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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background Identifying asymptomatic individuals with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is challenging. Pregnancy presents a unique opportunity to screen women for HCV and then link those positive to care. Universal screening in pregnant women, however, is not recommended by CDC or ACOG. Further, treatment with direct antiviral agents (DAAs) are not currently approved for pregnant women but are warranted following delivery and breastfeeding. We sought to compare treatment uptake before and after universal screening in pregnant women was implemented as the standard of care in our institution and then determine if universal screening leads to increased treatment after pregnancy. Methods A retrospective analysis of risk-based HCV screening in pregnant women was used for the first period (2014–2015) and a prospective design was used following 18 months of universal screening (2016–2017). Prenatal data were collected from all pregnant women that sought care at our institution in the prospective part of the study. We tested for differences in relevant outcomes (e.g., screening rates, rate of those eligible for treatment, and those who actually received treatment) between the two periods. Finally, we performed a cost-effective analysis of universal screening considering treatment rates. Results During the universal screening period, more women were screened for HCV and diagnosed with chronic infection. Universal screening was not associated with a significant increase in the odds of women receiving treatment after pregnancy. The increased cost for universal screening was $1060 per patient, resulting in an ICER of $219,391 per additional treatment received or $57,734 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which is below the willingness-to-pay threshold to be cost-effective. Universal screening, however, is cost-effective with an ICER well below the established willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained, if all women eligible for treatment receive therapy. Conclusion Universal screening may not lead to a significant increase in the odds that pregnant women receive DAAs therapy after pregnancy. Barriers to linkage to care should be addressed in an effort to increase antiviral therapy for these women and universal screening should be implemented within this patient population. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

312. Treatment of Hepatitis C After Identification of Infection During Universal Screening Approach in Pregnant Women