English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background In July 2017, The University of Chicago Comer Children’s Hospital Emergency Department (ED) transitioned from a 5-day to a 28-day HIV nPEP (non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis) dispensation model in an effort to increase adherence. Anecdotal reports of patients lost to follow-up after ED discharge called into question the utility and cost-effectiveness of this practice. We analyzed HIV nPEP follow-up rates in our clinic, explored reasons for nonadherence, and performed basic cost-savings analyses to inform potential changes to our dispensation model. Methods A retrospective review of both electronic health and pharmacy records was conducted for patients prescribed 28-days of HIV nPEP in the ED and scheduled for outpatient follow-up in Pediatric ID clinic from July 2017-June 2019. Clinic provider documentation of nPEP adherence and reasons for nonadherence were examined. Patients were given an initial dose of nPEP regimen in the ED and provided all subsequent doses to complete at home. Using average wholesale price (AWP), we calculated the total cost of each regimen and potential savings if a shorter duration of HIV nPEP supply was dispensed. Results 50 patients received a 28-day supply of HIV nPEP. Please refer to Table 1 regarding baseline patient characteristics. Of these, only 19 (38%) patients had documented outpatient follow-up after nPEP initiation. Median time to follow-up was 6 days (IQR: 3.0-9.0 days). Of the 19 patients with follow-up, 3 admitted to medication non-adherence. Although side effects were elicited in a total of 9 patients (18%), only 1 cited medication intolerance as the reason for discontinuing their nPEP. Given the relatively short time to follow-up, a potential savings of $1720-2211/patient could be achieved if a 10-14 day supply was dispensed. Conclusion Outpatient follow-up after 28-day HIV nPEP dispensation in our ED was &amp;lt; 40%, calling into question the cost-effectiveness of this dispensation model. While our current practice alleviates nPEP interruption due to potential insurance issues and pick-up delays, follow-up and adherence are not assured. The significant cost-savings with a shorter supply at the outset may encourage more robust follow-up and adherence. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

992. Rethinking the 28-day HIV nPEP Dispensing Practice: A Pediatric ID Clinic Analysis