Updated Evaluation of RhD Status Among Women of Child-Bearing Age in Detroit, Michigan

Estimating the serological underrecognition of patients with weak or partial RHD variants

BACKGROUND

For patients with weak or discrepant RhD RBC phenotypes, RHD genotyping is employed to determine need for RhD-negative management. However, many RHD variants are type D-negative or D-positive. Serological recognition rates (RRs) of weak and partial RHD variants are poorly characterized.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Four US studies employing RHD genotyping for weak or discrepant RhD phenotypes provided data for race/ethnicity-specific serological recognition. Three studies used microplate, and 1 used gel and tube; 2 had anti-D data. We obtained White and Hispanic/Latino allele frequencies (AFs) of weak D types 1, 2, and 3 single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) from the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD, v4.0.0) and devised Hardy-Weinberg-based formulas to correct for gnomAD's overcount of hemizygous RHD SNVs as homozygous. We compiled common partial RHD AF from genotyped cohorts of US Black or sickle cell disease subjects. From variant AF, we calculated hemizygous-plus-homozygous genetic prevalences. Serological prevalence: genetic prevalence ratios yielded serological RRs.

RESULTS

Overall RRs of weak D types 1-3 were 17% (95% confidence interval 12%-24%) in Whites and 12% (5%-27%) in Hispanics/Latinos. For eight partial RHD variants in Blacks, overall RR was 11% (8%-14%). However, DAR RR was 80% (38%-156%). Compared to microplate, gel-tube recognition was higher for type 2 and DAU5 and lower for type 4.0. Anti-D was present in 6% of recognized partial RHD cases, but only in 0.7% of estimated total genetic cases.

DISCUSSION

Based on AF, >80% of patients with weak or partial RHD variants were unrecognized serologically. Although overall anti-D rates were low, better detection of partial RHD variants is desirable.

Obstetric and Newborn Weak D-Phenotype RBC Testing and Rh Immune Globulin Management Recommendations: Lessons From a Blinded Specimen-Testing Survey of 81 Transfusion Services

CONTEXT.—

Modern RHD genotyping can be used to determine when patients with serologic weak D phenotypes have RHD gene variants at risk for anti-D alloimmunization. However, serologic testing, RhD interpretations, and laboratory management of these patients are quite variable.

OBJECTIVE.—

To obtain interlaboratory comparisons of serologic testing, RhD interpretations, Rh immune globulin (RhIG) management, fetomaternal hemorrhage testing, and RHD genotyping for weak D-reactive specimens.

DESIGN.—

We devised an educational exercise in which 81 transfusion services supporting obstetrics performed tube-method RhD typing on 2 unknown red blood cell challenge specimens identified as (1) maternal and (2) newborn. Both specimens were from the same weak D-reactive donor. The exercise revealed how participants responded to these different clinical situations.

RESULTS.—

Of reporting laboratories, 14% (11 of 80) obtained discrepant immediate-spin reactions on the 2 specimens. Nine different reporting terms were used to interpret weak D-reactive maternal RhD types to obstetricians. In laboratories obtaining negative maternal immediate-spin reactions, 28% (16 of 57) performed unwarranted antiglobulin testing, sometimes leading to recommendations against giving RhIG. To screen for excess fetomaternal hemorrhage after a weak D-reactive newborn, 47% (34 of 73) of reporting laboratories would have employed a contraindicated fetal rosette test, risking false-negative results and inadequate RhIG coverage. Sixty percent (44 of 73) of laboratories would obtain RHD genotyping in some or all cases.

CONCLUSIONS.—

For obstetric and neonatal patients with serologic weak D phenotypes, we found several critical problems in transfusion service laboratory practices. We provide recommendations for appropriate testing, consistent immunohematologic terminology, and RHD genotype-guided management of Rh immune globulin therapy and RBC transfusions.

RHD genotyping to resolve weak and discrepant RhD patient phenotypes

BACKGROUND

We instituted RHD genotyping in our transfusion service for obstetrical patients and transfusion candidates. We sought to examine how RHD genotyping resolved weak or discrepant automated microplate direct agglutination (MDA) RhD phenotypings and impacted needs for Rh Immune Globulin (RhIG) and D-negative RBCs.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We investigated RhD phenotypes with equivocal or reagent-discrepant automated MDA (Immucor, Norcross, GA), weak-2+ immediate-spin tube typings, historically discrepant RhD typings, or D+ typings with anti-D. We performed microarray RHD genotyping (RHD BeadChip, Immucor BioArray Solutions, Warren, NJ). Patients were managed as D+ with weak-D types 1, 2, and 3, and as D-negative with all other results.

RESULTS

Our weak-D prevalence was 0.14%. Among 138 patients (73 obstetrics, 65 transfusion candidates), 38% had weak-D types 1, 2 or 3, 25% weak partial type 4.0, 21% other partial-D variant alleles, and 15% no variant detected. One novel allele with weak partial type 4.0 variants plus c.150T>C (Val50Val) was discovered. Weak D types 1, 2 or 3 were identified in 66% (48/73) of Whites versus 3% (2/62) of diverse ethnic patients (p < .0001). RHD genotyping changed RhD management in 60 patients (43%) (49 to D+, 11 to D-negative), resulting in net conservation of D-negative RBCs (98 avoided, 14 given) and RhIG (8 avoided, 3 given).

CONCLUSION

In our patient population, equivocal or reagent-discrepant MDA RhD phenotypes were highly specific for weak-D or partial-D RHD genotypes. Resolution of RHD genotype status reduced our use of D-negative RBCs and RhIG.