Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40441743›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2025

The role of the right valuation method in setting the firm's break-even price for mpox (and other) vaccines.

Peter-Jan Engelen, Danny Cassimon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Peter-Jan EngelenUtrecht School of Economics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands peter-jan.engelen@uantwerpen.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0578-5460
Danny CassimonIOB, University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Critical voices on unfairly high mpox and other vaccine prices open the debate on the 'right price' to be paid to private vaccine suppliers. We apply compound real options analysis as a more appropriate valuation method to derive a correct firm's break-even price. Real option models are better able to capture the development costs, associated risks and the embedded operational flexibility in vaccine development in a superior way compared with more traditional net present value (NPV) methods. The real option price is lower than standard NPV-based methods, thereby providing a basis to improve the bargaining position of payers in negotiating better vaccine price outcomes. Deeper insights into the correct break-even price will create a more balanced playing field between firms and payers. This can also lead to more equitable access to vaccines in developing countries.

Indexed as

CommerceVaccinesCosts and Cost AnalysisDeveloping CountriesHumansMpox, MonkeypoxSmallpox VaccineSmallpox VaccineVaccinesDecision MakingGlobal HealthHealth economicsInterdisciplinary ResearchVaccines

Identifiers

PMID40441743
PMCPMC12121610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.