Prenatal RhD Testing: A Review of Studies Published from 2006 to 2008

Legler, Tobias J.; Müller, S; Haverkamp, Alexander; Grill, Simon; Hahn, Sinuhe

doi:10.1159/000216580

Cited by 43 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 56 publications

(84 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…male female male female ≤ 14 5 1 2 0 2 100 15-28 141 50 40 23 28 100 29-42 7 4 3 0 0 100 Subtotal 55 45 23 30 Total 153 100 (65.4) 53 (34.6) 100 Table 3. Results of fetal RhD status and gender prediction from maternal plasma samples in 153 pregnancies SAFE Network [15,26] and have included a reaction for RHD exon 5 which distinguishes between RHD and RHD in our previously used qPCR protocol; iv) All samples were also tested for the presence of RHD intron 4 in order to confirm the presence of RHD category VI. This approach is suitable for discriminating between the presence of RHD category VI and RHD .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are some recommended manual methods such as the QIAamp DSP Virus Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) when compared to the QIAamp Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen) [15,24] or the recently released commercial QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (Qiagen) [25]. The recommended automated methods for the extraction of cff-DNA are the MagnaPure LC System (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland) and the Magnetic Separation Module 1 (Chemagen, Baesweiler, Germany) [26], which allow high-throughput isolation.…”

Section: Improvements In the Yield Of Fetal Dna From Plasmamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the last 5 years, several large studies have been described for antenatal fetal RHD genotype screening (table 1). Similarly, the SAFE Network has prepared recommendations for routine screening assays: testing the RHD exon 5 (a region which discriminates between RHD and RHD ) and exon 7 is recommended [15,26]. Non-Invasive Determination of Fetal RhD Status 39 volume of the qPCR reactions was 20 μl.…”

Section: Selection Of Appropriate Rhd Regions For Pcrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reliable Determination of Fetal RhD Status by RHD Genotyping from Maternal Plasma

Dovč-Drnovšek

Klemenc

Toplak

et al. 2013

Transfus Med Hemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Immunoprophylaxis with IgG anti-D is a standard prevention of hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. Fetal Rhesus D (RhD) blood group genotyping from maternal plasma of RhD-negative pregnant women allows targeted prophylaxis with IgG anti-D in RhD-positive pregnancies only. We set up a reliable protocol for prenatal RHD genotyping. Methods: 153 pregnant Caucasian RhD-negative women were tested in the 27th week (range 7–38th week) of pregnancy. 18 of them were alloimmunized to the RhD antigen. The fetal RHD genotype was determined based on an automated DNA extraction and real-time polymerase chain reaction method. Intron 4 and exons 5, 7 and 10 of the RHD gene and the SRY gene were targeted. Results: The fetal RhD status and gender was 100% correctly predicted in all 153 pregnancies (55 RhD-positive males, 45 RhD-positive females; 23 RhD-negative males, 30 RhD-negative females). Conclusion: The accuracy and applicability of our protocol for non-invasive fetal RhD determination allows the correct management of RhD-incompatible pregnancies. Our protocol could prevent unnecessary immunoprophylaxis in 53 of 153 cases. We therefore recommend that non-invasive fetal RHD genotyping is introduced as an obligatory part of prenatal screening.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Improvements In the Yield Of Fetal Dna From Plasmamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Selection Of Appropriate Rhd Regions For Pcrmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliable Determination of Fetal RhD Status by RHD Genotyping from Maternal Plasma

Dovč-Drnovšek

Klemenc

Toplak

et al. 2013

Transfus Med Hemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can prevent pregnant women having an RhD (-) fetus from taking anti-D immunoglobulin unnecessarily. In a meta-analysis of the large-scale studies, it was found that the sensitivity of the test in determining the fetal RhD status was 99.5-99.8% and its specificity 94.0-99.5% [46].…”

Section: Fetal Rhesus D Genotypingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Aneuploidy: A Review of the Literature

Kırbaş¹,

Dağlar²,

Danışman³

2016

Med-Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cell-free fetal DNA from maternal blood is tested for the presence or absence of the RhD gene, and results are used to direct management of the pregnancy. Several studies have confirmed the safety and high diagnostic accuracy of this approach (6)(7)(8)(9)(10). Fetal RhD genotyping was found to be sufficiently accurate to be used from 11 weeks' gestation (3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the management of Rh-Rh incompatibility with noninvasive fetal Rh genotypingfor targeted prophylaxis cost-effective in the Turkish population?

Demirel¹,

Kelekçi²,

Ekmekçi³

et al. 2018

Turk J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess unnecessary immunization rates and compare the cost-effectiveness of targeted prophylaxis with fetal Rh genotyping with that of traditional management of Rh-Rh incompatibility in a virtual economic model. Materials and methods:This retrospective data analysis was conducted at two tertiary centers between 2011 and 2015. The data of 1135 pregnant women were analyzed. The main outcome measure was to determine the unnecessary immunization rate among the whole Rh-Rh incompatibility group. The second outcome measure was to compare the cost-effectiveness of universal immunization with that of targeted prophylaxis with fetal Rh genotyping in a virtual economic model. Results:Average cost per patient was found as $259.20 with universal prophylaxis and the total cost was $177,344, whereas if targeted prophylaxis had been applied to these patients the total cost would have been $263,392 and cost per patient would have been $385. Universal prophylaxis was more cost-effective than targeted prophylaxis in terms of both total cost and cost per patient (P < 0.0001). Conclusion:Unless the cost of noninvasive fetal Rh genotyping is reduced, a universal approach of anti-D immune globulin prophylaxis is more cost-effective than noninvasive determination of fetal Rh genotyping with targeted prophylaxis.

show abstract

Prenatal RhD Testing: A Review of Studies Published from 2006 to 2008

Cited by 43 publications

References 56 publications

Reliable Determination of Fetal RhD Status by <b><i>RHD </i></b>Genotyping from Maternal Plasma

Reliable Determination of Fetal RhD Status by <b><i>RHD </i></b>Genotyping from Maternal Plasma

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Aneuploidy: A Review of the Literature

Is the management of Rh-Rh incompatibility with noninvasive fetal Rh genotypingfor targeted prophylaxis cost-effective in the Turkish population?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About