Search

Objectives: To evaluate the potential of the automated titre score (TS) as an alternative method to continuous flow analysis (CFA) for the prediction of the nature of anti-D in pregnancy., Background: The 2016 revised British Society for Haematology (BSH) antenatal guidelines recommended a measurement of anti-D concentration by CFA to ensure the detection of potential immune anti-D. Due to high referral costs and resource pressures, uptake has been challenging for hospital laboratories. Serious Hazards of transfusion (SHOT) data have previously shown that this has contributed to missed antenatal follow ups for women with immune anti-D and neonates affected by haemolytic disease of the fetus/newborn., Methods/materials: In this multicentre comparative study, samples referred for CFA quantification were also tested by an ORTHO VISION automated anti-D indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) serial dilution and then converted to TS. CFA results and history of anti-D prophylaxis were used to categorise samples as passive or immune, with the aim of determining a potential TS cut-off for CFA referral of at risk patients., Results: Five UK National Health Service (NHS) trusts generated a total of 196 anti-D TS results, of which 128 were classified as passive and 68 as immune. Diagnostic testing of CFA and TS values indicated a TS cut-off of 35 to assist in distinguishing the nature of anti-D. Using this cut-off, 175 (89%) results were correctly assigned into the passive or immune range, giving a specificity of 92.19% and a negative predictive value of 91.47%., Conclusion: TS in conjunction with clinical and anti-D prophylaxis history can be used as a viable and cost-effective alternative to CFA in a hospital laboratory setting., (© 2020 The Authors. Transfusion Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Blood Transfusion Society.)

Objective: To investigate the economics of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis in the prevention of haemolytic disease of the newborn, in support of the NICE appraisals process., Design: Cost effectiveness analysis., Setting: UK NHS., Population/sample: Pregnant women who are RhD-negative., Methods: A model was constructed to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness and cost utility of: (1) offering routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis to all pregnant women who are RhD-negative; (2) offering routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis to RhD-negative primigravidae, compared with conventional management alone. Effectiveness estimates were derived from a meta-analysis of two UK community-based studies. Costs were derived from published sources and NHS product lists. Threshold analysis was conducted to reflect the social value of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis through incorporating valuations of parental grief and fetal/neonatal loss., Main Outcome Measures: Cost per life year gained and cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained., Results: The cost per life year gained is in the range pound 5,000- pound 15,000. The inclusion of long term neurodevelopmental problems results in a cost utility ranging between pound 11,000 and pound 52,000 per QALY gained. Threshold analysis suggests that if fetal loss, parental grief and subsequent high intervention pregnancy are valued at greater than 9 QALYs, the comprehensive policy would be more attractive than the primigravidae policy, assuming a maximum acceptable threshold of pound 30,000 per QALY., Conclusion: Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis provides a cost effective intervention for preventing haemolytic disease of the newborn in the pregnancies of women who are RhD-negative.

This paper estimates the incremental cost-effectiveness of providing antenatal anti-D prophylaxis in varying dose sizes to either primigravidae or all Rh D negative women. It presents a model for calculating the net cost per 1000 'at risk' women based on the costs of anti-D prophylaxis and the future NHS costs avoided. Incremental cost-effectiveness is measured in terms of the net cost per Rh D-alloimmunization and the net cost per Rh HD loss prevented. Programmes for Rh D negative primigravidae are more cost-effective than the same dose protocol extended to all Rh D negative women. The 1 x 1250 iu programme is the most cost-effective option.