Antenatal anti-D prophylaxis and D antigen negativity in pregnant women of the UAE: a cross-sectional analysis from the Mutaba'ah Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of the negative D antigen phenotype, adherence to routine antenatal anti-D immunoglobulin prophylaxis (RAADP) administration and D antigen sensitisation among pregnant women in the UAE. DESIGN: Data was collected from pregnant women enrolled in the Mutaba'ah Study. The Mutaba'ah Study is an ongoing prospective mother and child cohort study in the UAE. Data were extracted from the medical records and baseline questionnaire administered to the participants between May 2017 and January 2021. SETTING: The study was conducted in Al Ain city of the UAE. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5080 pregnant women residing in Al Ain participated in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: The study estimated the prevalence of negative D antigen phenotype and the provision of RAADP in this population. RESULTS: Of the 5080 pregnant women analysed, 4651 (91.6%) had D antigen positive status, while 429 (8.4%) were D-negative. D antigen sensitisation was low at 0.5%, and there was a high uptake of RAADP in the population at 88.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The adherence to RAADP is consistent with published data from other healthcare settings. Knowledge of the prevalence of D antigen negative mothers is crucial to the financial and resource consideration for implementing antenatal foetal cell-free DNA screening to determine foetal D antigen status.

Application of RhD Blood Group to Simulate Antibody Identification Test in Immunohematology Education.

BACKGROUND: Immunohematology skill education is an important part of the transfusion medicine professional training. We tried to solve the difficulty of obtaining suitable and sufficient positive samples in the immunohematology education. METHODS: Different identification panels and panel cells were created by RhD-positive red blood cells (RBCs) and RhD-negative RBCs, according to the underlying antibodies. Diluted anti-D reagent was used as simulated plasma for identification. RESULTS: The antibody identification of single antibody with dose-effect and two antibodies present at the same time were successfully simulated. CONCLUSIONS: It is a practical and cheap method for antibody identification training to use RhD blood group, especially when positive samples are short.

International collaborative study to assess new stocks of candidate reference preparations to control the level of anti-D in IVIG

The level of anti-D antibodies in human immunoglobulin products for intravenous administration (IVIG) is controlled by the direct haemagglutination method prescribed by the European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) that requires 2 control reference reagents. The World Health Organization (WHO) positive control International Reference Reagent (IRR; 02/228) with a nominal titre of 8 defines the highest acceptable titre, while the negative control preparation (02/226) has a nominal titre of <2. Working reference preparations (04/132 and 04/140) were subsequently established as Biological Reference Preparations (BRPs) for the Ph. Eur., and for distribution by the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) and the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC). Due to diminishing stocks of these working reference preparations across the 3 institutions, a joint international study was organised to establish harmonised replacement batches. Sixteen laboratories contributed data to the study to evaluate positive and negative candidate replacement batches (13/148 and 12/300, respectively) against the WHO positive and negative control IRRs and the current working reference preparations (BRPs). The results show that the candidate reference preparations (13/148 and 12/300) are indistinguishable from the corresponding IRRs and current BRPs. The candidate preparations 13/148 and 12/300 were adopted by the Ph. Eur. Commission as Immunoglobulin (anti-D antibodies test) BRP batch 2 and Immunoglobulin (anti-D antibodies test negative control) BRP batch 2 with nominal haemagglutination titres of 8 and <2, respectively. The same materials were also adopted as NIBSC and US FDA reference preparations, thus ensuring full harmonisation.

Why do RhD negative pregnant women still become anti-D immunized despite prophylaxis with anti-D immunoglobulin?

Maternal allo-anti-D in RhD negative pregnant women may cause mild to severe hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. Although several other antibodies may also destroy red blood cells of the fetus and newborn, preventive measures with anti-D immunoglobulin are only available for D antigen. Targeted antenatal care together with postpartum prophylaxis with anti-D immunoglobulin has significantly reduced the D-alloimmunization risk. Potentially sensitizing events like trauma to the pregnant abdomen, vaginal bleeding, and amniocentesis may lead to fetomaternal hemorrhage and necessitate additional doses. Despite comprehensive programs with these targeted measures, allo-anti-D is still the most common reason for severe hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. Where do we fail then? Here, in this review, I would therefore like to discuss the reasons for D-alloimmunizations hoping that the greater focus will pave the way for further reduction in the number of pregnancy-related allo-anti-Ds.

40 years of researching the Del phenotype results in a change of transfusion practice.

Anti-D cannot agglutinate red cells of any Del phenotype in routine serology. Many individuals with East Asian ancestry who type D-negative in serology harbor a Del phenotype. Almost all such individuals carry one distinct DEL variant, dubbed Asian-type DEL, known as RHD*01EL.01, RHD*DEL1, RHD:c.1227G>A, formerly known as RHD(K409K). Clinical evidence strongly suggests that Asian-type DEL individuals can safely be transfused with RhD-positive blood and do not need anti-D prophylaxis in pregnancy.

'Old is gold' does conventional test tube method still reign supreme? An immuno-haematological survey of anti-D detection and titration in ante-natal cases among major hospitals across India.

INTRODUCTION: Anti-D detection and titration plays a major role in RhD negative antenatal cases both, for monitoring maternal as well as fetal status as well as initiation of early therapeutic interventions, such as intra-uterine transfusions (IUT) to improve maternal as well as fetal morbidity and mortality and reduce the adverse effects of haemolytic disease of fetus and newborn (HDFN). We conducted a survey focusing on the policies and procedures of anti-D detection and titration among major tertiary care centres across India. METHODOLOGY: The survey was drafted by a working group of transfusion medicine and immunohematology specialists from six different centres in India. Data were obtained via the use of an online questionnaire. RESULTS: Results were categorised into four categories, Hospital information, immuno-haematological testing methodology, clinical significance of anti-D testing and the role of transfusion medicine specialists. The survey highlighted the modalities as well as the methodologies of anti-D detection and titration in antenatal women across different major tertiary care centres in India. CONCLUSION: This survey provided a unique snapshot of the prevalent methodologies being employed by major tertiary care centres across the country for detection and titration of anti-D levels as well as the important role it plays in the therapy of affected antenatal women to minimise adverse effects on the fetus.

Economic analysis of foregoing Rh immunoglobulin for bleeding in pregnancy <12 weeks gestation.

OBJECTIVES: To perform cost analyses of foregoing RhD blood type testing and administration of Rh immunoglobulin (RhIg) for bleeding in pregnancy at <12 weeks gestation in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: We created a decision-analytic model comparing the current standard treatment pathway for patients who have threatened, spontaneous, or induced abortion in the United States, with a new pathway foregoing RhD testing and administration of RhIg for those who are RhD-negative at <12 weeks gestation, assuming that the risk of sensitization is 0%. We derived population and cost estimates from the current literature and calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to screen to avoid one case of fatal hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. We performed sensitivity analyses assuming Rh-sensitization risks of 1.5% and 3% and varying the subsequent pregnancy rates from 44% to 100%. RESULTS: The annual savings to health care payers in the United States of foregoing RhD testing and RhIg administration with bleeding events at <12 weeks are $5.5 million/100,000 total pregnancies, assuming the sensitization risk is 0%. In sensitivity analyses with a sensitization risk of 1.5% and subsequent pregnancy rate of 84.3% foregoing Rh testing and RhIg administration would save $2.8 million/100,000 pregnancies, with a NNT of 7322 and a number needed to screen of 48,816. At a 3% sensitization rate, the current standard treatment pathway is most economical. CONCLUSIONS: There is an opportunity to save as much as $5.5 million/100,000 pregnancies by withholding RhIg in specific situations and conserving it for use later in pregnancy. IMPLICATIONS: Cost analyses support foregoing RhD blood type screening and RhIg administration at <12 weeks gestation if the sensitization rate is <3%. By deimplementing this low-value care, payers in the United States can save as much as $5.5 million/100,000 pregnancies and conserve RhIg for use later in pregnancy.

Comparison of the Detection Rate and Specificity of Irregular Red Blood Cell Antibodies Between First-Time Pregnant Women and Women With a History of Multiple Pregnancies Among 18,010 Chinese Women.

Background: There is insufficient evidence to assess the risk of the production of clinically important alloimmune irregular red blood cell (RBC) antibodies in first-time pregnant women. Methods: Using the microcolumn gel antiglobulin method, 18,010 Chinese women with a history of pregnancy and pregnant women were screened for irregular RBC antibodies, and for those with positive test results, antibody specificity was determined. The detection rate and specificity of irregular RBC antibodies in women with a history of multiple pregnancies (two or more) and first-time pregnant women were determined. Results: In addition to 25 patients who passively acquired anti-D antibodies via an intravenous anti-D immunoglobulin injection, irregular RBC antibodies were detected in 121 (0.67%) of the 18,010 women. Irregular RBC antibodies were detected in 93 (0.71%) of the 13,027 women with a history of multiple pregnancies, and antibody specificity was distributed mainly in the Rh, MNSs, Lewis, and Kidd blood group systems; irregular RBC antibodies were detected in 28 (0.56%) of the 4983 first-time pregnant women, and the antibody specificity was distributed mainly in the MNSs, Rh, and Lewis blood group systems. The difference in the percentage of patients with irregular RBC antibodies between the two groups was insignificant (χ 2 = 1.248, P > 0.05). Of the 121 women with irregular RBC antibodies, nine had anti-Mur antibodies, and one had anti-Dia antibodies; these antibodies are clinically important but easily missed because the antigenic profile of the reagent RBCs that are commonly used in antibody screens does not include the antigens that are recognized by these antibodies. Conclusion: Irregular RBC antibody detection is clinically important for both pregnant women with a history of multiple pregnancies and first-time pregnant women. Mur and Dia should be included in the antigenic profile of reagent RBCs that are used for performing antibody screens in the Chinese population.

Serologic profiling of D variants in donor routine: unveiling the impact on false-negative results and alloimmunization.

The high number of D variants can lead to the unnecessary use of Rh immune globulin, overuse of D- RBC units, and anti-D allommunization. D variant prevalence varies among ethnic groups, and knowledge of the main variants present in a specific population, their behavior in serologic tests, and their impact on clinical practice is crucial to define the best serologic tests for routine use. The present study aimed to explore the serologic profile of D variants and to determine which variants are most associated with false-negative D typing results and alloimmunization. Donor samples were selected in two study periods. During the first period, D typing was performed on a semi-automated instrument in microplates, and weak D tests were conducted in tube or gel tests. In the second period, D typing was carried out using an automated instrument with microplates, and weak D tests were performed in solid phase. Samples from patients typed as D+ with anti-D were also selected. All samples were characterized by molecular testing. A total of 37 RHD variants were identified. Discrepancies and atypical reactivity without anti-D formation were observed in 83.4 percent of the samples, discrepant D typing results between donations were seen in 12.3 percent, and D+ patients with anti-D comprised 4.3 percent. DAR1.2 was the most prevalent variant. Weak D type 38 was responsible for 75 percent of discrepant samples, followed by weak D type 11, predominantly detected by solid phase. Among the D variants related to alloimmunization, DIVa was the most prevalent, which was not recognized by serologic testing; the same was true for DIIIc. The results highlight the importance of selecting tests for donor screening capable of detecting weak D types 38 and 11, especially in populations where these variants are more prevalent. In pre-transfusion testing, it is crucial that D typing reagents demonstrate weak reactivity with DAR variants; having a serologic strategy to recognize DIVa and DIIIc is also valuable.

Does high body mass index (>25 kg/m2) or weight (>80 kg) reduce the effectiveness of anti-D prophylaxis in Rh(D)-negative pregnant women? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Haemolytic disease of the foetus and newborn (HDFN) occurs when maternal antibodies, often triggered by foetal antigens, destroy foetal and neonatal red blood cells. Factors like antibody strength, quantity and gestational age influence HDFN severity. Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis (RAADP) has significantly reduced HDFN cases. However, the effect of overweight/obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 25/30 kg/m2) on anti-D prophylaxis efficacy remains unclear. This systematic review will examine the impact of BMI on anti D prophylaxis effectiveness in Rh(D) negative pregnant women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocols. We searched databases from 1996 to 2023, focusing on studies exploring the link between high BMI/weight and anti-D serum levels in Rh(D)-negative pregnant women with Rh(D)-positive foetuses. Ten eligible studies were included, three suitable for meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting Observation Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. Statistical analyses included Pearson correlation coefficients and risk differences. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis revealed a significant negative correlation (r = -0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.83 to -0.35, p = 0.007) between high BMI/weight and serial anti-D levels in in Rh(D)-negative pregnant women with Rh(D)-positive foetuses. High BMI/weight had lower odds of serial anti-D level exceeding 30 ng/mL (arcsine risk difference [ARD] = 0.376, 95% CI: 0.143-0.610, p = 0.002). Heterogeneity among studies was low (I2 = 0). CONCLUSION: While our analysis suggests a potential linkage between high BMI/weight and reduced efficacy of anti-D prophylaxis, caution is warranted due to study limitations. Variability in study design and confounding factors necessitate careful interpretation. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and refine clinical recommendations.

Disease severity in subsequent pregnancies with RhD immunization: A nationwide cohort.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the severity of haemolytic disease of the foetus and newborn (HDFN) in subsequent pregnancies with RhD immunization and to identify predictive factors for severe disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nationwide prospective cohort study, including all pregnant women with RhD antibodies. All women with at least two pregnancies with RhD antibodies and RhD-positive foetuses were selected. The main outcome measure was the severity of HDFN in the first and subsequent pregnancy at risk. A subgroup analysis was performed for the group of women where RhD antibodies developed after giving birth to an RhD-positive child and thus after receiving anti-D at least twice (group A) or during the first pregnancy at risk for immunization (group B). RESULTS: Sixty-two RhD immunized women with a total of 150 RhD-positive children were included. The severity of HDFN increased for the whole group significantly in the subsequent pregnancy (p < 0.001), although it remained equal or even decreased in 44% of women. When antibodies were already detected at first trimester screening in the first immunized pregnancy, after giving birth to an RhD-positive child (group A), severe HDFN in the next pregnancy was uncommon (22%). Especially when no therapy or only non-intensive phototherapy was indicated during the first immunized pregnancy (6%) or if the antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity result remained <10%. Contrarily, women with a negative first trimester screening and RhD antibodies detected later during the first pregnancy of an RhD-positive child (group B), often before they had ever received anti-D prophylaxis, were most prone for severe disease in a subsequent pregnancy (48%). CONCLUSION: RhD-mediated HDFN in a subsequent pregnancy is generally more severe than in the first pregnancy at risk and can be estimated using moment of antibody detection and severity in the first immunized pregnancy. Women developing antibodies in their first pregnancy of an RhD-positive child are at highest risk of severe disease in the next pregnancy.

Antenatal RHD screening to guide antenatal anti-D immunoprophylaxis in non-immunized D- pregnant women.

In pregnancy, D- pregnant women may be at risk of becoming immunized against D when carrying a D+ fetus, which may eventually lead to hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. Administrating antenatal and postnatal anti-D immunoglobulin prophylaxis decreases the risk of immunization substantially. Noninvasive fetal RHD genotyping, based on testing cell-free DNA extracted from maternal plasma, offers a reliable tool to predict the fetal RhD phenotype during pregnancy. Used as a screening program, antenatal RHD screening can guide the administration of antenatal prophylaxis in non-immunized D- pregnant women so that unnecessary prophylaxis is avoided in those women who carry a D- fetus. In Europe, antenatal RHD screening programs have been running since 2009, demonstrating high test accuracies and program feasibility. In this review, an overview is provided of current state-of-the-art antenatal RHD screening, which includes discussions on the rationale for its implementation, methodology, detection strategies, and test performance. The performance of antenatal RHD screening in a routine setting is characterized by high accuracy, with a high diagnostic sensitivity of ≥99.9 percent. The result of using antenatal RHD screening is that 97-99 percent of the women who carry a D- fetus avoid unnecessary prophylaxis. As such, this activity contributes to avoiding unnecessary treatment and saves valuable anti-D immunoglobulin, which has a shortage worldwide. The main challenges for a reliable noninvasive fetal RHD genotyping assay are low cell-free DNA levels, the genetics of the Rh blood group system, and choosing an appropriate detection strategy for an admixed population. In many parts of the world, however, the main challenge is to improve the basic care for D- pregnant women.

Neonatal and Obstetrical Outcomes of Pregnancies Complicated by Alloimmunization.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite advances in the prevention of rhesus (Rh)(D) alloimmunization, alloantibodies to Rh(D) and non-Rh(D) red blood cell antigens continue to be detected in ∼4% of US pregnancies and can result in hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN). Recent reports on HDFN lack granularity and are unable to provide antibody-specific outcomes. The objective of this study was to calculate the frequency of alloimmunization in our large hospital system and summarize the outcomes based on antibody specificity, titer, and other clinical factors. METHODS: We identified all births in a 6-year period after a positive red blood cell antibody screen result during pregnancy and summarized their characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 707 neonates were born after a positive maternal antibody screen result (3.0/1000 live births). In 31 (4%), the positive screen result was due to rhesus immune globulin alone. Of the 676 neonates exposed to alloantibodies, the direct antibody test (DAT) result was positive, showing antigen-positivity and evidence of HDFN in 37% of those tested. Neonatal disease was most severe with DAT-positive anti-Rh antibodies (c, C, D, e, E). All neonatal red blood cell transfusions (15) and exchange transfusions (6) were due to anti-Rh alloimmunization. No neonates born to mothers with anti-M, anti-S, anti-Duffy, anti-Kidd A, or anti-Lewis required NICU admission for hyperbilirubinemia or transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Alloimmunization to Rh-group antibodies continues to cause a majority of the severe HDFN cases in our hospital system. In neonates born to alloimmunized mothers, a positive DAT result revealing antigen-positivity is the best predictor of anemia and hyperbilirubinemia.

Estimating the cost of Rh testing and prophylaxis in early pregnancy: A time-driven activity-based costing study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of Rhesus (Rh) testing and prophylaxis for first-trimester vaginal bleeding in the ambulatory setting. STUDY DESIGN: We used time-driven, activity-based costing to analyze tasks associated with Rh testing and prophylaxis of first-trimester vaginal bleeding at one hospital-based outpatient and two independent reproductive health clinics. At each site, we observed 10 patients undergoing Rh-typing and two patients undergoing Rh prophylaxis. We computed the costs of blood Rh-typing by both fingerstick and phlebotomy, cost of locating previous blood type in the electronic health record (available for 69.8% of hospital-based patients), and costs associated with Rh immune globulin prophylaxis. All costs are reported in 2021 US dollars. RESULTS: The hospital-based clinic reviewed the electronic health record to confirm Rh-status (cost, $26.18 per patient) and performed a phlebotomy, at $47.11 per patient, if none was recorded. The independent clinics typed blood by fingerstick, at a per-patient cost of $4.07. Rh-immune globulin administration costs, including the medication, were similar across facilities, at a mean of $145.66 per patient. Projected yearly costs for testing and prophylaxis were $55,831 for the hospital-based clinic, which was the lowest-volume site, $47,941 for Clinic A, which saw 150 patients/month, and $185,654 for Clinic B, which saw 600 patients/month. CONCLUSIONS: Rh testing and prophylaxis for first-trimester vaginal bleeding generates considerable costs for outpatient facilities, even for Rh-positive patients with a prior blood type on record. IMPLICATIONS: Rh testing and prophylaxis for first-trimester bleeding generate considerable costs even for Rh-positive patients and those with a previously known blood type. These findings highlight the need to reconsider this practice, which is no longer supported by evidence and already safely waived in multiple medical settings in the United States and around the world.

Guideline No. 448: prevention of Rh D Alloimmunization

This guideline provides recommendations for the prevention of Rh D alloimmunization (isoimmunization) in pregnancy, including parental testing, routine postpartum and antepartum prophylaxis, and other clinical indications for prophylaxis. Prevention of red cell alloimmunization in pregnancy with atypical antigens (other than the D antigen), for which immunoprophylaxis is not currently available, is not addressed in this guideline. All Rh D-negative pregnant individuals at risk for Rh D alloimmunization due to potential exposure to a paternally derived fetal Rh D antigen. Routine postpartum and antepartum Rh D immunoprophylaxis reduces the risk of Rh D alloimmunization at 6 months postpartum and in a subsequent pregnancy. This guideline details the population of pregnant individuals who may benefit from Rho(D) immune globulin (RhIG) immunoprophylaxis. Thus, those for whom the intervention is not required may avoid adverse effects, while those who are at risk of alloimmunization may mitigate this risk for themselves and/or their fetus. For recommendations regarding use of RhIG, Medline and Medline in Process via Ovid and Embase Classic + Embase via Ovid were searched using both the trials and observational studies search strategies with study design filters. For trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects via Ovid were also searched. All databases were searched from January 2000 to November 26, 2019. Studies published before 2000 were captured from the grey literature of national obstetrics and gynaecology specialty societies, luminary specialty journals, and bibliographic searching. A formal process for the systematic review was undertaken for this update, as described in the systematic review manuscript published separately. The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the SOGC's modified GRADE approach. See Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional [weak] recommendations). The intended users of this guideline include prenatal care providers such as obstetricians, midwives, family physicians, emergency room physicians, and residents, as well as registered nurses and nurse practitioners. An updated Canadian guideline for prevention of Rh D alloimmunization addresses D variants, cffDNA for fetal Rh type, and updates recommendations on timing of RhIG administration.

Anti-D immunization after D positive platelet transfusions in D negative recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anti-D can be formed after D-incompatible platelet transfusions due to contaminating D+ red blood cells. These antibodies are of particular importance in women of childbearing potential, because anti-D is most often involved in severe cases of hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. This systematic review determined the frequency of anti-D after D+ platelet transfusions and risk factors for D alloimmunization. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Relevant literature was searched using PubMed, Embase and Web of Science until December 2022. Overall anti-D frequency and risk factors were estimated using a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: In 22 studies, a total of 3028 D- patients received a mean of six D+ platelet transfusions. After a mean follow-up of seven months 106 of 2808 eligible patients formed anti-D. The pooled anti-D frequency was 3.3% (95% CI 2.0-5.0%; I2 71%). After including only patients with an undoubtable follow-up of at least 4 weeks, 29 of 1497 patients formed anti-D with a pooled primary anti-D rate of 1.9% (95% CI 0.9-3.2%, I2 44%). Women and patients receiving whole blood derived platelets had two and five times higher anti-D rates compared with men and patients receiving apheresis derived platelets, respectively. DISCUSSION: Anti-D immunization is low after D incompatible platelet transfusions and dependent on recipients' sex and platelet source. We propose anti-D prophylaxis in girls and women, capable of becoming pregnant in the future, that received D+ platelets, regardless of platelet source, to reduce the risk of anti-D induced hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn.

Receipt of RhD-positive whole blood for life-threatening bleeding in female children: A survey in alloimmunized mothers regarding minimum acceptable survival benefit relative to risk of maternal alloimmunization to anti-D.

BACKGROUND: Low-titer group O whole blood (LTOWB) for treatment of hemorrhagic shock sometimes necessitates transfusion of RhD-positive units due to short supply of RhD-negative LTOWB. Practitioners must choose between using RhD-positive LTOWB when RhD-negative is unavailable against the risk to a female of childbearing potential of becoming RhD-alloimmunized, risking hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) in future children, or using component therapy with RhD-negative red cells. This survey asked females with a history of red blood cell (RBC) alloimmunization about their risk tolerance of RhD alloimmunization compared to the potential for improved survival following transfusion of RhD-positive blood for an injured RhD negative female child. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A survey was administered to RBC alloimmunized mothers. Respondents were eligible if they were living in the United States with at least one red cell antibody known to cause HDFN and if they had at least one RBC alloimmunized pregnancy. RESULTS: Responses from 107 RBC alloimmmunized females were analyzed. There were 32/107 (30%) with a history of severe HDFN; 12/107 (11%) had a history of fetal or neonatal loss due to HDFN. The median (interquartile range) absolute improvement in survival at which the respondents would accept RhD-positive transfusions for a female child was 4% (1%-14%). This was not different between females with and without a history of severe or fatal HDFN (p = .08 and 0.38, respectively). CONCLUSION: Alloimmunized mothers would accept the risk of D-alloimmunization in a RhD-negative female child for improved survival in cases of life-threatening bleeding.

Guideline No. 448: Prevention of Rh D Alloimmunization.

OBJECTIVE: This guideline provides recommendations for the prevention of Rh D alloimmunization (isoimmunization) in pregnancy, including parental testing, routine postpartum and antepartum prophylaxis, and other clinical indications for prophylaxis. Prevention of red cell alloimmunization in pregnancy with atypical antigens (other than the D antigen), for which immunoprophylaxis is not currently available, is not addressed in this guideline. TARGET POPULATION: All Rh D-negative pregnant individuals at risk for Rh D alloimmunization due to potential exposure to a paternally derived fetal Rh D antigen. OUTCOMES: Routine postpartum and antepartum Rh D immunoprophylaxis reduces the risk of Rh D alloimmunization at 6 months postpartum and in a subsequent pregnancy. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: This guideline details the population of pregnant individuals who may benefit from Rho(D) immune globulin (RhIG) immunoprophylaxis. Thus, those for whom the intervention is not required may avoid adverse effects, while those who are at risk of alloimmunization may mitigate this risk for themselves and/or their fetus. EVIDENCE: For recommendations regarding use of RhIG, Medline and Medline in Process via Ovid and Embase Classic + Embase via Ovid were searched using both the trials and observational studies search strategies with study design filters. For trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects via Ovid were also searched. All databases were searched from January 2000 to November 26, 2019. Studies published before 2000 were captured from the grey literature of national obstetrics and gynaecology specialty societies, luminary specialty journals, and bibliographic searching. A formal process for the systematic review was undertaken for this update, as described in the systematic review manuscript published separately. VALIDATION METHODS: The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the SOGC's modified GRADE approach. See Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional [weak] recommendations). INTENDED AUDIENCE: The intended users of this guideline include prenatal care providers such as obstetricians, midwives, family physicians, emergency room physicians, and residents, as well as registered nurses and nurse practitioners. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: An updated Canadian guideline for prevention of Rh D alloimmunization addresses D variants, cffDNA for fetal Rh type, and updates recommendations on timing of RhIG administration. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS.

Rh immune globulin immunoprophylaxis after RhD-positive red cell exposure in RhD-negative patients via transfusion: A survey of practices.

BACKGROUND: Current Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB) standards require transfusion services to have a policy on Rh immune globulin (RhIG) immunoprophylaxis for when RhD-negative patients are exposed to RhD-positive red cells. This is a survey of AABB-accredited transfusion services in the United States (US) regarding institutional policies and practices on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD-negative patients receive RhD-positive (i.e., RhD-incompatible) packed red blood cell (pRBC) and platelet transfusions. RESULTS: Approximately half of the respondents (50.4%, 116/230) have policies on RhIG administration after RhD-incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, while others had policies for only pRBC (13.5%, 31/230) or only platelet (17.8%, 41/230) transfusions, but not both. In contrast, 18.3% (42/230) report that their institution has no written policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD-incompatible transfusions. Most institutions (70.2%, 99/141) do not have policies addressing safety parameters to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required to prevent RhD alloimmunization after RhD-incompatible pRBC transfusions. DISCUSSION: With approximately half of US AABB-accredited institutions report having policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after both RhD-incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, some institutions may not be in compliance with AABB standards. Further, most with policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD-incompatible pRBC transfusion do not have written safeguards to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required. CONCLUSION: This survey underscores the diverse and inadequate institutional policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD exposure in Rh-negative patients via transfusion. This observation identifies an opportunity to improve transfusion safety.

[Prevention of Rh D alloimmunization in the first trimester of the pregnancy: French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines for clinical practice]. / Prévention de l'allo-immunisation anti-RH1 au premier trimestre de la grossesse : recommandations pour la pratique clinique du Collège national des gynécologues-obstétriciens français.

OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations for the prevention of Rh D alloimmunization in the first trimester of pregnancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The quality of evidence of the literature was assessed following the GRADE methodology with questions formulated in the PICO format (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) and outcomes defined a priori and classified according to their importance. An extensive bibliographic search was performed on Pubmed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases. The quality of evidence was assessed (high, moderate, low, very low) and a recommendation was formulated: (i) strong, (ii) weak, or (iii) no recommendation. The recommendations were reviewed in two rounds with reviewers from the scientific board of the French College of the OB/GYN (Delphi survey) to select the consensus recommendations. RESULTS: The three recommendations from PICO questions reached agreement using the Delphi method. It is recommended not to administer Rh D immunoglobulin before 12 weeks of gestation to reduce the risk of alloimmunization in case of abortion or miscarriage, in RhD negative patients when the genitor is RhD positive or unknown (Weak recommendation. Very low-quality evidence). It is recommended not to administer Rh D immunoglobulin before 12 weeks of gestation to reduce the risk of alloimmunization in cases of bleeding in an ongoing intrauterine pregnancy (Weak recommendation. Very low-quality evidence). The literature data are insufficient in quality and quantity to determine if the injection of Rh D immunoglobulin reduces the risk of alloimmunization in the case of an ectopic pregnancy (No recommendation. Very low-quality evidence). CONCLUSION: Even though the quality of evidence from the studies is very low, it is recommended not to administer Rh D immunoglobulin in case of abortion, miscarriage or bleeding before 12 weeks of amenorrhea. The quality of evidence was too low to issue a recommendation regarding ectopic pregnancy.