A review of the clinical effectiveness of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for rhesus-negative women who are pregnant

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

OBJECTIVES

The Rh blood group system is one of the most important and immunogenic blood group systems after the ABO blood group system and, like other blood group antigens, it follows ethnic and racial trends. However, when it comes to D variants-partial D and weak D-most of the cohorts studied in the literature have been of European descent. This study aimed to discover the variant D trends in Detroit, Michigan, with an emphasis on Black communities.

METHODS

From 2016 to 2018, there were 102 patients (women of childbearing potential: < 50 years) at Henry Ford Hospital that had serologic D discrepant testing. These patients were sent out for molecular RHD determination.

RESULTS

In total, 12.7% of patients were characterized as RhD positive and 87.3% of patients were characterized as RhD variants (nominated as RhD negative at our institution).

CONCLUSIONS

Our predominantly Black cohort sheds light on the diversity of the RhD antigen. The majority of Blacks were classified as RhD variants (RhD negative nomination at our institution). Therefore, molecular testing for this patient population with serologic RhD discrepancies is paramount to properly manage their obstetric care.

Red Blood Cell Alloimmunization in the Pregnant Patient

Alloimmunization to red blood cell (RBC) antigens represents a challenge for physicians caring for women of child bearing potential. Exposure to non-self RBC antigens may occur during transfusion or pregnancy leading to the development of antibodies. If a subsequent fetus bears that antigen, maternal antibodies may attack the fetal red blood cells causing red cell destruction and clinically significant hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN). In the most severe cases, HDFN may result in intrauterine fetal demise due to high output cardiac failure, effusions and ascites, known as "hydrops fetalis". This article reviews strategies for management and prevention of RBC alloimmunization in women of child bearing potential.

Rh(O)D immune globulin products for prevention of alloimmunization during pregnancy

PURPOSE

The pharmacologic properties of Rhesus (Rh) immune globulin (RhIG) and clinical data on its effectiveness in preventing Rh-antigen alloimmunization in pregnant women are reviewed.

SUMMARY

RhIG is a human plasma derivative that targets red blood cells (RBCs) positive for Rh(O) antigen (also called D antigen). In the United States and other countries, the widespread use of RhIG has markedly reduced the occurrence of hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN), a devastating condition caused by D-antigen sensitization of a pregnant woman via exposure to fetal RBCs (usually during detachment of the placenta in labor) that results in a maternal immune response leading to severe hemolysis in the fetus. Routine administration of RhIG at 26-30 weeks' gestation and again within 72 hours of delivery has been shown to be highly effective in preventing maternal Rh alloimmunization, with very low rates of D-antigen sensitization (in the range of 0-2.2%) reported in multiple studies of at-risk women. The four RhIG products currently available in the United States have common clinical indications but differ in certain attributes. Pharmacists can play an important role in guiding other clinicians on the rationale for the use of RhIG, important differences between products, and appropriate timing of RhIG therapy.

CONCLUSION

Routine administration of RhIG to women at risk for Rh alloimmunization is clinically effective and has made HDFN a rare clinical event. The available RhIG products are not the same and should be carefully reviewed to ensure that they are administered safely.

Rhesus Negative Woman Transfused With Rhesus Positive Blood: Subsequent Normal Pregnancy Without Anti D production

Clinicians sometimes are confronted with the challenge of transfusing haemorrhaging Rhesus (Rh) D negative patients with Rh D positive blood to save their lives. There are concerns about alloimmunization and future haemolytic disease of the newborn in women of the reproductive age. Another fear is transfusion reaction if they receive another Rh D positive blood in future. We present a 32-year-old Rh D negative woman, who had postpartum haemorrhage in her first pregnancy and was transfused with Rh D positive blood because of unavailability of Rh D negative blood. She did not receive anti D immunoglobin but subsequently had a normal term pregnancy of an Rh positive fetus without any detectable anti D antibodies throughout the pregnancy. In life threatening situations from obstetric haemorrhage, transfusion of Rh D negative women with Rh D positive blood should be considered as the last resort.

Anti-D administration in pregnancy for preventing Rhesus alloimmunisation

BACKGROUND

During pregnancy, a Rhesus negative (Rh-negative) woman may develop antibodies when her fetus is Rhesus positive (Rh-positive). These antibodies may harm Rh-positive babies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antenatal anti-D immunoglobulin on the incidence of Rhesus D alloimmunisation when given to Rh-negative women without anti-D antibodies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in Rh-negative women without anti-D antibodies given anti-D after 28 weeks of pregnancy, compared with no treatment, placebo or a different regimen of anti-D.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials involving over 4500 women, comparing anti-D prophylaxis with no anti-D during pregnancy in this review. Overall, the trials were judged to be at moderate to high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence for pre-specified outcomes was also assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.In regards to primary review outcomes, there did not appear to be a clear difference in the risks of immunisation when women who received anti-D at 28 and 34 weeks' gestation were compared with women who were not given antenatal anti-D: risk ratio (RR) for incidence of Rhesus D alloimmunisation during pregnancy was 0.42 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.17, two trials, 3902 women; GRADE: low quality evidence); at birth of a Rh-positive infant the RR was 0.42 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.17, two trials, 2297 women); and within 12 months after birth of a Rh-positive infant the average RR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.10 to 1.62, two trials, 2048 women; Tau²: 0.47; I²: 39%; GRADE: low quality evidence). Neither of the trials reported on incidence of Rhesus D alloimmunisation in subsequent pregnancies.Considering secondary outcomes, in one trial, women receiving anti-D during pregnancy were shown to be less likely to register a positive Kleihauer test (which detects fetal cells in maternal blood) in pregnancy (at 32 to 25 weeks) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88; 1884 women; GRADE: low quality evidence) and at the birth of a Rh-positive infant (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79; 1189 women; GRADE: low quality evidence). No clear differences were seen for neonatal jaundice (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.30; 1882 infants; GRADE: very low quality evidence). Neither of the trials reported on adverse effects associated with anti-D treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Existing studies do not provide conclusive evidence that the use of anti-D during pregnancy benefits either mother or baby in terms of incidence of Rhesus D alloimmunisation during the pregnancy or postpartum, or the incidence of neonatal morbidity (jaundice) (low to very low quality evidence). However women receiving anti-D may be less likely to register a positive Kleihauer test in pregnancy and at the birth of a Rh-positive infant (low quality evidence). Fewer women who receive anti-D during pregnancy may have Rhesus D antibodies in a subsequent pregnancy, with benefits for the baby, however this needs to be tested in studies of robust design.

Integration of noninvasive prenatal prediction of fetal blood group into clinical prenatal care

Incompatibility of red blood cell blood group antigens between a pregnant woman and her fetus can cause maternal immunization and, consequently, hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. Noninvasive prenatal testing of cell-free fetal DNA can be used to assess the risk of hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn to fetuses of immunized women. Prediction of the fetal RhD type has been very successful and is now integrated into clinical practice to assist in the management of the pregnancies of RhD immunized women. In addition, noninvasive prediction of the fetal RhD type can be applied to guide targeted prenatal prophylaxis, thus avoiding unnecessary exposure to anti-D in pregnant women. The analytical aspect of noninvasive fetal RHD typing is very robust and accurate, and its routine utilization has demonstrated high sensitivities for fetal RHD detection. A high compliance with administering anti-D is essential for obtaining a clinical effect. Noninvasive fetal typing of RHC/c, RHE/e, and KEL may become more widely used in the future.

Targeted routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis in the prevention of RhD immunisation--outcome of a new antenatal screening and prevention program

Objective

To estimate the incidence of RhD immunisation after implementation of first trimester non-invasive fetal RHD screening to select only RhD negative women carrying RHD positive fetuses for routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis (RAADP).

Materials and Methods

We present a population-based prospective observational cohort study with historic controls including all maternity care centres and delivery hospitals in the Stockholm region, Sweden. All RhD negative pregnant women were screened for fetal RHD genotype in the first trimester of pregnancy. Anti-D immunoglobulin (250–300 µg) was administered intramuscularly in gestational week 28–30 to participants with RHD positive fetuses. Main outcome measure was the incidence of RhD immunisation developing during or after pregnancy.

Results

During the study period 9380 RhD negative women gave birth in Stockholm. Non-invasive fetal RHD genotyping using cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma was performed in 8374 pregnancies of which 5104 (61%) were RHD positive and 3270 (39%) RHD negative. In 4590 pregnancies with an RHD positive test the women received antenatal anti-D prophylaxis. The incidence of RhD immunisation in the study cohort was 0.26 percent (24/9380) (95% CI 0.15–0.36%) compared to 0.46 percent (86/18546) (95% CI 0.37 to 0.56%) in the reference cohort. The risk ratio (RR) for sensitisation was 0.55 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.87) and the risk reduction was statistically significant (p = 0.009). The absolute risk difference was 0.20 percent, corresponding to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 500.

Conclusions

Using first trimester non-invasive antenatal screening for fetal RHD to target routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis selectively to RhD negative women with RHD positive fetuses significantly reduces the incidence of new RhD immunisation. The risk reduction is comparable to that reported in studies evaluating the outcome of non selective RAADP to all RhD negative women. The cost-effectiveness of this targeted approach remains to be studied.

Anti-D administration in pregnancy for preventing Rhesus alloimmunisation

BACKGROUND

During pregnancy, a Rhesus negative (Rh-negative) woman may develop antibodies when her fetus is Rhesus positive (Rh-positive). These antibodies may harm Rh-positive babies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antenatal anti-D immunoglobulin on the incidence of Rhesus D alloimmunisation when given to Rh-negative women without anti-D antibodies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in Rh-negative women without anti-D antibodies given anti-D after 28 weeks of pregnancy, compared with no treatment, placebo or a different regimen of anti-D.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials with moderate to high risk of bias, involving over 4500 women, compared anti-D prophylaxis with no anti-D during pregnancy. When women received anti-D at 28 and 34 weeks' gestation, risks of immunisation were not significantly different than for women not given antenatal anti-D: risk ratio (RR) of immunisation during pregnancy was 0.42 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.17); after the birth of a Rh-positive infant the RR was 0.42 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.17); and within 12 months after birth of a Rh-positive infant the RR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.10 to 1.62).However, women receiving anti-D during pregnancy were significantly less likely to register a positive Kleihauer test (which detects fetal cells in maternal blood) in pregnancy (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88) and at the birth of a Rh-positive infant (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79). No data were available for the risk of Rhesus D alloimmunisation in a subsequent pregnancy. No significant differences were seen for neonatal jaundice, and no adverse effects were reported in either trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The risk of Rhesus D alloimmunisation during or immediately after a first pregnancy is about 1%. Administration of 100 µg (500 IU) anti-D to women in their first pregnancy can reduce this risk to about 0.2% without, to date, any adverse effects. Although unlikely to confer benefit in the current pregnancy, fewer women may have Rhesus D antibodies in any subsequent pregnancy, but the effects of this needs to be tested in studies of robust design.

Risk factors for RhD immunisation despite antenatal and postnatal anti-D prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors for Rhesus D (RhD) immunisation in pregnancy, despite adequate antenatal and postnatal anti-D prophylaxis in the previous pregnancy. To generate evidence for improved primary prevention by extra administration of anti-D Ig in the presence of a risk factor.

DESIGN

Case-control study.

SETTING

Nation-wide evaluation of the Dutch antenatal anti-D-prophylaxis programme.

POPULATION

CASES

42 RhD-immunised parae-1, recognised by first-trimester routine red cell antibody screening in their current pregnancy, who received antenatal and postnatal anti-D Ig prophylaxis (gifts of 1000 iu) in their first pregnancy.

CONTROLS

339 parae-1 without red cell antibodies.

METHODS

Data were collected via obstetric care workers and/or personal interviews with women.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Significant risk factors for RhD immunisation in multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Independent risk factors were non-spontaneous delivery (assisted vaginal delivery or caesarean section) (OR 2.23; 95% CI:1.04-4.74), postmaturity (>or=42 weeks of completed gestation: OR 3.07; 95% CI:1.02-9.02), pregnancy-related red blood cell transfusion (OR 3.51; 95% CI:0.97-12.7 and age (OR 0.89/year; 95% CI:0.80-0.98). In 43% of cases, none of the categorical risk factors was present.

CONCLUSIONS

In at least half of the failures of anti-D Ig prophylaxis, a condition related to increased fetomaternal haemorrhage (FMH) and/or insufficient anti-D Ig levels was observed. Hence, RhD immunisation may be further reduced by strict compliance to guidelines concerning determination of FMH and accordingly adjusted anti-D Ig prophylaxis, or by routine administration of extra anti-D Ig after a non-spontaneous delivery and/or a complicated or prolonged third stage of labour.

Review of medical abortion using mifepristone in combination with a prostaglandin analogue

Induced abortion is still a major health problem in the world and the most frequently performed intervention in obstetrics and gynecology with an estimated total of 46 million worldwide each year. Medical abortion with mifepristone and prostaglandin was first introduced in 1988 and is now approved in 31 countries. This combination of drugs has recently been included in the List of Essential Medicines by the World Health Organisation. The present review summarizes the development, physiology and the development of the currently used regimens.

Appraisal of the evidence for the clinical use of FFP and plasma fractions

Randomised, controlled trials of good quality are a recognised means to robustly assess the efficacy of interventions in clinical practice. A systematic identification and appraisal of all randomised trials involving fresh frozen plasma (FFP) indicates that most clinical indications for FFP, as currently recommended by practice guidelines, are not supported by evidence from randomised trials. This chapter will largely consider the implications of some of the findings from this systematic review. Many published trials on the use of FFP have enrolled small numbers of patients, and provided inadequate information on the ability of the trial to detect meaningful differences in outcomes between the two patient groups. Other concerns about the design of the trials include the dose of FFP used, and the potential for bias; no studies had taken adequate account of the extent to which adverse effects might negate the clinical benefits of treatment with FFP. In addition, there is little evidence for the effectiveness of the prophylactic use of FFP. There is a pressing need to consider how best to develop new trials to determine the effectiveness of FFP. How this can be achieved can be illustrated by reference to studies of albumin in critical care. A recent, large and well-designed randomised trial (Saline versus Albumin Fluid Evaluation study; SAFE) in critical care found no evidence of an increase in mortality with the use of albumin compared to saline, which had been hypothesised in an earlier systematic review. How the study findings will actually now influence the clinical use of albumin remains to be seen. Although the SAFE trial showed no increase in mortality with albumin compared with saline, it is difficult to justify its use in critical care given its considerably greater cost.