Centro Nazionale Sangue, Istituto Superiore di Sanit, Roma. 2UU. OO. CC. di Immunoematologia e
Medicina Trasfusionale e di Patologia Clinica, Ospedale San Gi ovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli, Roma.
3
U. O. C. di Immunoematologia e Medicina Trasfusionale, Ospedale San Giovanni Calibita
Fatebenefratelli, Roma, Italy.
Introduction
The first description of haemolytic disease of the
newborn (HDN) can be traced back to 1609 and was
made by a French midwife, Louise Bourgeois, who,
from 1600, worked at the royal court of King Henry
IV and Queen Marie de Medicis1-4. In the treatise that
Bourgeois wrote in 1609 she described the birth of
two twins3: the first had hydrops and died immediately,
while the second, initially in a better condition, rapidly
became jaundiced and, after having developed
neurological symptoms (kernicterus), died 3 days after
being born.
Hydrops foetalis and kernicterus were correctly
interpreted as two aspects of the same pathology only
in 1932 5 , when Diamond described foetal
erythroblastosis secondary to severe haemolysis,
although the cause was still unknown. A few years
later, in 1938, Ruth Darrow correctly identified the
(antibody-related) pathogenesis of HDN6, although
erroneously attributing foetal haemoglobin the role
of the culprit antigen, which was suggested to have
induced a maternal antibody response after crossing
the placenta. The true pathogenesis of the disease was
definitively clarified in 1940 with the discovery of
the Rhesus (Rh) blood group system by Landsteiner
and Wiener7 and with the subsequent identification,
in 1941, by Levine8, of the Rh(D) antigen. This antigen
was, in fact, identified, in D-negative mothers, as
being the cause of the immunisation occurring
following transplacental passage of foetal D-positive
red blood cells. The subsequent passage of maternal
anti-D immunoglobulin G (IgG) across the placenta
into the foetal circulation was recognised as the final
event able to cause the spectrum of clinical events
Antenatal prophylaxis
Rationale
Systematic anti-D prophylaxis was proposed in the
1970s with the aim of reducing the percentage of
Rh(D)-negative women who could be sensitised during
pregnancy, despite the use of post-partum prophylaxis.
This percentage ranged from 0.9-2.2% in a series of
studies carried out between 1977 and 198917-19,23-28, and
from 0.8-1.5% in subsequent studies carried out
between 1995 and 199929-32; this latter modest reduction
is probably due to intercurrent changes in obstetric care
and the wider use of anti-D prophylaxis following
sensitising events during pregnancy33.
The D antigen has been demonstrated to be present
on foetal red blood cells from the 7th week of
pregnancy onwards34. There is a direct, proportional
relationship between the volume of Rh(D)-positive
red blood cells to which the Rh(D)-negative subject
is exposed and the incidence of anti-Rh immunisation,
although it has been estimated that 0.1 mL is already
Liumbruno GM et al.
10
Study
[Study desing]
Dosage
Patient selection
Unselected
Primigravidae
r/n
Control group
% Sensitised or
sensibilised
(95% CI)
1/1357
45/2768
11/1805
62/3533
5/1238
30/2000
Primigravid primiparae
4/236
5/286
Multigravid primiparae
1/332
7/359
Unselected primiparae
5/568
12/645
Unselected
30/9295
62/3533
Primiparae
0/461
4/454
Multiparae
1/138
3/136
Unselected
1/599
7/590
Trolle (1989)
[NRCT]28
Unselected
0/291
6/322
Primigravidae
5/513
9/595
Primiparae
4/1425
16/1426
Not stated
72/9684
No data
Primiparae
12/3320
26/3146
NRCT = non randomised controlled trial.; RCT = randomised controlled trial; n = number of deliveries of RhD-positive babies to RhD-negative women;
r = number of sensitised RhD-negative women in the trial group. * Most probably the standard Canadian dose of 1500 IU.
International recommendations
Various international recommendations (table II)
suggest antenatal anti-D prophylaxis (i.m. or i.v.) in
unsensitised Rh(D)-negative women as a complement
to post-partum prophylaxis.
1) The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
of Canada (SOGC) suggests 300 g in the 28th
week (grade of recommendation: A) or two doses
of 100-120 g in the 28th and 34th weeks of
pregnancy20.
2) The Italian Society of Transfusion Medicine and
Immunohaematology (SIMTI), together with the
3)
4)
5)
6)
Liumbruno GM et al.
Table II
Week
250-300
28
USA (ASCP)16
300
28-30
USA (ACOG)51
Not specified
28
USA (USPSTF)52
300
24-28
UK (NICE) 53
100
28 and 34
UK (BCSH)54
100
28 and 34
Australia (NHMRC)56
125
28 and 34
Australia (RANZCOG)57
125
28 and 34
France (CNGOF)58
300
28
200
30
Spain (SETS-SEOG)60
300
28
Canada (SOGC)20
Italy (SIMTI-SIGO)21
7)
8)
Conclusions
HDN has become a rare disorder since the
introduction of anti-D prophylaxis. The foetal Rh(D)
antigen is already well developed after 30-40 days of
gestation and the risk of antenatal foeto-maternal
haemorrhage, already possible from the 6th week61,
increases exponentially as a pregnancy progresses22,35.
Although the risk of foetal blood entering the maternal
circulation is high, the average volume of is very small,
being 0.07 mL in the first trimester, 0.08 mL in the
second and 0.13 mL in the third62. A Rh(D)-negative
woman not immunised and who does not receive
prophylaxis has, in every pregnancy, a 16% risk of
becoming immunised to a Rh(D)-positive foetus63.
However, the global success rate of post-natal Rh
immunoprophylaxis has now reached 98.4 - 99%1,3.
Given that anti-D prophylaxis is effective for about
12 weeks, as indicated by pharmacokinetic studies
on anti-D IgG46, and given the relatively low risk of
significant foeto-maternal haemorrhage before the 28th
week of gestation, antenatal prophylaxis is carried out
from the 28th week onwards41.
The currently available evidence demonstrates that
antenatal anti-D prophylaxis, besides being a costeffective strategy36,64, is able to further reduce the
incidence of sensitisation to D antigen down to about
0.2%33,42; a variety of prophylactic regimens are used
in different countries, although 300 g of anti-D IgG
Blood Transfus 2010; 8:8-16 DOI 10.2450/2009.0108-09
12
Abortion (spontaneous or
therapeutic)
Ectopicpregnancy
Amniocentesis
Cordocentesis
Rh(D)positive
Villocentesis
(60%)
Abdominaltrauma
Antenatalhaemorrhage
Sensitising
events
AntiDprophylaxis
within72hoursof
theevent
AntiDprophylaxis
within72hoursof
theevent
Foetalgenotyping
Nosensitising
events
(firsttrimester)
Rh(D)negative
(40%)
Figure 1 -
AntenatalantiD
prophylaxisin
28thweek
Postpartum
antiD
prophylaxis
Noprophylaxis
Anti-D prophylaxis in Rh(D) negative pregnant women: possible scenario following the introduction of
foetal genotyping
Liumbruno GM et al.
References
1) Bowman J. Thirty-five years of Rh prophylaxis.
Transfusion 2003; 43: 1661-6.
2) Dunn PM. Louise Bourgeois (1563-1636): royal
midwife of France. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed
2004; 89: F185-7.
3) Bowman J. Rh-immunoglobulin: Rh prophylaxis. Best
Pract Res Clin Haematol 2006; 19: 27-34.
4) Bourgeois L. Observations Diverses sur la Sterilit Perte
de Fruiot Fecondit Accouchements et Maladies des
Femmes et Enfants Nouveaux Naiz. Paris; 1609.
5) Diamond LK, Blackfan KD, Baty JM. Erythroblastosis
fetalis and its association with universal edema of the
fetus, icterus gravis neonatorum and anemia of the
newborn. J Pediatr 1932; 1: 269-309.
6) Darrow RR. Icterus gravis (erythroblastosis
neonatorum, examination of etiologic considerations).
Arch Pathol 1938; 25: 378-417.
7) Landsteiner K, Wiener AS. An agglutinable factor in
human blood recognized by immune sera for Rhesus
blood. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1940; 43: 223-9.
8) Levine P, Katzin EM, Burnham L. Isoimmunization in
pregnancy: its possible bearing on the etiology of
erythroblastosis fetalis. JAMA 1941; 116: 825-7.
9) Urbaniak S. The scientific basis of antenatal prophylaxis.
Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105 (Suppl 18): 11-8.
10) Stern K, Goodman HS, Berger M. Experimental
isoimmunization to hemo-antigens in man. J Immunol
1961; 97: 1245-57.
11) Clarke CA, Donohoe WTA, McConnell RB, et al.
Further experimental studies on the prevention of Rh
haemolytic disease. Br Med J 1963; 1: 979-84.
12) Cohen F, Zuelzer WW, Gustafson DC, et al.
Mechanisms of isoimmunization. I. The transplacental
passage of fetal erythrocytes in homospecific
pregnancies. Blood 1964; 23: 621-46.
13) Freda VJ, Gorman JC, Pollack W. Successful prevention
of experimental Rh sensitization in man with an antiRh gamma 2 -globulin antibody preparation: a
preliminary report. Transfusion 1964; 4: 26-32.
14) Zipursky A, Israels LG. The pathogenesis and prevention
of Rh immunization. Can Med Assoc J 1967; 97: 1245-57.
15) Pollack W, Gorman JG, Freda VJ, et al. Results of
clinical trials of RhoGAM in women. Transfusion
1968; 8: 151-3.
16) Hartwell EA. Use of Rh immune globulin. Am J Clin
Pathol 1998; 110: 281-92.
17) McMaster Conference on Prevention of Rh immunization.
28-30 September, 1977. Vox Sang 1979; 36: 50-64.
Liumbruno GM et al.
alloimmunization. Number 4, May 1999 (replaces
educational bulletin Number 147, October 1990).
Clinical management guidelines for obstetriciangynecologists. American College of Obstetrics and
Gynecology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999; 66: 63-70.
52) U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendation
Statement: Screening for Rh (D) incompatibility.
Rockville, MD; 2004. Available at: http://
www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/rh/rhrs.pdf.
53) National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on
the use of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhDnegative women. Technology Appraisal No. 41.
London; 2002. Available at: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/
TA41/guidance/pdf/English.
54) Parker J, Wray J, Gooch A, et al. British Committee for
Standards in Haematology. Guidelines for the use of
prophylactic anti-D immunoglobulin. London; 05/12/
2006. Available at: http://www.bcshguidelines.com/pdf/
Anti-D_070606.pdf.
55) Lee D, Contreras M, Robson SC, et al. Recommendations
for the use of anti-D immunoglobulin for Rh prophylaxis.
Transfus Med 1999; 9: 93-7.
56) National Health and Medical Research Council. Guidelines
on the prophylactic use of Rh D immunoglobulin (antiD) in obstetrics. Commonwealth of Australia 2003.
Available
at:
http://www.nba.gov.au/PDF/
glines_anti_d.pdf.
57) Royal Australian and New Zealand College of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Guidelines for the use
of Rh (D) immunoglobulin (Anti-D) in obstetrics in
Australia. Australia; March 2007. Available at: http://
www.ranzcog.edu.au/publications/statements/C-obs6.pdf.
58) Cortey A, Brossard Y. Prevention of fetomaternal RhesusD allo-immunization. Practical aspects. J Gynecol Obstet
Biol Reprod (Paris) 2006; 35 (Suppl 1): S123-30.
59) Council of Health Insurances. Blood Testing in Pregnancy.
Pregnancy Immunization, Hepatitis B and Lues. Kingston,
Council of Health Insurances, National Health Inspection; 1998.
60) Muiz-Diaz E, Oyonarte S, Rodrguez-Villanueva J, et al.
Sociedad Espaola de Transfusin Sangunea, Sociedad
Espaola de Obstetricia y Ginecologa. Protocolo de
Diagnstico y Prevencin de la Enfermedad Hemoltica
del feto y del Recin Nacido. (Marzo 2008). Available at:
h t t p : / / w w w . s e t s . e s /
index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33:protocolode-diagnostico-y-prevencion-de-la-enfermedad-hemoliticadel-feto-y-del-recien-nacido&catid=43:guias&Itemid=41.
Last accessed: 11/12/2009.
61) Hann IM, Gibson BES, Letsky EA. Fetal and Neonatal
Haematology. London, Bailliere Tindal; 1991.
62) Choavaratana R, Uer-Areewong S, Makanantakosol S.
Fetomaternal transfusion in normal pregnancy and
during delivery. J Med Assoc Thai 1997; 80: 96-100.
63) Bowman JM. Controversies in Rh prophylaxis: who
needs Rh immune globulin and when should it be given?
Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 289-94.
64) Chilcott J, Tappendem, Lloyd Jones M, et al. The
economics of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for
pregnant women who are Rhesus negative. BJOG 2004;
111: 903-7.