIDS populations. JAIDS 1995; 10 Suppl. 4: S28–32Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schulman KA, Lynn LA, Glick HA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of low-dose zidovudine therapy for asymptomatic patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Ann Intern Med 1991; 114: 798–802PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simpson K, Andersson F, Shakespeare A, et al. Cost effectiveness of antiviral treatment with zalcitabine in combination with zidovudine for AIDS patients with CD4 counts 300 per mm3 in five European countries. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 6 (6): 553–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chancellor J, Hill A, Simpson K, et al. Cost effectiveness of 3TC and ZDV in patients with HIV-Disease. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12 (1): 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Biddle AK, Simpson KN. Modeling the cost effectiveness of nevirapine triple combination therapy and dual combination therapy for the treatment of HIV disease in the United Kingdom. J Med Econ 1999; 2: 85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schackman BR, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of earlier initiation of antiretroviral therapy for uninsured HIV-infected adults. Am J Public Health 2001; 91 (9): 1456–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paltiel AD, Weinstein MC, Kimmel AD, et al. Expanded screening for HIV in the United States: an analysis of cost-effectiveness. N Engl J Med 2005; 352 (6): 586–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mauskopf J, Lacey L, Kempel A, et al. The cost effectiveness of treatment with lamivudine and zidovudine compared to zidovudine alone: a comparison of Markov model and trial data estimates. Am J Managed Care 1998; 4 (7): 1004–12Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Phillips Z, Bojke L, Schulper M, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modeling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (4): 355–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rockwell Automation. Arena®. Warrendale (PA) [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2008 Nov 21]
  30. 30.
    Garrison LP. The ISPOR good practice modeling principles: a sensible approach. Be transparent be reasonable. Value Health 2003; 6 (1): 6–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kit N. Simpson
    • 1
  • Alvin Strassburger
    • 1
  • Walter J. Jones
    • 1
  • Birgitta Dietz
    • 2
  • Rukmini Rajagopalan
    • 3
  1. 1.Medical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  2. 2.Abbott GmbH and Co KGLudwigshafenGermany
  3. 3.Abbott LaboratoriesAbbott ParkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Health Administration and Policy, College of Health ProfessionsMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations