Exploring Alternative Options for Anti-D Prophylaxis

This dissertation explores alternative options for Anti-D Prophylaxis and evaluates their reliability and sensitivity in UK populations. It examines the statistics of rhesus negative women in the UK and the risk of alloimmunisation. The aim is to find out if there are alternatives to routine administration of Anti-D Prophylaxis and assess their effectiveness.

Running head: DISSERTATION
An exploration of the alternatives options around routine administration of antenatal Anti-
D prophylaxis
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note:
Submission Date:

1DISSERTATION
Acknowledgement
I want to offer the deepest appreciation to Professor ________________, who has the attitude
and essence of a genius: a spirit of Adventure in research and scholarship and an excitement in
the fields of teaching have been constantly and persuasively conveyed. This thesis would not
have been feasible without his/ her guidance and constant support.
I wish to thank my employees, Professor __________ and Professor _________, whose job has
shown me that worldwide affairs backed by comparative literature and contemporary technology
are always supposed to transcend universities and make our search for our times.
I want to give thanks to my loved ones, my family and friends who helped me greatly finalize the
project within a restricted time frame and who supported me throughout the entire process. For
your love, I will always be thankful.
Sincerely,
Student’s Name

2DISSERTATION
Abstract
In the child born to RHD-negative blood group women with postnatal and prenatal anti-D
prophylaxis, drastically decreased maternal sensitisations and rhesus has been noticed. Recent
science suggests that non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD), based on the presence of cell-free,
foetal diagnosed DNA, can be used to tackle at risk pregnancies of the foetus in maternal plasma.
To evaluate the foetal HRT genotype's cost-effectiveness in guiding antenatal anti-D-
immunoglobulin prophylaxis (RAADP) as compared to high-throughput, non- invasive prenatal
clinical trials (HT-NIPT).The aim of the study is to explore alternative options around Anti - D
Prophylaxis. Additionally, to find out the reliability and sensitivity and generalisability of thus
found alternatives in UK populations. As a study design for this study, rapid evidence assessment
was used. Two databases containing important phrases for this inquiry were used to conduct the
electronic searches. The identified publication of studies was screened, quality-assessed and
relevant information were collected for assessment according to the inclusion criteria taken or
this study. There has been no main research for this research and only secondary research for this
study has been undertaken. No ethical consideration for this research was therefore needed. For
foetal RhD status detection in RhD - negative females, HT- NIPT is extremely precise. Using
HT-NIPT, unnecessary exposure for anti-D prophylactic immunoglobulin therapy can be mainly
removed, without changing sensitivity rates significantly. At present, NIPD tests against anti-D
prophylaxis in England and Wales are unlikely to be adequately economically efficient. Only
small savings are computed and the projected rise in maternal sensitisations cannot be acceptably
large in order to counteract this situation. In separate ethnic minority communities, the reliability
of NIPD assays still requires to be rigorously proven.
Table of Contents

3DISSERTATION
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................4
2. Rationale behind the topic selection............................................................................................7
3. Aims and Objectives....................................................................................................................8
4. Research Methodology................................................................................................................8
4.1 Study Design..........................................................................................................................8
4.2 Search Strategy......................................................................................................................9
4.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria...........................................................................................10
4.4 Ethical consideration...........................................................................................................11
5. Discussion of Literatures...........................................................................................................11
Clausen et al. 2012.....................................................................................................................11
Saramago et al. 2018..................................................................................................................13
Szczepura, Osipenko and Freeman 2011...................................................................................15
Banch Clausen et al. 2014.........................................................................................................16
Davies et al. 2011......................................................................................................................18
Tiblad et al. 2013.......................................................................................................................19
Turner et al. 2012.......................................................................................................................21
6. Conclusion.................................................................................................................................23
7. Limitation..................................................................................................................................24
8. References..................................................................................................................................25

4DISSERTATION
1. Introduction
Rhesus D (RhD) is negative in approximately 15 per cent of females born in England and Wales.
A foetus may have RhD - positive blood type inherited from an RhD-positive dad. When foetal
RhD-positive cells enter a mother who has RhD - negative circulation, it can become sensitized
and generate antibodies to the RhD - antigen. Sensitization could lead to foetal and baby
haemolytic diseases that can lead to foetal illness or death. The prevalence of RHD sensitization
has decreased from 16 per cent to roughly 0.2 per cent following routine antenatal administering
anti-D immunoglobulin to all insensitive RhD - negative females (Kent, Farrell and Soothill
2014). An RhD negative foetus is not necessary for the treatment with regular Anti-D
immunoglobulin. There have been challenged the possible hazards and morality of the
combination of various donor blood products as unnecessary therapy of healthy pregnant
females. The development of non – invasive prenatal (HT-NIPT) high-throughput tests enables
an assessment of the foetal RhD status and targeted anti-D immunoglobulin policies (Crowther,
Middleton and McBain 2013). While some trials treat inconclusively testing outcomes as
positive (i.e. when no DNA was found), the test findings may be positive, negative, or
inconsistent. Women whose RhD - negative foetus is identified can prevent unnecessary
prophylactic therapy and the potential for sensitisation (PSE), and serological cord or foetal-
mother haemorrhage tests at birth may no longer be necessary. However, the risk of sensitisation
may be increased by the potential for false negative outcomes. In RhD-negative females who
have not been sensitized to UK the cost-effectiveness of HT-NIPT for foetal RhD is unsure. In
the absence of routine, antenatal anti-D prophylactic immunoglobulin, studies reported that HT-
NIPT was cost saving for the genotype of foetal RhD. Another three of those reports indicated

5DISSERTATION
that HT-NIPT for foetal RhD was not cost-effective and economically beneficial. The studies did
not cover PSE costs and did not take account of the impact of HTNIPT on foetal RHD (Chitty et
al. 2014). There stay uncertainties as to whether the health advantages and cost savings resulting
from preventing inappropriate use of blood products might outweigh the extra costs of bringing
HT-NIPT into the care system and the health lost by enhanced sensitised. The mom with rhesus
(RhD) adverse blood group and RhD positive foetus, possibly exposure to sensitisation and
future babies, may have haemolytic foetus and new babies, in white-Caucasian communities
about 10 percent of the pregnancy approximately. Anti-D (anti – D IgG) prophylaxis can be used
to avoid and sensitize women who produce foetal RhD-positive antibodies against blood cells.
After marriage, a blood cord serology test to define the baby's status was launched in the 1960's.
This reduces maternal sensitised and baby rhesus instances dramatically (Crowther, Middleton
and McBain 2013). Foetal RHD blood group non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) is based on
the existence of foetal cell-free DNA in maternal plasma. Foetal RHD genotyping of this
material could allow antenatal prophylaxis to reduce anti-D expenses in the 60 percent of RhD
favourable foetal pregnancies. NIPD precision tests were recorded in the range 94.8 per cent to
100 per cent, although trials demonstrate some weaknesses. RhD NIPD is now being tested
annually in approximately 250 - 300 sensitized females in England and Wales. In these cases, the
clinical advantage of the NIPD test is to avoid an invasive procedure, for example amniocentesis
and its associated foetal loss risk (De Haas et al. 2016). A broader implementation of NIPD
testing for remaining non sensitised pregnancies has been lately suggested by several writers,
suggesting costs saving. This would extend testing to a substantially bigger population. Roughly
16 per cent of white female population is negative; RHD is smaller among other ethnic groups;
South Asians (5.5 per cent - 10.9 per cent), West Africans (5 per cent), Chinese (< 1 per cent) are

6DISSERTATION
negative. Extension of NIPD testing to this wider population (about 93, 000 pregnancies per year
in England and Wales are not possible with the low performance and labour intensive procedures
employed to test sensitized female samples (Szczepura, Osipenko and Freeman 2011). Universal
D - pregnant females are provided antenatal RHIG, which is useless to D-females with a D -
foetus in accordance with present routine antenatal anti - d prophylaxis (RAADP). This happens
in about 40 per cent of European pregnancies. Unlike practices in North America, Canada,
Australia, and many Europeans, before 2010, females were standard treated with prenatal and
postnatal anti-D antibodies only (Szczepura, Osipenko and Freeman 2011). The practice that was
established was deemed satisfactory. However, there were several global papers which showed
an optimization opportunity, and the Danish National Health Board launched a thorough
overhaul of the antenatal care of Dwomen. Based on the identification of cell-free foetal DNA
circulating in maternal plasma, the detection of the RHD gene is used to detect non-invasive
foetal RhD type prevision. D-females with D+ foetus can thus be identified and those females
can only be included in the RAADP programme. Throughout the last century, unnecessary
therapy with expensive RhIG is prevented (Haimila et al. 2017 False negative results were
generally due to low fetal DNA levels in motherly plasma for fetal RHD detection, while false
positives were mainly due to pseudo-genes or variant genes not producing depitopes in a clinical
trial (Kent, Farrell and Soothill 2014) program. The principal goals of the program are to avoid
false negative findings, given the risk of immune for women with undetected D+ fetuses. A
national RAADP program was introduced in Denmark in January 2010. This is the transition
from the first post-natal RhD prophylaxis (one dose of Rhig 250 to 300 mg) to a mixture of anti-
atomic and postnatal RHD prophylaxis (Szczepura, Osipenko and Freeman 2011). The
significant cause of haemolytic fetum and new-born illness (HDFN), which is characterized by

7DISSERTATION
foetal anaemia, foetal hydrops, jaundice, kernicter and intrauterine death, is pregnancy-linked
immunization of the red blood cell D antigen. Postnatal Rh Immune Globulin (RHGI) therapy
has avoided maternal immunization with excellent effectiveness since the early 1960s and
decreased HDFN incidence in D-females with D+ foetuses (Pilgrim, Lloyd-Jones and Rees
2009). The threat of immunization from postnatal RhD prophylaxis decreased from 16 per cent
to 2 per cent. The mixture of RhD prophylaxis in antenatal and post-natal cases was then
recorded in the early 1970s to decrease the vaccine threat further.
2. Rationale behind the topic selection
During clinical placement, it has been reported that admitted pregnant women with rhesus
negative in around 15 per cent of cases. These women routinely are given RAADP which the
women reports of being painful, stressful and some women finds it as unnecessary interventions.
Therefore, it will be interesting into investigating RAADP whether it is really necessary to
routinely administer Anti-D Prophylaxis or are there any alternatives to RAADP. Furthermore, it
will also be interesting to know whether the extra cost for NHS used for RAADP could
potentially be minimised and used to others aspects of health.
Carrying out this piece of work will help in clinical practice in following ways:
It will help to understand the physiology behind sensitisation and allo - immunisation. This will
enable to explain to the targeted women on the risk of sensitisation. Similarly, this will help to
broaden to knowledge on patho - physiology of Haemolytic Disease of the Foetus and Newborn
(HDFN) and its consequences. This will enable to counsel the women on the potential risk of
sensitisation and allo - immunisation.

8DISSERTATION
Furthermore, it will help to analyse if there is any ethical issues on RAADP which could
potentially be minimised and prevented. Additionally, it will help to find if any alternatives
available to RAADP and its reliability and generalisability to the UK population. Likewise,
through this piece of work, a better understanding of the proportion of women with rhesus
negative will be understood.
3. Aims and Objectives
The aim of the study is to explore alternative options around Anti-D Prophylaxis. Additionally,
to find out the reliability and sensitivity and generalisability of thus found alternatives in UK
populations.
The objectives of this research investigation are:
 To find out the statistics of rhesus negative women in UK and the risk of allo-
immunisation.
 To find out the reason behind the routine practise of anti-D prophylaxis and its associated
cons and pros.
4. Research Methodology
4.1 Study Design
Rapid evidence assessment or REA is a good way to analyze and evaluate current studies over a
short period of time. The researcher can provide a critical overview of the study subject based on
proof and discover the research gap between the current study publishing (Haby et al. 2016).
Rapid evidence assessment also enables the researcher, within a very brief space of time such as

9DISSERTATION
2–3 months, to discover, assess, collect and summarize information on a specific study subject.
In particular in the healthcare field (Haby et al. 2016) this implementation and application of
evidence-based technique is efficient. The discussion mentioned above shows that the Rapid
evidence assessment can be utilized effectively in a short time frame for collecting, analysing
and investigating high - quality research publication in line with the time frame of this study. For
this research study, Rapid evidence assessment will therefore be used as a study design.
But the design of the Rapid evidence assessment study has certain limitations. The publication
bias (Ganenn, Ciliska and Thomas 2010) can decrease the confidence in the results of the study
design. Due to its short timeframe, the study is less rigorous and excludes the area of dissertation
or unpublished research than a systematic evaluation. But if the Rapid evidence assessment study
design is subject to rigorous exclusion and inclusion criteria, it will be less likely to be
publishing bias.
4.2 Search Strategy
This section of the research proposal provides a short concept of the exact measures taken to
complete the research survey efficiently. Step by step, a search method is used to generate the
necessary results for the accurate activities carried out in the specific sequence. In this particular
study, the chosen method of studies was the systematic assessment (Silverman 2016). In this
scenario, research in detail has been done on the academic databases of medical and therapeutic
or clinical studies. For the purpose of carrying out this piece of work, university library have
been used which helped to find the articles on related topics. Furthermore, search engine like
science direct, CINAHL, British Nursing Database, Maternity and Infant Care, Google Scholar
have been to find the relevant articles on my topics. More importantly, keywords like RAADP,
midwifery, midwife, HT-NIPT were used for advanced searching. Following these, number of

10DISSERTATION
articles have been extracted which were then critically analyse and see for its relevancy into
today’s midwifery practice and if there is any scope of alternatives in the near future. Similarly,
the guidelines accepted nationally and internationally such as NICE, RCOG and WHO was also
used as a reference for better understanding of the topics and if there is any scope with further
research into the topics. The surveys were thoroughly and critically analyzed using the inclusion
and exclusion criteria. The study documents released after 2014 were edited, assessed by peer
reviewers and selected for human subject research, in English, for this study. The priority has
been given to all study plans and evidence summaries through journals which have continuously
improved available proof. Prior to 2010, published scientific studies, written in languages other
than English, were not reviewed by peers, and were omitted from present clinical research on
subjects other than persons (Flick 2018). In this particular research, science materials includes
not only in the evaluation but also in the Systems Evaluation or the Synthesis of Evidence as a
principal format for the analysis of proof or systemic research.
4.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Qualitative studies have been considered gold standards in academic health studies, as the results
of which can be generalized between populations by this type of study (Bettany- Saltikov et al.
2012). Therefore, this type of study, which specifically report in the area of practice formulation
during testing and selection of studies, has been particularly focused. For the retrieval of the
research papers used in these research papers, several included criteria have been utilized. In
order to provide up to date information on the research issues, the study must first be published
between 2010 and 2019. Any publications published beyond this range have not been screened
further. The full articles should be provided in the data base to provide the information reported
in that survey for the justification of the research question presented in the study, also used as a

11DISSERTATION
criterion for inclusion. In addition, the study was verified that the information depicted in the
study would be available in the English language. The relevance of the information presented in
the journal in relation to the above research question was highlighted during the screening of the
articles. Despite meeting the above inclusion criteria, studies which did not provide data relevant
to the research question were excluded from this study. Further, all papers must be published in
a journal reviewed by peers; the research has not otherwise been chosen. In summary,
seven papers that met all the requirements and related to the study issues have been chosen.
4.4 Ethical consideration
The design of this project is Rapid Evidence Assessment and there has been no primary research.
This study was performed only in secondary research. Consequently, for this research no ethical
consideration was needed exclusively.
5. Discussion of Literatures
Clausen et al. 2012
A mixture of RhD prophylaxis in the pregnancy and postnatal is more efficient than RhD
prophylaxis alone in the postnatal pregnancy. On the basis of the antenatal screening results for
the fetal RHM gene only those D-females with a D+ fetus are administered antenatal RhD
prophecy in Denmark. The first domestic clinical implementation of antenatal RHD screening
has been assessed. At Gestational Week 25, blood samples were collected from D-females, in
each of the five Danish health fields. For the presence of the RHD gene, the mother's plasma
extraction of DNA and a real-time polymerase chain reaction was examined. In 2312
pregnancies, the first 6 months of routine evaluation were compared with Foetal RhD predictions
with serology newborn types. The sensitivity was 99.9 percent when detecting foetal RHD. The

12DISSERTATION
precision was 96.5%. In 862 instances (37.3 per cent), 89 females (1.7 per cent) were properly
prevented advice for unnecessary RHD prevention for females with D-foetus, and 39 females
(1.7 per cent) for antibiotic RHD prophylaxis were inappropriately suggested.
No detection and no antenatal RHIG was performed of two foetuses of RHD+ (0,087 percent).
Following regular antenatal RHD screening, 862 (37.3 percent) instances were prevented from
having an inappropriate suggestion for antenatal RHD prevention. For just 39 females (1.7%),
antenatal RhD prophylaxis is unnecessary. A D+ foetus was not identified and antenatal RhIG
was not provided in two (0.087 percent) pregnancies; however, the females were receiving
postnatal RhIG. Furthermore, six (0.26%) falsely positive results and 74 (3.2%) falsely
concluded outcomes were achieved. The female was advised to obtain RHD prophylaxis in
antenatal conditions for each of the inconclusive samples. The results of this research indicate
the precise antenatal RHD testing in the maternal plasma samples performed during Gestational
Week 25 based on fetal DNA identification. The data was obtained from five distinct
laboratories representing Denmark's five health regions. The tests were satisfactory in all fields
to demonstrate that different tests for different RHD exons were efficiently introduced. In view
of the decentralized framework of the Danish health regions, the details of the tests were subject
to the choice of each region. Separate options are therefore used in some fields. For antenatal
genotyping, a guided administration of anti-D should be introduced, avoiding unnecessary use
and exposure to RAADP. The key aim is to ensure maximum sensitivity to prevent unrecognized
RHD+ foetus. To this end, it is even possible to have a reduced specificity which in a few
instances results in unnecessary anti-D administration. Our group awareness was 99.9 per cent.
In total, 37.3% of females were properly encouraged to not receive antenatal RhD prophylaxis
compared with a Standard RAADP, where every D-female receives antenatal RhD prophylaxis.

13DISSERTATION
Their research suggested that only 1.7% of the females receive RAADP inadequately. The
authors support the continuation, in spite of high delicacy, of the serologic cord blood typeing for
neonates at least for women with an antenatal RHD test. This is primarily due to the concern that
the lack of participation in the HRD screening program may lead to the lack of post-natal
serological anti-D if it is also terminated. In short, in order to predict fetal RHD with high
precision outcomes, non-invasive antenatal screening can be carried out during Gestational Week
25 with a higher sensitivity in maternal plasma. This research excluded 37.3 per cent of the D-
females from an unnecessary antenatal RhD prophylaxis suggestion, thus avoiding unnecessary
therapy and expensive use of the RhIG.
Saramago et al. 2018
In order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of high-performance, non-invasive prenatal test (HT-
NIPT) for the fetal Rhesus D (RhD) genotype in anti-D immunoglobulin antenatal prophylaxis in
comparison with routine RAADP. 100 000 RhD-negative females not known to be RhD-antigen-
sensitized in their simulated population. The antenatal pathway in England and the long-term
effects of sensitisation were characterized by a model decision tree. A systematic review and
bivariate meta-analysis resulted in the diagnostic accuracy of the HT-NIPT, while estimates of
other outputs were based on appropriate literature sources and databases. Women with a
favorable or inconclusive HT-NIPT continued receiving RAADP, while females with a adverse
outcome did not receive RAADP. Five alternative approaches have been regarded in which the
use of HT-NIPT can influence current postpartum care. The findings suggest that, regardless of
the assessed postpartum approach, HT-NIPT is cost-saving but also not as efficient. A post-
partum strategy that distinguishes the highest inconclusive test outcomes from the highest
outcomes. Only when overall test costs are £ 26.60 or less is HT-NIPT cost-effective. With a

14DISSERTATION
HT-NIPT negative result, the FMH, HT-NIPT PP2, HT-NIPT PP4 and HT-NIPT PP4 test have
lower QALY than' No test and RAADP,' HT-NIPT PP1, HTNIPT PP3 and HT-NIPT PP5,
respectively. In addition to this, the HT-NIPT results are lower. Although the avoidance of
serology and anti-D immunoglobulin in postpartum cords can lead to additional cost savings,
most sensitisation occurs and can be avoided with the administration of anti-D immunoglobulin.
Fake positive results (there are tiny numbers of false positives and the proportionate numbers of
females carrying RhD negative children who have inconclusive outcomes) and false negative
results will be identified in blood cable serology for all females, as is the case with HT-NIPT PP
1. The extra cord serology studies have resulted in greater expenses for HT-NIPT PP1, but these
cost savings are somewhat compensated by avoiding fake negatively sensitization. Because the
model does not assume any negative health advantages from unnecessary immunoglobulin use,
HT-NIPT PP5 and HT-NIPT PP3 have the same QALY benefit. Due to the use of FMH on false
positives, HT-NIPT PP3 is more expensive than HT-NIPT PP5, and HT-NIPT PP5 is dominated.
The possible clinical effect of HT-NIPT on treatment is still uncertain due to the restricted proof.
No reports of benchmarking results related to patients, such as health quality of life, were
recognized. It remains uncertain whether the diagnostic performance of HT-NIPT varies among
various ethnic groups. Proof of HT-NIPT diagnostic exactness in non-White ethnic females will
be required for the preparation of big forward-looking cohort studies gathering diagnostic
accuracy information. This is particularly serious since non-white females may have
inconclusive test outcomes more probably. Because of the absence of proof on the basis of the
United Kingdom, the overall compliance levels of research in the UK are still unsure. Keeping
immunoglobulin prophylaxis compatible with anti-D, efficient sample transportation

15DISSERTATION
management and increased understanding of HT-NIPT among pharmacists, sweet females and
pregnant females are key problems in the application.
Szczepura, Osipenko and Freeman 2011
In children born to females with RhD adverse blood groups, post -natal and anti -D prophylaxis
have dramatically decreased maternal and rhesus diseases. Recent scientific progress has led to
the possibility of a non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) which can be applied to "at risk"
pregnancies in which the foetus is positive for RhD in maternally plasma, depending on the
existence of cell-free foetal DNA. The first evaluation of the economic efficiency of NIPP-
compared to present policies is provided in this article. In England and Wales, the writers carried
out a business analysis of the application of NIPD. Two scenarios have been taken into account.
Scenario 1 assumes that antenatal prophylaxis is only targeted with a serology test which
continued direct prophylaxis post-providing. In scenario 2, if an RhD adverse foetus was found,
NIPD would also post-natal serology tests move. Costs for both situations, along with a royalty
limit per test, were evaluated from the view of the provider. Incremental expenses have been
likened to clinical consequences. The basic price of a home test NIPD is £ 16.25 (excluding
royalty) per sample. An annual cost of NHS £ 3.37 million is estimated for the two-dose
antenatal prophylaxis strategy suggested by NICE. For the scenarios 1 and 2, respectively, the
estimated threshold royalties are £ 2.18, and £ 8.83. For scenario 1 and £ 507,154 per year for
scenario 2 mass NIPD testing would not save at a royalty fee of £ 2.00An economic efficiency
test shows that Scenario 2 NIPD testing will create additional sensitization at 99,7 percent and
this royalty fee for every saved £ 9,190. If domestic policy has been followed and lately
suggested by NICE in respect of a single-dose prophylaxis. In this paper, the cost analysis shows
that the Net Financial Vorteile of the Mass NIPD Tests as a supplement to the internal tests is net

16DISSERTATION
in England and Wales. The amount of royalty fees will have a significant effect with zero
savings predicted above £ 2.18 each test. Higher net saving could be achieved and the royalty fee
could be increased to almost £ 9 per test before these would disappear if antenatal NIPD were
also to replace postnatal trials. In both application scenarios, the use of a commercial kit like this
one presently on the European market would make NIPD more costly. Moreover, only the
Second Scenario (displacing post-natal testing) would save the net if single-dose prophylaxis,
now suggested by NICE to be equal in effect. They are also analyzing the unlikely outcome of
significant clinical advantages for NIPD application. There will be no noticeable drop in
sensitivity and indeed an increase if the sensitivity to NIPD tests is below 99.9 percent. This
particularly applies to the scenarios in which postnatal blood cord serology is removed so that
net cost savings are maximized. It is hard to argue, based on their results, that targeted antenatal
prophylaxis by NIPD will be cost-effective enough to warrant its wide implementation. At the
cost of further sensitization, increased savings are expected. Every additional sensitization saved
at a maximum of £ 9,190 is much lower than £ 1,903–£ 17,668 considered to be acceptable to
prevent awareness by NICE.
Banch Clausen et al. 2014
The risk of RhD immunisations in RhD negative women's pregnancies is reduced by pregnancy
and post-natal RhD prophylaxis. The prenatal RhD prophylaxis is aimed at RhD-negative
females carrying a RhD-positive foetus based on the prenatal screening for the foetal RHD gene
in Denmark. The researchers are presenting a 2-year assessment of a prenatal national RHD
screening here. Samples of blood have been taken in gestational week 25 from RhD-negative
females. Maternal plasma obtained and RHD gene analyzed DNA. In 12668 pregnancies,
prenatal outcomes of RHD have been likened to serological types of newborns. 690 pregnancies

17DISSERTATION
were evaluated for early compliance. The sensitivity for foetal HRD detection was 99.9% (CI
95%: 99.7-99.9%). In 97.3% of females carrying RhD negative foetuses, unnecessary
recommendation for prenatal RhD prophylaxis was prevented. Sero-positive foetuses have not
been identified in 11 (0.087 percent) pregnancy cases. 84.2 per cent was used for sample uptake,
and 93.2 per cent for administering prenatal anti-D. Overall, very little FN findings were
reported, in line with findings made in other tests and in other countries with routine prenatal
RHD screening. Depending on the area, the range of outcomes from FN ranged from 0.02–0.21
percent. Others observed 0.1 - 0.2 per cent in comparable GA ranges. An anticipated amount of
RhD variants have led to the unnecessarily suggested amount of instances of prophylaxis by
females. Avoid FN findings, which may result in immunizations, should be the priority, while FP
findings are of lesser clinical importance. As clinical screening is routinely introduced, restricted
funds are accessible for a comprehensive assessment of discrepancies in outcomes or RhD
versions. Consequently, several versions and inconsistent outcomes have not been further
evaluated. Although slightly greater than the proportion of 0.26% acquired from the first 6
months of testing, the proportion of FP outcomes was acceptable at 0.30 percent. The result rate
reduced from 3.2 to 2.2 percent over the two-year study period. This is most probably due to the
absence of certain early caution criteria after the first 6 months, which included addressing
problems with surplus maternal DNA and extended blood transport. Recent study shows that,
even with elevated amounts of maternal DNA, specimens can be carried for up to 5–8 days and
can be easily identified, without compromising foetal RHD detection. Different methodologies
have triggered the regional divergences observed with the FP and INC outcomes in particular. In
addition, procedural conditions may be more susceptible to mistake than prenatal genotyping,
although they may differ from nation to state. An extra advantage is that postnatal anti-D can be

18DISSERTATION
administered instantly after birth if guided by foetal RhD genotyping. The cord-blood-type
termination based on conformity and the number of FN results is projected to result in an
extremely limited number of other immunization events over many years, and perhaps with one
severe HDFN scenario in the next 50 or so. The Netherlands found cord blood typing based on
the fact that the FN ratio should be less than 0.25 per cent.
Davies et al. 2011
Current indirect antiglobulin tests (IAT) can detect prophylactic anti-D administered during
pregnancy. The purpose of this research was to determine whether the anti-D detected during
pregnancy is linked to the foetus ' RhD status and/or childbirth period after the normal 28-wound
dose of RAADP (routine anti-D prophylaxis). This research assessed prophylactic anti-D
persistence. In two dose schedules or at a single dose schedule, the study also examined the
detection rate of anti-D. Each IAT screening was performed using fully automated diameter gel
technology. The outcomes of 407 females were included in the two dose regime tests and the one
dose diet trial. At one dose of prophylactic anti-D, 160/407 (39%) women had no detectable anti-
D. 123/157(78%) females had no detectable anti-D at the time of shipment on the single dose
system. There was no connection between detectable anti-D in both the research arm and the
child's RhD status. The detectable anti-D Ig in shipment and length of the pregnancy after 28
weeks of each arm of the research has been strongly combined. Several trials have shown that
RAADP is administered as a single dose of 1500 i.u. For 28 weeks, or as two 500 i.u. doses.
Sensitization rate can be reduced to as low as 0·4% at 28 and 34 weeks. However, the
improvement of prenatal care for pregnant women, in particular a greater understanding of the
importance of treating potentially delicate events, and the use of laboratory research on large
TPHs requiring larger doses of anti-D Ig may have contributed to this reduction. Learn more

19DISSERTATION
about their RhD status and the need for prophylactic anti-D Ig protection during pregnancy
through the use of patient leaflets and internet access to information. The prophylactic anti-D
administered must remain in a big enough dose to cover a minimum of 0·1–0·5ml blood quantity
needed for sensitization in order to ensure protection against TPH's sensitize - related impacts
during pregnancy especially during the last trimester. The evidence from this research indicates
that, given two doses of 500 i.u, up to 39 percent of females. Anti-DIg seems to have no
appropriate coverage in its shipment and at 34 weeks and the distribution of free anti-D Ig in its
plasma, only 33 percent appears to have sufficient coverage. Moreover, 78% of females receive a
1500 i.u. dose. At a later stage of the pregnancy, 28 weeks ago, they had no anti-D Ig detectable
in their Plasma at delivery. This does not conform to the half-life hypothesis of gamma globulin,
which predicts that there should be approximately a 100 i.u. remaining anti-D Ig in the plasma in
the shipment. Their information indicate that neither the two dosage scheme nor the one-dose
scheme seem to cover a big proportion of the females pregnant, particularly where those
pregnancies are more than 12 weeks after main dose administration, appropriate during delivery
and some time before that. Their information shows also that the absence of residual anti-D Ig
during delivery is not linked to child RhD status. In the instruction on NICE, 1000–1650 is also
recommended. Anti-D Ig at 28 and 34 weeks gestation, although comparable trials do not appear
to be available in the case of females in the system, considering the detection level of residual
anti-D Ig.
Tiblad et al. 2013
Only RHD-adverse women who perform RHD positive fetal prophylaxis (RAADP) routine
antenatal can estimate the incidence of RHD vaccines after original trimester non-invasive RHD
fetal examination. The authors present a population based observatory survey with historical

20DISSERTATION
inspections of all maternity and distribution centres in Stockholm, Sweden. All RhD negative
women were screened to foetal RHD genotype during the first trimester of pregnancy. In
pregnancy, intramuscular anti-D immunoglobulins (250-300 mG) were given to 28-30
participants of RHD favorable fetuses. The principal outcome was the incidence of RhD
immunization while or after pregnancy. RHD Negative women born during the 9380 study
period in Stockholm. 8374 pregnancies of non-invasive foetal RHD genotypes using non-cellular
Fetal DNA in maternal plasmas, including RHD-positive (5104 (61%) and RHD-negative (3270
(39%)) were 8374. In 4,590 pregnancies with an RHD positive test, the women received
antenatal anti-D prophylaxis.The prevalence of RhD in the cohort survey was 0.26% (24/9380)
(95%) of CI from 0.15% to 0.36%) compared with 0.46% (86/18546) of RHD (95% CI from
0.37 to 0.56%). The sensitization risk ratio (RR) was 0.55 (95% CI 0.35%-0.87) and a
statistically important risk decrease (p=0.009) was observed. The absolute difference in danger is
0.20%, which corresponds to 500 NNTs. One could have been prevented with prophylaxis in the
two instances in which females had not received antenatal prophylaxis. Anti-D was detectable at
a gestation of 28 weeks in the third female, and the present program would not therefore have
avoided sensitization. Wide fetomaternal haemorrhages that overwhelm the anti-D IgG dose can
lead to prophylactic awareness. A foetal red blood cells analysis in the maternal blood is not
routinely done in Sweden after delivery to assess the size of FMH, but the standard 250–300 mg
dose is not sufficiently protecting for a few women. RHD vaccine risk variables include support
for delivery and caesarea section, post matureness, red blood cell transfusion related to
pregnancies, and younger age, notwithstanding prophylaxis. After 41 weeks of gestation, 3
females immunized in our cohort study, despite RAADP. The impact of the RAADP does not
only depend on the size and the time between administration and delivery of silent FMH during

21DISSERTATION
the third quarter. The writers conducted a community-based survey to assess the results of a fresh
prevention program on a regular basis The goal was to include all RHD negatives in the
population, but recruitment in the first six months of the study period was slow and explained the
difference between the number of RHD negatives who bore during the study period and the
number of female foetal screens. Both women and medical professionals have enhanced the
protocol over time. As there are a number of cases in the cohort study on long-term follow-up
since some women may have been sensitive to delivery, the optimal period for allo-vaccination
assessment in the first quarter of the after-pregnancy may only result in anti-D antibodies. In
future some fresh RhD immunizations can also be found among females with another kid in the
reference cohort. In the reference cohort the prevalence of RhD immunization was 0.46%.
During the five years 2004–2008, the incidence of RhD immunization was 0.7%.
Turner et al. 2012
To estimate the effectiveness and whether this depends on the treatment regimen adopted of
antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for preventive sensitisation in pregnant Rhesus adverse females. A
prior systematic literature search included ten studies recognized. Potential sources of prejudice
have been consistently recognized by means of bias checklists and their effect and insecurity
have been quantified by expert view. The findings of the study were first adapted for bias and
combined into a meta-analysis of random effects and then into a meta- regression assessment of
random effects. The pooled sensitization odds ratio for standard meta-analysis has been
estimated to be 0.25 (95 percent CI 0.18, 0.36) and some heterogeneity (I2 = 19 percent) has
been comparable with routine antenatal D-prophylaxis. This assessment, however, ignores
considerable distinctions in quality and design of the research. The pooled sensitisation chances
were estimated at 0.31 (95% CI 0.17, 0.56) after the adjustment, without proof of heterogeneity

22DISSERTATION
(I2 = 0 percent). A meta- regression analyzes was performed to inform us about the relative
efficacy of three licensed treatments using the data available in the 10 Anti -D prophylactic
studies. This gave 83% chance of the most efficient 1250 IU dosage at 28 and 34 weeks and the
less efficient 1500 IU dose at 28 to 30 weeks, at 76%. There were still no evaluations of two of
the authorized anti-D treatments. The authors anticipated the underlying efficiency probability
ratios for these medicines in a meta-regression assessment if comparable to the control antenatal
care in a subsequent test. This provides useful information on the expected comparative
effectiveness without a head-to-head research comparing straight the three licensed treatments.
Its model had a high probability at 28 and 34 weeks of a dose of 1250 IU with the three licensed
medications and a high probability at 28-30 weeks of the less efficacious dose of 1500 IU. These
results could inform a financial model for evaluating and determining the optimal RAADP dose
system the expected cost efficacy of the three authorized drugs. However, a large randomized
trial comparing the three permitted doses would prove its relative clinical effectiveness and
effectiveness far more efficient. Some females are unwilling to receive blood products and may
have higher reluctance to take more immunoglobulin in a two-dose scheme. In future, a scheme
that reduces the complete amount of plasma administered will be preferable when issues are
found with the disponibility of anti-D immunoglobulin. New technologies under growth may
lead to significant modifications in Rhesus negative women's prenatal care. Through unadjusted
and biased meta-analysis, the subjective views are transparent and accountable. The experts who
quantified partialities were so cautiously chosen to combine their ideas with their understanding
of anti-D prophylaxis (or quantitative expertise on inner prejudices) that no single perspective
could over-exaggerate the final outcomes of the meta analysis.

23DISSERTATION
6. Conclusion
This information are the first show of the reliability of D-pregnant females ' routine antenatal
foetal RHD tests in order for antenatal RHD prophylaxis to be determined. The results should
promote such screening programs globally to decrease unnecessary RhIG use. In contrast to
present practice, HT-NIPT would decrease unnecessary therapy with regular anti-D
immunoglobulins. The magnitude and economic efficiency of any savings is susceptible to
general test costs. Currently it is not likely to be cost-effective enough for NIPD testing for anti-
D Prophylaxis in England and Wales to warrant its broad implementation. Only minor savings
are calculated and the projected rise in female can be unacceptable, balanced against this. In
various ethnic minority communities, reliability of NIPD tests still has to be rigorously proven.
Tests for the first trimester will not substantially change this image, although other new
techniques may be available. The accuracy of routine foetal RHD screening in RhD-negative
females with 25 weeks of gestation is underlined by the elevated sensitivity, preserved over 2
years. The remaining logistical difficulties relate to compliance with the program. The results
indicate that the two dose or the one-dose schedule seem to provide a big proportion of pregnant
females with sufficient coverage at delivery. The length of pregnancy after the 28 week dose
appears to be correlated but not with RhD foetal status. The incidence of fresh RHD
immunization is considerably reduced through a first-trimester non-invasive pre-invasive
antenatal screening for foetal HR to selectively target RHD-negative females with foetal HR
positive. The decrease of danger is similar to the result of non-selective RAADP for all RhD-
negative females in research. There remains an evaluation of the cost efficiency of this focused
strategy. A biased synthesis of all accessible proof offers powerful proof of RAADP's efficacy in
preventing awareness, in support of RAADP policy for all non-sensitive pregnant females who

24DISSERTATION
suffer from Rhesus. Effective RAADP prevention should be anticipated for all three licensed
medicines. The most efficient dose is anticipated at 1250 IU at 28 and 34 weeks and the least
efficacious is anticipated at a single dose of 1500 IU at 28–30 weeks.
7. Limitation
This research have their limitations and some partiality cannot be ignored, although for
enhancing precision the standardized Rapid Evidence Assessment technique has been adopted.
The strict integration conditions of research in western parts of the world published in English
prevented significant research from being performed in other areas, such as sub-Saharan African
or non-English speaking communities. The short timeframe for rapid evidence evaluations can
also lead to the limited assessment of performance. The rapid evidence assessment approach is
not a comprehensive systemic assessment, but rather gives an overview of the alternatives
options around routine administration of antenatal Anti-D prophylaxis.

25DISSERTATION
8. References
Banch Clausen, F., Steffensen, R., Christiansen, M., Rudby, M., Jakobsen, M.A., Jakobsen, T.R.,
Krog, G.R., Madsen, R.D., Nielsen, K.R., Rieneck, K. and Sprogøe, U., 2014. Routine
noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal RHD in plasma of RhD‐negative pregnant women—2
years of screening experience from Denmark. Prenatal diagnosis, 34(10), pp.1000-1005.
Bettany-Saltikov, J., 2012. How to do a systematic literature review in nursing: a step-by-step
guide. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Chitty, L.S., Finning, K., Wade, A., Soothill, P., Martin, B., Oxenford, K., Daniels, G. and
Massey, E., 2014. Diagnostic accuracy of routine antenatal determination of fetal RHD status
across gestation: population based cohort study. Bmj, 349, p.g5243.
Clausen, F.B., Christiansen, M., Steffensen, R., Jørgensen, S., Nielsen, C., Jakobsen, M.A.,
Madsen, R.D., Jensen, K., Krog, G.R., Rieneck, K. and Sprogøe, U., 2012. Report of the first
nationally implemented clinical routine screening for fetal RHD in D− pregnant women to
ascertain the requirement for antenatal RhD prophylaxis. Transfusion, 52(4), pp.752-758.
Crowther, C.A., Middleton, P. and McBain, R.D., 2013. Anti‐D administration in pregnancy for
preventing Rhesus alloimmunisation. Cochrane Database of systematic reviews, (2).
Davies, J., Chant, R., Simpson, S. and Powell, R., 2011. Routine antenatal anti‐D prophylaxis–is
the protection adequate?. Transfusion Medicine, 21(6), pp.421-426.
De Haas, M., Thurik, F.F., Van Der Ploeg, C.P., Veldhuisen, B., Hirschberg, H., Soussan, A.A.,
Woortmeijer, H., Abbink, F., Page-Christiaens, G.C., Scheffer, P.G. and van der Schoot, C.E.,

26DISSERTATION
2016. Sensitivity of fetal RHD screening for safe guidance of targeted anti-D immunoglobulin
prophylaxis: prospective cohort study of a nationwide programme in the Netherlands. bmj, 355,
p.i5789.
Flick, U., 2018. An introduction to qualitative research. Sage Publications Limited.
Ganann, R., Ciliska, D. and Thomas, H., 2010. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and
implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science, 5(1), p.56.
Haby, M.M., Chapman, E., Clark, R., Barreto, J., Reveiz, L. and Lavis, J.N., 2016. What are the
best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision
making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health research policy and systems, 14(1),
p.83.
Haimila, K., Sulin, K., Kuosmanen, M., Sareneva, I., Korhonen, A., Natunen, S., Tuimala, J. and
Sainio, S., 2017. Targeted antenatal anti‐D prophylaxis program for RhD‐negative pregnant
women–outcome of the first two years of a national program in Finland. Acta obstetricia et
gynecologica Scandinavica, 96(10), pp.1228-1233.
Kent, J., Farrell, A.M. and Soothill, P., 2014. Routine administration of Anti-D: the ethical case
for offering pregnant women fetal RHD genotyping and a review of policy and practice. BMC
pregnancy and childbirth, 14(1), p.87.
Pilgrim, H., Lloyd-Jones, M. and Rees, A., 2009. Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhD-
negative women: a systematic review and economic evaluation. In NIHR Health Technology
Assessment programme: Executive Summaries. NIHR Journals Library.

27DISSERTATION
Saramago, P., Yang, H., Llewellyn, A., Walker, R., Harden, M., Palmer, S., Griffin, S. and
Simmonds, M., 2018. High-throughput non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal rhesus D status in
RhD-negative women not known to be sensitised to the RhD antigen: a systematic review and
economic evaluation. Health technology assessment, pp.1-172.
Silverman, D. ed., 2016. Qualitative research. Sage.
Szczepura, A., Osipenko, L. and Freeman, K., 2011. A new fetal RHD genotyping test: costs and
benefits of mass testing to target antenatal anti-D prophylaxis in England and Wales. BMC
pregnancy and childbirth, 11(1), p.5.
Tiblad, E., Wikman, A.T., Ajne, G., Blanck, A., Jansson, Y., Karlsson, A., Nordlander, E.,
Holländer, B.S. and Westgren, M., 2013. Targeted routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis in the
prevention of RhD immunisation-outcome of a new antenatal screening and prevention
program. PLoS One, 8(8), p.e70984.
Turner, R.M., Lloyd-Jones, M., Anumba, D.O., Smith, G.C., Spiegelhalter, D.J., Squires, H.,
Stevens, J.W., Sweeting, M.J., Urbaniak, S.J., Webster, R. and Thompson, S.G., 2012. Routine
antenatal anti-D prophylaxis in women who are Rh (D) negative: meta-analyses adjusted for
differences in study design and quality. PLoS One, 7(2), p.e30711.