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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |