High-throughput, non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal rhesus D status in RhD-negative women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Anti-D immunoglobulin
Diagnostic accuracy
Fetal rhesus D status
Non-invasive prenatal testing
Systematic review
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 02 2019
14 02 2019
Historique:
received:
23
11
2017
accepted:
08
01
2019
entrez:
15
2
2019
pubmed:
15
2
2019
medline:
18
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
High-throughput non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal Rhesus D (RhD) status could avoid unnecessary treatment with anti-D immunoglobulin for RhD-negative women found to be carrying an RhD-negative fetus. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of high-throughput NIPT for fetal RhD status in RhD-negative women not known to be sensitized to the RhD antigen, by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prospective cohort studies of high-throughput NIPT used to determine fetal RhD status were included. The eligible population were pregnant women who were RhD negative and not known to be sensitized to RhD antigen. The index test was high-throughput, NIPT cell-free fetal DNA tests of maternal plasma used to determine fetal RhD status. The reference standard considered was serologic cord blood testing at birth. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index were searched up to February 2016. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full texts identified as potentially relevant. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. The bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic (HSROC) models were fitted to calculate summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, false positive and false negative rates, and the associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 3921 references records were identified through electronic searches. Eight studies were included in the systematic review. Six studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. The HSROC models demonstrated high diagnostic performance of high-throughput NIPT testing for women tested at or after 11 weeks gestation. In the primary analysis for diagnostic accuracy, women with an inconclusive test result were treated as having tested positive. The false negative rate (incorrectly classed as RhD negative) was 0.34% (95% CI 0.15 to 0.76) and the false positive rate (incorrectly classed as RhD positive) was 3.86% (95% CI 2.54 to 5.82). There was limited evidence for non-white women and multiple pregnancies. High-throughput NIPT is sufficiently accurate to detect fetal RhD status in RhD-negative women and would considerably reduce unnecessary treatment with routine anti-D immunoglobulin. The applicability of these findings to non-white women and women with multiple pregnancies is uncertain.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
High-throughput non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal Rhesus D (RhD) status could avoid unnecessary treatment with anti-D immunoglobulin for RhD-negative women found to be carrying an RhD-negative fetus. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of high-throughput NIPT for fetal RhD status in RhD-negative women not known to be sensitized to the RhD antigen, by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Prospective cohort studies of high-throughput NIPT used to determine fetal RhD status were included. The eligible population were pregnant women who were RhD negative and not known to be sensitized to RhD antigen. The index test was high-throughput, NIPT cell-free fetal DNA tests of maternal plasma used to determine fetal RhD status. The reference standard considered was serologic cord blood testing at birth. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index were searched up to February 2016. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full texts identified as potentially relevant. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. The bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic (HSROC) models were fitted to calculate summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, false positive and false negative rates, and the associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
A total of 3921 references records were identified through electronic searches. Eight studies were included in the systematic review. Six studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. The HSROC models demonstrated high diagnostic performance of high-throughput NIPT testing for women tested at or after 11 weeks gestation. In the primary analysis for diagnostic accuracy, women with an inconclusive test result were treated as having tested positive. The false negative rate (incorrectly classed as RhD negative) was 0.34% (95% CI 0.15 to 0.76) and the false positive rate (incorrectly classed as RhD positive) was 3.86% (95% CI 2.54 to 5.82). There was limited evidence for non-white women and multiple pregnancies.
CONCLUSIONS
High-throughput NIPT is sufficiently accurate to detect fetal RhD status in RhD-negative women and would considerably reduce unnecessary treatment with routine anti-D immunoglobulin. The applicability of these findings to non-white women and women with multiple pregnancies is uncertain.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30760268
doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1254-4
pii: 10.1186/s12916-019-1254-4
pmc: PMC6375191
doi:
Substances chimiques
Rh-Hr Blood-Group System
0
Rho(D) antigen
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
37Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : TAR/16/30/01
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Prenat Diagn. 2013 Jul;33(7):662-6
pubmed: 23553731
BMJ. 2005 May 28;330(7502):1255-8
pubmed: 15920129
BMJ. 2014 Sep 04;349:g5243
pubmed: 25190055
Health Technol Assess. 2018 Mar;22(13):1-172
pubmed: 29580376
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2011;29(4):301-6
pubmed: 21212654
BJOG. 2015 Nov;122(12):1682-6
pubmed: 25142171
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Oct;58(10):982-90
pubmed: 16168343
Prenat Diagn. 2015 Aug;35(8):754-60
pubmed: 25855535
Clin Chem. 2008 Oct;54(10):1664-72
pubmed: 18703764
Prenat Diagn. 2013 Feb;33(2):173-8
pubmed: 23280558
Health Technol Assess. 2009 Feb;13(10):iii, ix-xi, 1-103
pubmed: 19210896
Prenat Diagn. 2014 Oct;34(10):1000-5
pubmed: 24860987
Transfusion. 1997 Jan;37(1):38-44
pubmed: 9024488
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700
pubmed: 19622552
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2007 Mar;92(2):F83-8
pubmed: 17337672
Stat Methods Med Res. 2016 Dec;25(6):2858-2877
pubmed: 24823642
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Aug;120(2 Pt 1):227-34
pubmed: 22776962
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Stat Med. 2001 Oct 15;20(19):2865-84
pubmed: 11568945
Blood Rev. 2000 Mar;14(1):44-61
pubmed: 10805260
BMJ. 2008 Apr 12;336(7648):816-8
pubmed: 18390496
Blood. 2000 Jan 1;95(1):12-8
pubmed: 10607679