ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2025
Cost-effectiveness of vaccination strategies to control future mpox outbreaks in England: a modelling study.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Pharmacists in Tackling Mpox: Challenges and Future Prospects: A Narrative Review.Health science reports · 2026Article
- A Review of Epidemiological Modeling Studies on Monkeypox.China CDC weekly · 2026Article
- Associations Between Both HIV and Metabolic Comorbidity and Self-Reported Mpox Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2022, a global mpox outbreak occurred among gay and bisexual men who have sex with men (GBMSM). In England, the outbreak was controlled through reductions in sexual risk behaviour and vaccination of high-risk GBMSM. However, mpox continues to circulate, including an expanding outbreak in Africa. We evaluated the most cost-effective vaccination strategy to minimise future mpox outbreaks among GBMSM in England. Methods: A mathematical model of mpox transmission among GBMSM was developed to estimate the costs per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained for different vaccination strategies starting in 2024 (10-year time-horizon; 3.5% discount rate; willingness-to-pay threshold £20,000/QALY). Reactive vaccination (only during outbreaks) and/or pre-emptive vaccination (continuous routine) strategies targeting high-risk GBMSM were compared to no vaccination. Baseline projections assumed importation of new mpox cases, and a vaccine effectiveness following 1/2 doses of 78%/89% for 5/10 years at £160/dose. Costs were estimated for case management, vaccination and public health responses during an outbreak. Findings: All vaccination strategies reduced future outbreaks, gained QALYs and reduced costs compared to no vaccination. Continuous pre-emptive vaccination (daily rate 54 doses) with reactive vaccination (daily rate 81 doses) if there is an outbreak was most cost-effective, saving £8.8 million and gaining 108.6 QALYs over 10-years. Vaccination remains cost-effective if the vaccine costs less than £330/dose. Pre-emptive with reactive vaccination remains the preferred strategy across many sensitivity analyses, with just pre-emptive vaccination at a higher rate becoming the preferred strategy in some sensitivity analyses. Just reactive vaccination only becomes the preferred strategy when public health response costs are not included, and in this case the vaccine has to cost less than £110 per dose for vaccination to be cost-effective. Interpretation: Vaccination of high-risk GBMSM is likely to be a cost-saving strategy for preventing future mpox outbreaks. Funding: NIHR and Wellcome Trust.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.