Altered strategy of prophylactic anti-D administration in pregnancy to cover term and post-term - a pilot study

Evaluation of the clinical effect of a nationwide implementation of targeted routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis in Denmark

BACKGROUND

In 2010, Denmark was the first country to implement a targeted routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis (tRAADP) program, offering fetal RHD genotyping to all nonimmunized D negative pregnant women. The program represented a shift from only postnatal prophylaxis to a combined antenatal and postnatal prophylaxis. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effect of tRAADP in Denmark.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This nationwide registry-based cohort study included all D negative women who gave birth between 2004-2020, identified through the National Medical Birth Register and the Departments of Clinical Immunology in Denmark. The clinical effect of tRAADP was assessed by comparing the incidence of new D immunization between 2004-2009 (non-tRAADP-cohort) and 2011-2018 (tRAADP-cohort).

RESULTS

A total of 282 women were D immunized during pregnancy between 2004-2009 (non-tRAADP-cohort), and 167 between 2011-2018 (tRAADP-cohort). The incidence of new D immunization decreased from 0.46% (95% CI 0.41-0.52) in the non-tRAADP-cohort to 0.22% (95% CI 0.19-0.25) in the tRAADP-cohort. The risk reduction was statistically significant p < 0.001. Notably, in the tRAADP cohort 0.1% (95% CI 0.08-0.12) of new D immunizations occurred before the time of antenatal prophylaxis.

DISCUSSION

tRAADP significantly reduced the incidence of new D immunization by more than half, thus demonstrating the expected effect. However, even with full adherence to the current program, some women with early fetomaternal hemorrhage (FMH) were still at risk. Future studies may evaluate the impact of administering an additional tRAADP dose earlier in the second trimester to prevent this.

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.

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.

Following targeted routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis, almost half of the pregnant women had undetectable anti-D prophylaxis at delivery

INTRODUCTION

In September 2016, a nationwide targeted routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis program was implemented in Norway. The prophylaxis (anti-D immunoglobulin) aims to cover the whole third trimester and is administered in gestational week 28 to RhD-negative women who carry RhD-positive fetuses. However, in many women, antibody screening at delivery does not detect anti-D immunoglobulin. The goal of this study was to investigate the presumable role of dose and timing of antenatal anti-D immunoglobulin administration in non-detectable prophylaxis at the time of delivery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective observational study, RhD-negative pregnant women who gave birth at Oslo University Hospital and Akershus University Hospital between January 2017 and December 2019 were analyzed. Women who received antenatal anti-D immunoglobulin (1500 IU at Oslo University Hospital and 1250 IU at Akershus University Hospital) when fetal RHD genotyping at gestational week 24 predicted an RhD-positive fetus were included if an antibody screen at delivery was available. Data from the blood bank, maternity information systems, and electronic patient records were used.

RESULTS

Analysis of the 984 RhD-negative women at the two hospitals revealed that 45.4% had non-detectable anti-D at delivery. A significant difference between the two hospitals was observed: 40.5% at Oslo University Hospital (n = 509) and 50.7% at Akershus University Hospital (n = 475) (p = 0.001). The proportion with non-detectable anti-D increased to 56.0 and 75.3%, respectively (p = 0.008) in the group of women who gave birth 12 weeks after routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis. Significantly fewer women had detectable anti-D at delivery when the lower anti-D immunoglobulin dose (1250 IU) was administered antenatally. Multiple logistic regression indicated that the time interval between routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis and delivery, in addition to anti-D dose, were significantly associated with detectable anti-D at delivery (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We do not know which RhD-negative pregnant women, despite antenatal anti-D prophylaxis, are at risk of RhD alloimmunization, when antibody screening is negative at delivery. Administration of antenatal prophylaxis should probably be moved closer to delivery, since the risk of fetomaternal hemorrhage is higher during the last weeks of the third trimester.