RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: For pregnant women, the serologic test results of D antigen will determine the frequency of RBC antibody detection as well as the indication for RhIG prophylaxis. RHD genotyping is the only method that may provide clear guidance on prophylaxis for women with a weak D phenotype. This analysis evaluated the economical implications of using RHD genotyping to guide RhIG prophylaxis among pregnant women with a serological weak D phenotype. METHODS: We compared the costs of 2 strategies in a cohort of 273 women with weak D phenotype. In the first strategy, we did not perform genotyping and all women with weak D phenotypes were treated as if they were D-, thus considered to be a risk of RhD alloimmunization. These women all received the prophylactic follow up. In the second strategy, RHD genotyping was performed on all women with a serologic weak D phenotype. Then, the follow-up will be determined by phenotype deduced from genotype. RESULTS: On the studied cohort, the additional expense occurred by genotyping is 26,536 . RHD Genotyping has highlighted 162 weak D Type 1, 2 3, that could safely be managed as D+ and 111 partial D to consider as D-. By comparing the 2 strategies, the savings generated by genotyping the patients of our cohort are 12,046 for the follow up of one pregnancy. Knowing that in France, a woman has on average 2 pregnancies and that the genotyping is carried out only once, the savings generated for the following pregnancies would be 38,581. CONCLUSIONS: Performing RHD genotyping for pregnant women with a weak D phenotype enables to clearly identify weak D type 1, 2 or 3 from the other variants at risk of alloimmunization. This analysis generates savings in terms of follow-up schedule of pregnant women and RhIG prophylaxis. It also allows saving of D- products for patient with a weak D type 1, 2 or 3 in case of a transfusion need.