Estimating the serological underrecognition of patients with weak or partial RHD variants

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundFor patients with weak or discrepant RhD RBC phenotypes, RHD genotyping is employed to determine need for RhD‐negative management. However, many RHD variants are type D‐negative or D‐positive. Serological recognition rates (RRs) of weak and partial RHD variants are poorly characterized.Study Design and MethodsFour US studies employing RHD genotyping for weak or discrepant RhD phenotypes provided data for race/ethnicity‐specific serological recognition. Three studies used microplate, and 1 used gel and tube; 2 had anti‐D data. We obtained White and Hispanic/Latino allele frequencies (AFs) of weak D types 1, 2, and 3 single‐nucleotide variants (SNVs) from the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD, v4.0.0) and devised Hardy–Weinberg‐based formulas to correct for gnomAD's overcount of hemizygous RHD SNVs as homozygous. We compiled common partial RHD AF from genotyped cohorts of US Black or sickle cell disease subjects. From variant AF, we calculated hemizygous‐plus‐homozygous genetic prevalences. Serological prevalence: genetic prevalence ratios yielded serological RRs.ResultsOverall RRs of weak D types 1–3 were 17% (95% confidence interval 12%–24%) in Whites and 12% (5%–27%) in Hispanics/Latinos. For eight partial RHD variants in Blacks, overall RR was 11% (8%–14%). However, DAR RR was 80% (38%–156%). Compared to microplate, gel–tube recognition was higher for type 2 and DAU5 and lower for type 4.0. Anti‐D was present in 6% of recognized partial RHD cases, but only in 0.7% of estimated total genetic cases.DiscussionBased on AF, >80% of patients with weak or partial RHD variants were unrecognized serologically. Although overall anti‐D rates were low, better detection of partial RHD variants is desirable.