RHD genotyping to resolve weak and discrepant RhD patient phenotypes

BACKGROUND: We instituted RHD genotyping in our transfusion service for obstetrical patients and transfusion candidates. We sought to examine how RHD genotyping resolved weak or discrepant automated microplate direct agglutination (MDA) RhD phenotypings and impacted needs for Rh Immune Globulin (RhIG) and D‐negative RBCs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We investigated RhD phenotypes with equivocal or reagent‐discrepant automated MDA (Immucor, Norcross, GA), weak‐2+ immediate‐spin tube typings, historically discrepant RhD typings, or D+ typings with anti‐D. We performed microarray RHD genotyping (RHD BeadChip, Immucor BioArray Solutions, Warren, NJ). Patients were managed as D+ with weak‐D types 1, 2, and 3, and as D‐negative with all other results. RESULTS: Our weak‐D prevalence was 0.14%. Among 138 patients (73 obstetrics, 65 transfusion candidates), 38% had weak‐D types 1, 2 or 3, 25% weak partial type 4.0, 21% other partial‐D variant alleles, and 15% no variant detected. One novel allele with weak partial type 4.0 variants plus c.150T>C (Val50Val) was discovered. Weak D types 1, 2 or 3 were identified in 66% (48/73) of Whites versus 3% (2/62) of diverse ethnic patients (p < .0001). RHD genotyping changed RhD management in 60 patients (43%) (49 to D+, 11 to D‐negative), resulting in net conservation of D‐negative RBCs (98 avoided, 14 given) and RhIG (8 avoided, 3 given). CONCLUSION: In our patient population, equivocal or reagent‐discrepant MDA RhD phenotypes were highly specific for weak‐D or partial‐D RHD genotypes. Resolution of RHD genotype status reduced our use of D‐negative RBCs and RhIG.