@article {Bonee004123, author = {Jeffrey N Bone and Asif R Khowaja and Marianne Vidler and Beth A Payne and Mrutyunjaya B Bellad and Shivaprasad S Goudar and Ashalata A Mallapur and Khatia Munguambe and Rahat N Qureshi and Charfudin Sacoor and Esperanca Sevene and Geert W J Frederix and Zulfiqar A Bhutta and Craig Mitton and Laura A Magee and Peter von Dadelszen}, editor = {,}, title = {Economic and cost-effectiveness analysis of the Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) trials in India, Pakistan and Mozambique}, volume = {6}, number = {5}, elocation-id = {e004123}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004123}, publisher = {BMJ Specialist Journals}, abstract = {Background The Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) trials (NCT01911494) in India, Pakistan and Mozambique (February 2014{\textendash}2017) involved community engagement and task sharing with community health workers for triage and initial treatment of pregnancy hypertension. Maternal and perinatal mortality was less frequent among women who received >=8 CLIP contacts. The aim of this analysis was to assess the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of the CLIP intervention overall in comparison to standard of care, and by PIERS (Pre-eclampsia Integrated Estimate of RiSk) On the Move (POM) mobile health application visit frequency.Methods Included were all women enrolled in the three CLIP trials who had delivered with known outcomes by trial end. According to the number of POM-guided home contacts received (0, 1{\textendash}3, 4{\textendash}7, >=8), costs were collected from annual budgets and spending receipts, with inclusion of family opportunity costs in Pakistan. A decision tree model was built to determine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention (vs usual care), based on the primary clinical endpoint of years of life lost (YLL) for mothers and infants. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to assess uncertainty in the cost and clinical outcomes.Results The incremental per pregnancy cost of the intervention was US$12.66 (India), US$11.51 (Pakistan) and US$13.26 (Mozambique). As implemented, the intervention was not cost-effective due largely to minimal differences in YLL between arms. However, among women who received >=8 CLIP contacts (four in Pakistan), the probability of health system and family (Pakistan) cost-effectiveness was >=80\% (all countries).Conclusion The intervention was likely to be cost-effective for women receiving >=8 contacts in Mozambique and India, and >=4 in Pakistan, supporting WHO guidance on antenatal contact frequency.Trial registration number NCT01911494.Data are available upon request. As per the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP), following publication of the primary CLIP manuscripts, and individual participant data meta-analysis, the data will be freely available to academically active entities (eg, universities, NGOs, multilaterals), with the CLIP principal investigator (PvD) or named delegate as a named coinvestigator, for the purposes of pregnancy-related research and within the limits of the informed consent obtained. Access will be through the CLIP Trials Data Access Committee*, contacted at {\textquoteleft}PRE-EMPT@cw.bc.ca{\textquoteright}, as referenced on our website at {\textquoteleft}https://PRE-EMPT.obgyn.ubc.ca{\textquoteright}. A copy of the data will also be deposited with our funder, the Bill \& Melinda Gates Foundation, in the HBGDki repository.}, URL = {https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/5/e004123}, eprint = {https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/5/e004123.full.pdf}, journal = {BMJ Global Health} }