Cargando…

Targeted antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhD-negative pregnant women: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: All non-sensitized Rhesus D (RhD)-negative pregnant women in Germany receive antenatal anti-D prophylaxis without knowledge of fetal RhD status. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma could avoid unnecessary anti-D administration. In this paper, we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Runkel, Britta, Bein, Gregor, Sieben, Wiebke, Sow, Dorothea, Polus, Stephanie, Fleer, Daniel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7006196/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32033599
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-2742-4
_version_ 1783495093981806592
author Runkel, Britta
Bein, Gregor
Sieben, Wiebke
Sow, Dorothea
Polus, Stephanie
Fleer, Daniel
author_facet Runkel, Britta
Bein, Gregor
Sieben, Wiebke
Sow, Dorothea
Polus, Stephanie
Fleer, Daniel
author_sort Runkel, Britta
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: All non-sensitized Rhesus D (RhD)-negative pregnant women in Germany receive antenatal anti-D prophylaxis without knowledge of fetal RhD status. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma could avoid unnecessary anti-D administration. In this paper, we systematically reviewed the evidence on the benefit of NIPT for fetal RhD status in RhD-negative pregnant women. METHODS: We systematically searched several bibliographic databases, trial registries, and other sources (up to October 2019) for controlled intervention studies investigating NIPT for fetal RhD versus conventional anti-D prophylaxis. The focus was on the impact on fetal and maternal morbidity. We primarily considered direct evidence (from randomized controlled trials) or if unavailable, linked evidence (from diagnostic accuracy studies and from controlled intervention studies investigating the administration or withholding of anti-D prophylaxis). The results of diagnostic accuracy studies were pooled in bivariate meta-analyses. RESULTS: Neither direct evidence nor sufficient data for linked evidence were identified. Meta-analysis of data from about 60,000 participants showed high sensitivity (99.9%; 95% CI [99.5%; 100%] and specificity (99.2%; 95% CI [98.5%; 99.5%]). CONCLUSIONS: NIPT for fetal RhD status is equivalent to conventional serologic testing using the newborn’s blood. Studies investigating patient-relevant outcomes are still lacking.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7006196
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70061962020-02-11 Targeted antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhD-negative pregnant women: a systematic review Runkel, Britta Bein, Gregor Sieben, Wiebke Sow, Dorothea Polus, Stephanie Fleer, Daniel BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: All non-sensitized Rhesus D (RhD)-negative pregnant women in Germany receive antenatal anti-D prophylaxis without knowledge of fetal RhD status. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma could avoid unnecessary anti-D administration. In this paper, we systematically reviewed the evidence on the benefit of NIPT for fetal RhD status in RhD-negative pregnant women. METHODS: We systematically searched several bibliographic databases, trial registries, and other sources (up to October 2019) for controlled intervention studies investigating NIPT for fetal RhD versus conventional anti-D prophylaxis. The focus was on the impact on fetal and maternal morbidity. We primarily considered direct evidence (from randomized controlled trials) or if unavailable, linked evidence (from diagnostic accuracy studies and from controlled intervention studies investigating the administration or withholding of anti-D prophylaxis). The results of diagnostic accuracy studies were pooled in bivariate meta-analyses. RESULTS: Neither direct evidence nor sufficient data for linked evidence were identified. Meta-analysis of data from about 60,000 participants showed high sensitivity (99.9%; 95% CI [99.5%; 100%] and specificity (99.2%; 95% CI [98.5%; 99.5%]). CONCLUSIONS: NIPT for fetal RhD status is equivalent to conventional serologic testing using the newborn’s blood. Studies investigating patient-relevant outcomes are still lacking. BioMed Central 2020-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7006196/ /pubmed/32033599 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-2742-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Runkel, Britta
Bein, Gregor
Sieben, Wiebke
Sow, Dorothea
Polus, Stephanie
Fleer, Daniel
Targeted antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhD-negative pregnant women: a systematic review
title Targeted antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhD-negative pregnant women: a systematic review
title_full Targeted antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhD-negative pregnant women: a systematic review
title_fullStr Targeted antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhD-negative pregnant women: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Targeted antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhD-negative pregnant women: a systematic review
title_short Targeted antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhD-negative pregnant women: a systematic review
title_sort targeted antenatal anti-d prophylaxis for rhd-negative pregnant women: a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7006196/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32033599
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-2742-4
work_keys_str_mv AT runkelbritta targetedantenatalantidprophylaxisforrhdnegativepregnantwomenasystematicreview
AT beingregor targetedantenatalantidprophylaxisforrhdnegativepregnantwomenasystematicreview
AT siebenwiebke targetedantenatalantidprophylaxisforrhdnegativepregnantwomenasystematicreview
AT sowdorothea targetedantenatalantidprophylaxisforrhdnegativepregnantwomenasystematicreview
AT polusstephanie targetedantenatalantidprophylaxisforrhdnegativepregnantwomenasystematicreview
AT fleerdaniel targetedantenatalantidprophylaxisforrhdnegativepregnantwomenasystematicreview