Identification of RHD allelic variants discovered by atypical typing results on the NEO/Echo platforms

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.

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.