Rh discrepancies caused by variable reactivity of partial and weak D types with different serologic techniques

RhD discrepancies between current and historical results are problematic to resolve. The investigation of 10 discrepancies is reported here. STUDY DESIGN: Samples identified were those that reacted by automated gel technology and were negative with an FDA-approved reagent. Reactivity with a commercially available panel of monoclonal anti-D was performed. Genomic DNA was evaluated for RHD alleles with multiplex RHD exon polymerase chain reaction (PCR), weak D PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism, and RHD exon 5 and 7 sequence analyses. RESULTS: The monoclonal anti-D panel identified two samples as DVa, yet possessed the DAR allele. Two weak D Type 1 samples had a similar monoclonal anti-D profile, but only one reacted directly with one of two FDA-approved anti-D. Only two of four weak D Type 2 samples reacted directly with one FDA-approved anti-D, and their D epitope profile differed. CONCLUSIONS: The monoclonal anti-D reagents did not distinguish between partial and weak D Types 1 and 2. Weak D Types 1 and 2 do not show consistent reactivity with FDA-approved reagents and technology. To limit anti-D alloimmunization, it is recommended that samples yielding an immediate-spin tube test cutoff score of not more than 5 (i.e., ≤1+ agglutination) or a score of not more than 8 (i.e., ≤2+ hemagglutination) by gel technology be considered D– for transfusion and Rh immune globulin prophylaxis. That tube test anti-D reagents react poorly with some Weak D Types 1 and 2 red cells is problematic, inasmuch as they should be considered D+ for transfusion and prenatal care. Molecular tests that distinguish common partial and Weak D types provide the solution to resolving D antigen discrepancies.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75591/1/j.1537-2995.2007.01551.x.pd