Bakhtary, Sara

Abstract Background Anti‐M antibodies were described as rarely eliciting hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) in pregnancy. More recent literature, primarily from Asia, reports severe HDFN attributed to maternal anti‐M. The objective of this study is to determine if there is a difference in the frequency and/or severity of anti‐M HDFN among subjects who self‐report as Asian compared to non‐Asian. Methods Retrospective data were collected from 18 sites. Fetuses/neonates affected by HDFN were categorized as unaffected, mild, moderate, or severe based on clinical management and outcomes. Results Anti‐M was identified in 557 obstetric patients. Among 332 neonates with complete data for analysis, anti‐M was detected in isolation during the pregnancies of 210 (63.3%) neonates; 198 (94.3%) were unaffected by HDFN. The overall frequency of HDFN was 6.5% (2/31) in Asian patients and 5.6% (10/179) in non‐Asian patients. The frequency of severe HDFN was 6.5% (2/31) among Asian patients and 0.6% (1/179) among non‐Asian patients. Among non‐Asian patients, eight (4.5%) were mild and one (0.6%) was moderate. Of 63 pregnancies with anti‐M and ABO incompatibility, 6 (9.5%) were associated with mild HDFN and 57 (90.5%) were unaffected. Of 49 pregnancies with anti‐M and non‐ABO antibody(s), 6 (12.2%) were associated with mild HDFN and 43 (87.8%) were unaffected. One case (10.0%) of HDFN (mild) occurred in the presence of anti‐M, additional antibody(s), and ABO incompatibility. Conclusion In this study, severe anti‐M HDFN was rare in non‐Asian subjects. There is a signal that Asian patients are at greater risk for severe anti‐M HDFN.

AbstractBackgroundHemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) is caused by maternal alloantibody‐mediated destruction of fetal/neonatal red blood cells (RBCs). While the pathophysiology has been well‐characterized, the clinical and laboratory monitoring practices are inconsistent.MethodsWe surveyed 103 US institutions to characterize laboratory testing practices for individuals with fetuses at risk of HDFN. Questions included antibody testing and titration methodologies, the use of critical titers, paternal and cell‐free fetal DNA testing, and result reporting and documentation practices.ResultsThe response rate was 44% (45/103). Most respondents (96%, 43/45) assess maternal antibody titers, primarily using conventional tube‐based methods only (79%, 34/43). Among respondents, 51% (23/45) rescreen all individuals for antibodies in the third trimester, and 60% (27/45) perform paternal RBC antigen testing. A minority (27%, 12/45) utilize cell‐free fetal DNA (cffDNA) testing to predict fetal antigen status. Maternal antibody titers are performed even when the fetus is not considered to be at risk of HDFN based on cffDNA or paternal RBC antigen testing at 23% (10/43) of sites that assess titers.DiscussionThere is heterogeneity across US institutions regarding the testing, monitoring, and reporting practices for pregnant individuals with fetuses at risk of HDFN, including the use of antibody titers in screening and monitoring programs, the use of paternal RBC antigen testing and cffDNA, and documentation of fetal antigen results. Standardization of laboratory testing protocols and closer collaboration between the blood bank and transfusion medicine service and the obstetric/maternal‐fetal medicine service are needed.

AbstractBackgroundCurrent Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB) standards require transfusion services to have a policy on Rh immune globulin (RhIG) immunoprophylaxis for when RhD‐negative patients are exposed to RhD‐positive red cells. This is a survey of AABB‐accredited transfusion services in the United States (US) regarding institutional policies and practices on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐negative patients receive RhD‐positive (i.e., RhD‐incompatible) packed red blood cell (pRBC) and platelet transfusions.ResultsApproximately half of the respondents (50.4%, 116/230) have policies on RhIG administration after RhD‐incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, while others had policies for only pRBC (13.5%, 31/230) or only platelet (17.8%, 41/230) transfusions, but not both. In contrast, 18.3% (42/230) report that their institution has no written policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐incompatible transfusions. Most institutions (70.2%, 99/141) do not have policies addressing safety parameters to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required to prevent RhD alloimmunization after RhD‐incompatible pRBC transfusions.DiscussionWith approximately half of US AABB‐accredited institutions report having policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after both RhD‐incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, some institutions may not be in compliance with AABB standards. Further, most with policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐incompatible pRBC transfusion do not have written safeguards to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required.ConclusionThis survey underscores the diverse and inadequate institutional policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD exposure in Rh‐negative patients via transfusion. This observation identifies an opportunity to improve transfusion safety.