Literature DB >> 34860699

What constitutes the most cautious approach for a pregnant person with weak D type 4.0?

Willy Albert Flegel1, Melanie Bodnar2, Gwen Clarke3, Judith Hannon4, Lani Lieberman5.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34860699      PMCID: PMC8248459          DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.78986

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


× No keyword cloud information.
A recent CMAJ Practice article1 on modern Rhesus (Rh) typing in transfusion and pregnancy and its associated correspondence2 prompted a productive discussion on safe recommendations for pregnant patients with a weak D type 4.0 allele, originally described in 2000.3 The differing approaches1,2 represent the personal views of the respective authors. Based on our review of 20 years’ worth of literature on this specialized topic, we have agreed on the following 5 statements: No published case reports have documented adverse clinical effects, such as hemolysis, among pregnant people with weak D type 4.0 caused by an allo- or auto-anti–D. Similarly, no published case reports have documented adverse clinical effects, such as anemia or jaundice, among fetuses or newborns caused by such a mother’s allo- or auto-anti–D. No published evidence has shown that Rh immunoglobulin (RhIg) is clinically effective in an individual with weak D type 4.0 (e.g., for preventing anti-D formation); RhIg can cause a positive direct antiglobulin test, which does not imply clinical harm. The weak D type 4.0 phenotype may be associated with a proportionately larger number of anti-D than most other weak D types.4–6 The nature of these antibodies has not been well characterized (i.e., allo- v. auto-antibody). 6 A fraction of all people with a weak D type 4.0 are routinely typed as normal RhD-positive and do not receive RhIg.3,7,8 The decision of whether or not to use RhIg or RhD-negative transfusion in such mothers should be based on national guidelines.9 Both approaches have been adopted by expert groups2,6,8–10 and are considered safe. The decision may still depend on an individual patient’s circumstances. 11 If providers are unsure, consultation with a transfusion medicine physician or perinatal immunohematology reference laboratory is recommended.1,10
  10 in total

1.  Weak D alleles express distinct phenotypes.

Authors:  F F Wagner; A Frohmajer; B Ladewig; N I Eicher; C B Lonicer; T H Müller; M H Siegel; W A Flegel
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2000-04-15       Impact factor: 22.113

2.  Outliers in RhD membrane integration are explained by variant RH haplotypes.

Authors:  Xinjian Yu; Franz F Wagner; Bernd Witter; Willy A Flegel
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.157

3.  A proposal for a rational transfusion strategy in patients of European and North African descent with weak D type 4.0 and 4.1 phenotypes.

Authors:  Willy A Flegel; Thierry Peyrard; Jacques Chiaroni; Christophe Tournamille; Déborah Jamet; France Pirenne
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 3.443

4.  Experience with RHD*weak D type 4.0 in the USA.

Authors:  Connie M Westhoff; Sandra Nance; Christine Lomas-Francis; Margaret Keller; Stella T Chou
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 3.443

5.  How I manage donors and patients with a weak D phenotype.

Authors:  Willy A Flegel
Journal:  Curr Opin Hematol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.284

6.  Transfusion support during childbirth for a woman with anti-U and the RHD*weak D type 4.0 allele.

Authors:  Q Yin; K Srivastava; D G Brust; W A Flegel
Journal:  Immunohematology       Date:  2021-03

7.  Molecular analysis of patients with weak D and serologic analysis of those with anti-D (excluding type 1 and type 2).

Authors:  Bach-Nga Pham; Michèle Roussel; Dominique Gien; Maryline Ripaux; Carine Carine; Pierre-Yves Le Pennec; Christine Andre-Botte
Journal:  Immunohematology       Date:  2013

8.  Transfusion strategy for weak D Type 4.0 based on RHD alleles and RH haplotypes in Tunisia.

Authors:  Mouna Ouchari; Kshitij Srivastava; Houda Romdhane; Saloua Jemni Yacoub; Willy Albert Flegel
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 3.157

9.  It's time to phase out "serologic weak D phenotype" and resolve D types with RHD genotyping including weak D type 4.

Authors:  Willy A Flegel; Gregory A Denomme; John T Queenan; Susan T Johnson; Margaret A Keller; Connie M Westhoff; Louis M Katz; Meghan Delaney; Ralph R Vassallo; Clayton D Simon; S Gerald Sandler
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 3.337

10.  Modern Rhesus (Rh) typing in transfusion and pregnancy.

Authors:  Willy Albert Flegel
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 8.262

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.