Aleksandar Mijovic1. 1. Department of Haematological Medicine, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK. aleksandar.mijovic@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Following exposure to RhD antigen, anti-D develops in up to 20% of RhD-negative patients on chemotherapy, but seldom in the recipients of haemopoietic cell (HC) or solid-organ transplants. Data on anti-D formation come from HC transplants using myeloablative conditioning; no data are available for the non-myeloablative HC transplants. The two types of transplant have a distinct isohaemagglutinin disappearance rate and different kinetics of post-transplant red-cell engraftment. The objective of the study was to analyse anti-D formation in patients receiving non-myeloablative transplants from RhD-incompatible donors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients were analysed: nine RhD-negative recipients of RhD-positive haemopoietic cells; and seven RhD-positive recipients of a graft from a RhD-negative donor. Patients were sequentially tested for irregular antibodies, as well as donor/recipient chimerism by cytogenetics and analysis of DNA variable-number tandem repeats. RESULTS: Despite having received 7-499 ml of D-positive red cells, none of the RhD-negative recipients developed anti-D. The median follow-up was 202 days. By contrast, anti-D was identified in one of seven RhD-positive recipients of an RhD-negative graft. CONCLUSIONS: Non-myeloablative conditioning containing fludarabine and/or Campath 1H, with cyclosporin A given post-transplant, effectively prevents anti-D formation in RhD-negative recipients of a RhD-positive graft. However, anti-D developed in an RhD-positive recipient of an RhD-negative graft, who was also exposed to RhD-positive blood products before and after the transplant. Transfusion of RhD-positive products should be avoided in such patients.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Following exposure to RhD antigen, anti-D develops in up to 20% of RhD-negative patients on chemotherapy, but seldom in the recipients of haemopoietic cell (HC) or solid-organ transplants. Data on anti-D formation come from HC transplants using myeloablative conditioning; no data are available for the non-myeloablative HC transplants. The two types of transplant have a distinct isohaemagglutinin disappearance rate and different kinetics of post-transplant red-cell engraftment. The objective of the study was to analyse anti-D formation in patients receiving non-myeloablative transplants from RhD-incompatible donors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients were analysed: nine RhD-negative recipients of RhD-positive haemopoietic cells; and seven RhD-positive recipients of a graft from a RhD-negative donor. Patients were sequentially tested for irregular antibodies, as well as donor/recipient chimerism by cytogenetics and analysis of DNA variable-number tandem repeats. RESULTS: Despite having received 7-499 ml of D-positive red cells, none of the RhD-negative recipients developed anti-D. The median follow-up was 202 days. By contrast, anti-D was identified in one of seven RhD-positive recipients of an RhD-negative graft. CONCLUSIONS: Non-myeloablative conditioning containing fludarabine and/or Campath 1H, with cyclosporin A given post-transplant, effectively prevents anti-D formation in RhD-negative recipients of a RhD-positive graft. However, anti-D developed in an RhD-positive recipient of an RhD-negative graft, who was also exposed to RhD-positive blood products before and after the transplant. Transfusion of RhD-positive products should be avoided in such patients.
Authors: Dorothea Evers; Jaap Jan Zwaginga; Janneke Tijmensen; Rutger A Middelburg; Masja de Haas; Karen M K de Vooght; Daan van de Kerkhof; Otto Visser; Nathalie C V Péquériaux; Francisca Hudig; Johanna G van der Bom Journal: Haematologica Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 9.941