PubMed · 15394837
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
MONTANDON. 1949-11-25. Multiple lung abscesses.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15394837/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The severity of hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN) due to Diego(b) (Di(b)) mismatch ranges from no symptoms to severe jaundice that requires exchange transfusion (ET). The clinical significance of anti-Di(b) is incompletely recognized. CASE REPORT: A male newborn, referred with jaundice, was revealed to have HDN due to Di(b) mismatch and was treated successfully with phototherapy and high-dose intravenous gamma globulin (IVGG). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The literature of HDN caused by Di(b) mismatch was reviewed. The cases were classified into three groups according to their severity: the mildest needed no therapy (NO), the moderate group received phototherapy alone (PHOTO), and the most severe was treated with ET and/or high-dose IVGG therapy plus phototherapy (ET/IVGG). RESULTS: Among 27 cases of HDN due to Di(b) reported to date, 10, 6, and 11 cases required NO, PHOTO, and ET/IVGG, respectively. A significant correlation (p < 0.01) was found between the maternal anti-Di(b) titer and the severity of the disease when the ET/IVGG group was compared with the NO group. All mothers of the group that needed ET/IVGG had an anti-Di(b) titer of 64 or greater. CONCLUSION: A maternal high titer (> or =64) of anti-Di(b) is associated with a higher risk of severe hyperbilirubinemia for mismatched newborns.
Anti-D prophylaxis should be proposed to all RhD negative non-sensitized pregnant women, after delivering an information concerning both Rhesus disease and anti-D immunoglobulins. This information must be delivered as a written document and the patient's oral consent is required before administration of the anti-D immunoglobulins. Anti-D immunoglobulins currently used in France for prophylaxis are extracted from plasma of hyperimmunized paid donors. Even if all the conditions of viral safety are fulfilled in the preparation of anti-D immunoglobulins, they remain blood derived products. As such, prescription of anti-D immunoglobulins should follow legal rules concerning tracability and information. Refusal of rhesus prophylaxis can occur but should be transcribed and motivated in the patient's chart. Administration of anti-D immunoglobulins is usually well tolerated. Reactions to hemolysis of fetal Rhesus positive red cells can occur but remain rare and linked to important foeto-maternal hemorrhage. They can be easily prevented or treated by anti-inflammatory drugs. Patients can be vaccinated against rubella in the post-partum period even though they will receive a concomitant prophylaxis with Rh immunoglobulin. Persistence of passive anti-D in maternal circulation after injection lasts several weeks or months and could have various consequences. In the mother: it can interfere with diagnosis of active anti-D immunization. In most cases, it may be possible to differentiate passive and immune anti-D. When reliable information concerning date and dosage of antenatal anti-D prophylaxis are available. In the newborn: anti-D immunoglobulins can pass through the placenta and enter the fetal circulation, coat the D positive fetal red cells and give positive DAT. Positive DAT is reported in 5 to 15% of the newborns following rhesus prophylaxis in the third trimester but with no report of anemia or jaundice. In absence of ABO incompatibility, no additional investigation is needed in these newborns.
At present, rhesus prophylaxis concerns RhD negative pregnant women, even though 30 to 40% of them are bearing a RhD negative child. Knowing the RhD fetal genotype could change this quite irrational practice of prophylaxis (exposing many more women than needed to blood derived products) without reducing its efficacy. RhD fetal genotype determined on amniotic fluid has an excellent sensitivity. Presence of silent D genes slightly impairs its specificity which remains acceptable. However women have to be informed of possible false positives. Fetal RhD genotyping on maternal blood is more complex. Sensitivity is good from 10 GW and excellent after 15 GW. In case of a first negative result, it is recommended to control fetal RhD on a second sample drawn a few weeks later. Another new perspective for rhesus prophylaxis is the attempt to substitute polyclonal IgG anti-D into human monoclonal IgG anti-D. The main difficulty is to elaborate monoclonal antibodies with a capacity to neutralize RhD positive red blood cells equivalent to those of polyclonal anti-D. A new generation of antibodies is in process and preliminary clinical results are suggesting a possible use of these monoclonal antibodies for future rhesus prophylaxis but long-term follow-up is required to draw further conclusions.