{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.040211329615497504, 'fraction_numerical': 0.041385383034928086, 'mean_word_length': 5.01058201058201, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Universal versus targeted screening for HCV infection in pregnancy in a diverse, multi‐ethnic population: Universal screening is more comprehensive

Universal hepatitis C screening in pregnancy is not recommended by NICE due to a lack of effective interventions to prevent mother to child transmission (MTCT) and is only offered to pregnant women at increased risk of infection (intra‐venous drug use [IVDU] or with a HCV positive family member). No testing is offered to patients from high endemic areas. However, data regarding true seroprevalence in multi‐ethnic inner‐city populations in the UK are required. This study aimed to determine test positivity rates of HCV infection in an unselected South East London ethnically diverse population of pregnant women by universal screening during routine antenatal care compared with a “targeted” screening approach. “Targeted” risk‐based screening was performed in two eras (2016, n = 1002) and subsequently in 2018, after modifying the HCV risk questionnaire (n = 1122). Universal opt out screening was similarly performed in two eras in 2017 (n = 1012) and again in 2019 (n = 1057). During screening for HBV, HIV and syphilis, anti‐HCV was tested, followed by an iterative HCV RNA test in those positive for anti‐HCV. All anti‐HCV‐positive women were referred to the specialist hepatology service, and testing was offered to all family members. All HCV RNA‐positive patients were followed during pregnancy and post‐delivery period and were offered treatment. All infants of HCV RNA‐positive mothers were linked to care with paediatric team. In the 2016 “targeted” screening cohort 212/1002 had a risk of BBV (blood borne viral) infection and (0.6%) were anti‐HCV positive and HCV RNA positive. 0.3% patients were newly diagnosed. In the 2017 universal screening cohort, 1012/1038 pregnant women consented to testing. 0.96% were anti‐HCV positive and 0.86% women were HCV RNA positive with 0.67% newly diagnosed. After modification of the risk‐based questionnaire, a second risk‐based targeted cohort were tested in 2018: 342/1122 (31%) were assessed as at risk and were offered an anti‐HCV test. 0.71% were anti‐HCV positive and 0.27% were HCV RNA positive. In the 2019 cohort tested by universal screening, 1049/1057 women were tested and 0.85% tested positive for anti‐HCV, 0.28% women were HCV RNA positive. All newly diagnosed patients were born abroad. All patients had mild liver disease and had normal pregnancies. All patients were treated post‐delivery and achieved SVR. All patients were negative for other BBV infections. In conclusion, the anti‐HCV test positive rate in this ethnically diverse pregnant cohort ranged between 0.96% and 0.6% (whole cohort) but the rate depended upon the era and screening methodology used. Universal screening detected a higher numbers of anti‐HCV positive women during pregnancy, including those not previously aware of their hepatitis C. While there was not significant drop in seroprevalence in pregnant women between 2016 and 2019, we observed that the ratio of HCV RNA positive to anti‐HCV positive women has declined over time, from 0.86% in 2016 (100% HCV RNA+) to 0.28% in 2019 (33% HCV RNA+) for whole cohort probably due to increased HCV treatment rates from 2016. These data have important implications for hepatitis C testing in pregnancy and the appropriate methodology to use for maximal accuracy.