Effect of high throughput RHD typing of fetal DNA in maternal plasma on use of anti-RhD immunoglobulin in RhD negative pregnant women: prospective feasibility study
BMJ 2008; 336 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39518.463206.25 (Published 10 April 2008) Cite this as: BMJ 2008;336:816
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The recent article by Finning et al1 provides evidence that non-
invasive detection of fetal RHD status can be performed in a high
throughput laboratory with high test sensitivity. The associated
editorial by Kumar2 suggests that universal fetal genotyping of all RHD
negative women is now a logical extension, providing the opportunity to
target routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis (RAADP). This is the main
message which has been picked up in press reports3. However, an
unanswered question which must be addressed now is whether introduction of
such mass testing will be cost-effective and, if so, under what
conditions. The original NICE guidance on RAADP introduction in the UK4
was based on a detailed economic analysis by Chilcott et al5. This
guidance is currently being reviewed, but the introduction of non-invasive
prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) has not yet been specifically addressed.
We represent the socio-economic group of the SAFE Network of
Excellence6 funded by the European Commission to inform the implementation
of a range of NIPD tests. Our group has been exploring the issue of fetal
RHD genotyping at the level of various national RAADP programmes, using
international NIPD test accuracy data7 and cost comparisons, with
sensitivity analyses on pivotal price components. We would caution that,
unlike previous developments in the care of RHD negative women i.e.
introduction of post-delivery anti-D prophylaxis based on cord blood
testing, antenatal prophylaxis for ‘high risk’ events such as spontaneous
miscarriage and amniocentesis/ CVS, and most recently routine antenatal
prophylaxis for all RHD negative women, the advantages of NIPD from the
clinical and economic perspective are currently unclear.
In particular, we have identified the following as important
questions which will need to be addressed prior to implementation. First,
is there a demonstrable clinical advantage of NIPD-based mass testing
since the current situation in terms of preventing sensitisations
(alloimmunisations) and adverse fetal outcomes is close to perfect?
Second, can cost and supply of anti-D alone provide a rationale for NIPD
test introduction, and how should missed cases be taken into account?
Third, can NIPD implementation in reality be viewed as a simple extension
of current RAADP programmes, or even a simple procedural substitution,
with measurable efficiency gain? Finally, although adoption of the
earlier developments listed above has largely been universal in Europe, is
a similar general recommendation on NIPD possible for all population-based
EU prenatal health systems?
Our group is addressing these questions for 3 European countries,
with the aim of providing information to support appropriate
implementation of non-invasive detection of fetal RHD status. Equally
importantly, our future work will help inform the difficult decisions
which policy makers will face through NIPD developments in other areas
such as Downs syndrome testing.
Ala Szczepura, Professor Health Services Research, Clinical Sciences
Institute, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, UK
Gouke Bonsel, Professor Evaluation Health Care, Inst for Health
Management & Policy; Dept Prenatal & Reproductive Care, Erasmus
Medical Center, Rotterdam University, Netherlands
Christian Krauth, Associate Professor Health Economics and Public
Health, Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine & Health System
Research, Hannover Medical School, Germany
Leeza Osipenko, Senior Research Fellow, Clinical Sciences Institute,
Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, UK
Alexander Haverkamp, Research Fellow, Dept. of Transfusion Medicine,
Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany
References
1. Finning K, Martin P, Summers J, Massey E, Poole G, Daniels G.
Effect of high throughput RHD typing of fetal DNA in maternal plasma on
use of anti-RhD immunoglobulin in RhD negative pregnant women: prospective
feasibility study. BMJ 2008; 336: 816-818.
2. Kumar S. Universal RHD genotyping in fetuses. BMJ 2008 336: 783
-784.
3. “Foetal test rules out rhesus jab”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7329108.stm (accessed 13/040/2008)
4. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
2002. Technology appraisal 41: Routine anti-D prophylaxis for pregnant
women who are RhD negative.
Available online at [http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=31679].
5. Chilcott J, Tappenden P, Jones ML, et al. The economics of
routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for pregnant women who are rhesus
negative. BJOG 2004; 111: 903-907.
6. Lyn S. Chitty, C. Ellen van der Schoot, Sinuhe Hahn, Neil D.
Avent SAFE - The Special Non-invasive Advances in Fetal and Neonatal
Evaluation Network: aims and achievements. Prenatal Diagnosis.2008; 28
(2): 83 - 88
7. Geifman-Holtzman O, Grotegut CA, Gaughan JP. Diagnostic accuracy
of noninvasive fetal Rh genotyping from maternal blood--a meta-analysis.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195(4): 1163-73.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Universal Fetal RHD Genotyping of RhD-negative Pregnancies – How Cost Effective?
In response to the letter by Szczepura et al. we wish to emphasise
that our paper [1] on a high-throughput non-invasive test for predicting
fetal RhD phenotype in RhD-negative pregnant women was scientific and made
no claims about the economic benefit of introducing the technology.
Szczepura et al. have posed a number of questions which we feel we should
attempt to answer, at least in part.
First, is there a demonstrable clinical advantage of non-invasive
fetal diagnosis (NIPD)-based mass testing since the current situation in
terms of preventing sensitisations and adverse fetal outcomes is close to
perfect? The intention of our paper was not to suggest a means of reducing
the rate of alloimmunisation; it was to provide an alternative methodology
to achieving a similar high standard of care, and in doing so reducing
exposure to blood products. Although the risk of transmitting infection
through 'contaminated' blood products is very small indeed, it cannot be
ignored, particularly when the recipient is a pregnant woman and not a
hospital patient. Blood services world-wide are spending ever larger sums
of money in order to ensure the safety of the blood supply. We suggest a
way of significantly reducing the quantity of blood products given
routinely to pregnant women.
Second, can cost and supply of anti-RhD immunoglobulin alone provide
a rationale for introduction of an NIPD screening test, and how should
missed cases be taken into account? Cost and supply of anti-RhD alone at
the moment might not provide a rationale, as supply is currently stable
and the economic evaluation has not been undertaken (at least by us). As
the rate of alloimmunisation to RhD falls and the costs of regulation
increase, the costs of the product are also likely to increase. By 'missed
cases' does Szczepura et al. mean false negatives? In our paper, the level
of false negatives was very low and may have been much lower if all
samples had been referred for analysis promptly. None of the three false-
negative samples in our study would have been accepted under diagnostic
conditions. We acknowledge that false negatives will probably occur at
some point, but the largest improvement in the use of antenatal
prophylaxis might come from a better management of the administration
programme. In two hospitals in the UK, only about 86% of pregnant RhD-
negative women received the recommended two doses of anti-RhD
immunoglobulin [2]. It is likely that by knowing the fetal RhD type,
mothers and midwifes will be more motivated to ensure compliance.
Third, can NIPD implementation in reality be viewed as a simple
extension of current routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis (RAADP)
programmes, or even a simple procedural substitution, with measurable
efficiency gain? We have not proposed how the current RAADP programme
would need to be changed or extended to facilitate the introduction of the
mass screening test. We are currently evaluating the gestational age range
at which a sample can be taken and give a reliable result in the test.
There may well need to be a change in practice for taking prenatal
samples.
Finally, although adoption of the earlier developments listed above
has largely been universal in Europe, is a similar general recommendation
on NIPD possible for all population-based EU prenatal health systems? We
do not know the answer to this question, but would observe that the
standard of healthcare varies significantly across Europe. It is likely
that those countries that currently enjoy a high standard of care would be
able to introduce this method within existing healthcare pathway systems.
We look forward to seeing publications from the socio-economic group
of the SAFE Network of Excellence on the economic perspectives of NIPD-
based screening of fetal RhD type in RhD-negative pregnant women.
References
1. Finning K, Martin P, Summers J, Massey E, Poole G, Daniels G.
Effect of high throughput RHD typing of fetal DNA in maternal plasma on
use of anti-RhD immunoglobulin in RhD negative pregnant women: prospective
feasibility study. Brit Med J 2008;336:816-818.
2. Chaffe B, Ford J, Bills V. Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis
and patient compliance with the two-dose regimen. Transfus Med 2007;17:399
-403.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests