Prophylaxis Information and Courses from MediaLab, Inc.

These are the MediaLab courses that cover Prophylaxis and links to relevant pages within the course.

Learn more about laboratory continuing education for medical technologists to earn CE credit for AMT, ASCP, NCA, and state license renewal and recertification. Or get information about laboratory safety and compliance courses that deliver cost-effective OSHA safety training and continuing education to your laboratory's employees.

Hemolytic Disease of the Fetus and Newborn
Newborn Serologic Testing Protocols Protocols for testing newborns vary internationally and within countries. The table below summarizes some of the more common protocols. Scenario Typical Newborn Testing Protocol Comments Mother is D-negative with no unexpected antibodies Newborn is tested at delivery for: ABO and Rh Test for weak D (mandatory) if initial Rh typing appears to be D-negative Direct antiglobulin test (DAT)* A positive DAT does not always mean that the newborn has clinically significant hemolysis. A positive DAT commonly occurs due to ABO incompatibility, yet infants seldom require treatment. Infants born to mothers who received antenatal RhIg sometimes have a positive DAT that does not cause clinically relevant hemolysis. Mother is Rh positive and a blood group other than group O Routine testing not performed Cord blood retained for a specified period of time (e.g., seven days) in the event that the mother has an unexpected antibody at delivery or the newborn develops signs of red cell hemolysis. Routine testing would result in many positive DATs due to ABO incompatibility- not clinically significant. Mother is group O Rh positive Newborn is tested- especially important if women and their infants are discharged within 24 hours since hyperbilirubinemia due to ABO HDFN may develop later. Optional only if there is appropriate surveillance and risk assessment before discharge and provided there is follow-up (American Academy of Pediatrics). *Policies for DAT testing of newborns whose mothers have received antenatal RhIg vary internationally. For example, the British Committee for Standards in Haematology guidelines state that a DAT should not be performed on cord blood routinely since in some cases it may be positive due to antenatal RhIg prophylaxis. A DAT is recommended only if HDFN is suspected because of a low cord blood hemoglobin or the presence of unexpected maternal antibodies. However in North America, DATs are always performed on infants born to Rh negative mothers who are RhIg candidates.	View Page
Use in Pregnancy As applied to pregnancy, RhIg's purpose is to prevent immunization to the D antigen in the perinatal period and thus prevent HDFN due to anti-D. If the mother has already produced anti-D, RhIg is of no use in moderating the immune response.Accordingly, RhIg is routinely administered to Rh negative women not previously sensitized to the D antigen under the following circumstances:1, Antenatal. Antepartum prophylaxis of 300 µg (1500 IU) at about 28 weeks gestation in the USA and Canada, which could be weeks later, depending on how appointments are scheduled. To illustrate variation in antenatal international practice, in the UK, smaller doses of RhIg (e.g., 500 IU) may be given at 28 weeks and 34 weeks, although many UK facilities issue a 1500 IU dose at 28–30 weeks. With antenatal administration, the Rh of the fetus is usually unknown. Some transfusion services recommend a further antenatal dose if the infant is undelivered after 40 weeks.2. Postnatal. Prophylaxis of 300 µg (1500 IU) at delivery of an Rh positive or weak D infant within 72 hours of delivery whenever possible. If RhIg administration is delayed beyond 72 hours, laboratory policies differ as to when it would no longer be administered. The longer the delay, the more likely RhIg may fail to suppress production of anti-D, but it is still worth trying. Note: Because RhIg contains IgG anti-D, when given antenatally, it can cross the placenta and sensitize fetal D-positive red cells. Occasionally the fetus may be born with a weakly positive DAT, but significant hemolysis does not occur. For this reason some guidelines recommend that labs do NOT routinely perform DATs on infants whose mothers have received antenatal RhIg.	View Page
RhIg 'Failures' Numerous studies have shown that, if administered correctly, RhIg is effective at preventing D immunization. To work, RhIg must be given in sufficient dose, and it must be given before Rh immunization has begun.Unfortunately, despite RhIg's proven efficacy, some women continue to make anti-D in the perinatal period. Such 'failures' are mainly (but not totally) due to human error. Examples of how women may still produce anti-D some 40+ years after the implementation of RhIg prophylaxis: Immunization to D occurred before the administration of RhIg, e.g., before 28 weeks gestation; Immunization to D occurred after the administration of RhIg at 28 weeks and before delivery because an antenatal fetomaternal hemorrhage (FMH) occurred that was too large for residual passive anti-D to give protection; Female was already immunized from a prior pregnancy but anti-D was too weak to be detected in antibody screen tests prior to RhIg administration; RhIg dosage was insufficient to clear a larger fetal bleed at delivery (e.g., FMH screen was not done or a false negative occurred); Incorrect calculation of RhIg dosage; RhIg administered too late , e.g., well after 72 hours of delivery; Antenatal RhIg not given, e.g., mother had no, or limited, access to prenatal care, or did not seek it, and a FMH occurred during pregnancy; Failure of physician to carry out prenatal blood testing; RhIg not given due to laboratory clerical or technical error in Rh typing the mother or child; RhIg not given in cases such as abortions, ectopic pregnancies, and trauma (e.g., car accidents). Because anti-D production before 28 weeks is rare (the order of 0.24% to 0.31%), RhIg's use earlier in pregnancy is not recommended. It is not cost effective and would expose most women to an unneeded blood product.	View Page
History The development of RhIg over 40 years ago is one of the greatest success stories in medicine. Anti-D was once a major cause of neonatal death. Before RhIg, approximately 13% of Rh negative women carrying D+ infants became immunized to D.This changed due to several developments, the most important of which was the discovery that anti-D in the form of RhIg given post-delivery could prevent women from making anti-D. After RhIg prophylaxis was implemented, the incidence of anti-D production from pregnancy dropped to ~2%. Initially RhIg was administered only post-delivery, but later antenatal administration became standard practice. Antenatal RhIg prophylaxis further reduced the incidence of Rh immunization during pregnancy to ~0.14%.	View Page
Passive Anti-D following RhIg Administration A scenario where anti-D is detected at delivery in a female who received RhIg during pregnancy raises the question, is the anti-D active or passive?Distinguishing between passive and immune anti-D is important clinically: If passive anti-D is misinterpreted as active, RhIg prophylaxis may be omitted, leading to D sensitization. If active anti-D is misinterpreted as passive, appropriate antibody investigation may be curtailed putting the fetus at risk of developing HDFN.When this occurs, two main serologic questions need to be answered: Are the reactions due to passive anti-D from RhIg or due to active anti-D? Are there other antibodies that need to be excluded?	View Page
Literature and Online Resources The following published literature and online resources, while useful, should not be used as a substitute for technical and clinical judgment. Medical and technical information becomes obsolete quickly and current sources relevant to the user's location should always be consulted.References indicated by * provide a broad overview of HDFN and are highly recommended.LITERATUREAvent ND, Reid ME. The Rh blood group system: a review. Blood 2000 Jan 15;95 (2):375-87.Bowman J. Thirty-five years of Rh prophylaxis. Transfusion 2003 Dec;43(12):1661-6.* Eder AF. Update on HDFN: new information on long-standing controversies. Immunohematology 2006;22(4):188–195. (scroll to article)Eder, AF, Manno, C.S. Alloimmune hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. In Wintrobe's Clinical Hematology, 11th ed. (Greer JP, Foerster J, Lukens JN, Rodgers GM, Paraskevas F, Glader BE, (eds). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2004.Flegel WA. Molecular genetics of RH and its clinical application. Transfus Clin Biol. 2006 Mar-Apr;13(1-2):4-12. Kennedy MS, McNanie J, Waheed A. Detection of anti-D following antepartum injections of Rh immune globulin. Immunohematology 1998;14(4):138-40.Koelewijn JM, de Haas M, Vrijkotte TG, van der Schoot CE, Bonsel GJ. Risk factors for RhD immunisation despite antenatal and postnatal anti-D prophylaxis. BJOG. 2009 Sep;116 (10): 1307-14. Epub 2009 Jun 17.* Kumar S, Regan F. Management of pregnancies with RhD alloimmunisation. BMJ. 2005 May 28;330(7502):1255-8. (UK perspective but much valuable information relevant to all)* Murray NA, Roberts IAG. Haemolytic disease of the newborn. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2007 Mar; 92(2): F83–F88. Oepkes D, Seaward PG, Vandenbussche FP, Windrim R, Kingdom J, Beyene J, Kanhai HH, Ohlsson A, Ryan G; DIAMOND Study Group. Doppler ultrasonography versus amniocentesis to predict fetal anemia. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jul 13;355(2):156-64.Ramsey G. Inaccurate doses of Rh immune globulin after Rh-incompatible fetomaternal hemorrhage: survey of laboratory practice. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009 Mar; 133(3):465-9. Reid ME. The Rh antigen D: a review for clinicians. Blood Bulletin 2008 Apr; 10(1).Sandler SG. Effectiveness of the RhIg dose calculator. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010 Jul;134(7): 967-8.Shulman IA, Calderon C, Nelson JM, Nakayama R. The routine use of Rh-negative reagent red cells for the identification of anti-D and the detection of non-D red cell antibodies. Transfusion 1994 Aug;34(8):666-70.Tamul KR. Determining fetal-maternal hemorrhage with flow cytometry. Advance 2000. Posted online June 5, 2000.Westhoff CM, Sloan SR. Molecular genotyping in transfusion medicine. Clin Chem 2008;54(12): 1948-50.ONLINE RESOURCESPaxton A. Bringing new rigor to RhIg calculations. CAP TODAY. May 2008. Accessed January 18, 2011.*Wagle S, Deshpande PG. Hemolytic disease of the newborn. eMedicine / WebMD. Updated Apr. 9, 2010. Accessed January 18, 2011.	View Page

HIV Safety for Florida
Postexposure prophlaxis Postexposure prophylaxis will be determined by exposure type and HIV infection status of source person. The postexposure prophylaxis determined by a qualified practitioner will balance risk of infection with toxicity of the medications.The postexposure prophylaxis must be started hours after the exposure.The postexposure prophylaxis should be re-evaluated 72 hours after exposure, particularly if additional information is available about source person.The postexposure prophylaxis may be necessary for 6 months.	View Page
Overview Prevention of HIV exposure is the best line of defense to prevent occupational transmission of HIV as there is no vaccine available to develop specific immunity and the postexposure prophylaxis is toxic. Following appropriate workplace practices in the laboratory focus on preventing needlesticks or other sharps injuries and exposure of mucous membranes and abraded skin to HIV-infected blood or body fluids.	View Page
References Behrens C, Kindrick A, Harrington R. Antiretroviral Resistance Testing in the Management of HIV-Infected Patients [PowerPoint]. Northwest AIDS Education and Training Center; July 2006. Available at http://aidsetc.org/aidsetc?page=etres-display&resource=etres-9. Accessed December 15, 2008. Coffey S. Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in Adults and Adolescents: Initiation of Therapy [PowerPoint]. AIDS Education and Training Centers, National Resource Center; November 2008. Available at http://aidsetc.org/aidsetc?page=etres-display&resource=etres-6. Accessed December 15, 2008. MediaLab Course "HIV: Structure and Replication," Garland Pendergraph. MediaLab Course "OSHA Blodborne Pathogens," Terry Jo Gile MT(ASCP),Ma Ed.MMWR Recomm Rep 2005 Sep 30; 54:RR-9. The 2005 Florida Statutes, Chapters 381, 384,456. Available at www.leg.state.fl.us. Accessed December 1, 2011.Panlilo AL, Cardo DM, Grohskopf LA, Heneine W, Ross, CS. Updated U.S. Public Health Service Guidelines for the Management of Occupational Exposures to HIV and Recommendations for Postexposure Prophylaxis, 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5409a1.htm. Accessed December 1, 2011.	View Page

Rh negative female with anti-D at delivery: A case study
Introduction This case concerns a common scenario in the transfusion service (TS) laboratory, the detection of anti-D at delivery in a female who has received Rh immune globulin (RhIg) during pregnancy.Distinguishing between passive and immune anti-D is important clinically: If passive anti-D is misinterpreted as immune, RhIg prophylaxis may be omitted leading to D sensitization. If immune anti-D is misinterpreted as passive, appropriate follow-up of the antibody may be curtailed putting the fetus at risk.Unfortunately, differentiating between immune and passive anti-D is often impossible. This case study presents an opportunity to review perinatal testing programs and the crucial role of RhIg in preventing hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) due to anti-D. The case also examines practical aspects of routine serologic testing involving neonates and women who have received RhIg during pregnancy. The case is a companion to "Hemolytic Disease of the Fetus and Newborn" and complements its content.In brief, the case will: Guide participants through laboratory findings that need to be interpreted and resolved; Examine current best practices in perinatal testing programs; Review the characteristics of RhIg and its use in pregnancy; Review and investigate key issues associated with detection of anti-D in women who have received antenatal RhIg; Discuss crossmatch and LIS policies related to RhIg-derived passive anti-D.	View Page
Use in Pregnancy As applied to pregnancy, RhIg's purpose is to prevent immunization to the D antigen in the perinatal period and thus prevent HDFN due to anti-D. If the mother has already produced anti-D, RhIg is of no use.Accordingly, RhIg is routinely administered to Rh negative women* not previously sensitized to the D antigen under the following circumstances:1, Antenatal. Antepartum prophylaxis of 300 µg (1500 IU) at about 28 weeks gestation in the USA and Canada, which could be weeks later, depending on how physician appointments are scheduled. To illustrate variation in antenatal international practice, in the UK smaller doses of RhIg (e.g., 500 IU) may be given at 28 weeks and 34 weeks, although many UK facilities issue a 1500 IU dose at 28–30 weeks. With antenatal administration, the Rh of the fetus is usually unknown. Some transfusion services recommend a further antenatal dose if the infant is undelivered after 40 weeks.2. Postnatal. Prophylaxis of 300 µg (1500 IU) at delivery of an Rh positive or weak D infant, preferably within 72 hours of delivery but can be given up to 28 days later if administration is delayed. If RhIg administration is delayed beyond 72 hours, laboratory policies differ as to when it would no longer be administered.* Policies related to women who are weak D (formerly Du) are discussed later.Note: Because RhIg contains IgG anti-D, when given antenatally, it can cross the placenta and sensitize fetal D-positive red cells. Occasionally the fetus may be born with a weakly positive DAT, but significant hemolysis does not occur.	View Page
RhIg prophylaxis is typically given antenatally to Rh negative pregnant females without knowing the Rh of the fetus.	View Page
RhIg 'Failures' Numerous studies have shown that, if administered correctly, RhIg is effective at preventing D immunization. To work, RhIg must be given in sufficient dose, and it must be given before Rh immunization has begun.Unfortunately, despite RhIg's proven efficacy, some women still make anti-D in the perinatal period. Such 'failures' are mainly (but not totally) due to human error. Examples of how women may still produce anti-D some 40+ years after the implementation of RhIg prophylaxis: Immunization to D occurred before RhIg was administered, e.g., before 28 weeks gestation; Immunization to D occurred after the administration of RhIg at 28 weeks and before delivery because an antenatal FMH occurred that was too large for residual passive anti-D to give protection; Female was already immunized from a prior pregnancy but anti-D was too weak to be detected in antibody screen tests prior to RhIg administration; RhIg dosage was insufficient to clear a larger fetal bleed at delivery (e.g., FMH screen or quantification was not done or a false negative occurred); Incorrect calculation of RhIg dosage; RhIg administered too late , e.g., well after 72 hours of delivery; Antenatal RhIg not given, e.g., mother had no or limited access to prenatal care, or did not seek it, and a FMH occurred during pregnancy; Failure of physician to carry out prenatal blood testing; RhIg not given due to laboratory clerical or technical error in Rh typing the mother or child; RhIg not given in cases such as abortions, ectopic pregnancies, and trauma (e.g., car accidents). Because anti-D production before 28 weeks is rare (the order of 0.24% to 0.31%), RhIg's use earlier in pregnancy is not recommended. It is not cost effective and would expose most women to an unneeded blood product.	View Page
Introduction As noted earlier, in this case study the laboratory's protocol is to set up a mini-panel, providing these criteria are met: Mother is Rh-negative and has been tested on two separate occasions; Laboratory has confirmed administration of RhIg prophylaxis; Result of current antibody screen is positive and typical of anti-D due to RhIg; There is no record or history of an unexpected antibody. All criteria were met and a selected mini-panel was set up to confirm the presence of anti-D and exclude possible co-existing maternal antibodies. Other clinically significant antibodies have implications for possible HDFN and for transfusion to both the mother and newborn, thus must be excluded.	View Page
Routine Serologic Tests - Newborn Tests on Newborn ( mandatory if mother is Rh negative) ABO and Rh; Mandatory: Test for weak D if initial Rh typing appears to be D-negative; DAT. ABO typing of the infant does not require a reverse serum group with A1 and B cells since the newborn is not expected to have ant-A or anti-B (unless of maternal origin).* If cord blood is used for ABO and Rh(D) typing, the red cells should be well washed to remove possible Wharton's jelly.** A positive DAT does not indicate that the newborn has clinically significant hemolysis. For example, a positive DAT commonly occurs due to ABO incompatibility, yet infants seldom require treatment. Also, infants born to mothers who received antenatal RhIg sometimes have a positive DAT that does not cause clinically relevant hemolysis.Also note that policies for DAT testing of newborns whose mothers have received antenatal RhIg vary internationally. For example, the British Committee for Standards in Haematology guidelines state that a DAT should not be performed on cord blood routinely since in some cases it may be positive due to antenatal RhIg prophylaxis. A DAT is recommended only if HDFN is suspected because of a low cord blood hemoglobin or the presence of unexpected maternal antibodies.However in North America, DATs are always performed on infants born to Rh negative mothers who are RhIg candidates.	View Page
Literature and Online Resources The following published literature and online resources, while useful, should not be used as a substitute for technical and clinical judgment. Medical and technical information becomes obsolete quickly and current sources relevant to the user's location should always be consulted.References indicated by * provide a broad overview of HDFN and are highly recommended.LITERATUREAvent ND, Reid ME. The Rh blood group system: a review. Blood. 2000 Jan 15;95 (2):375-87.Bowman J. Thirty-five years of Rh prophylaxis. Transfusion 2003 Dec;43(12):1661-6.* Eder AF. Update on HDFN: new information on long-standing controversies. Immunohematology. 2006;22(4):188–195. (scroll to article).Eder, AF, Manno, C.S. Alloimmune hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. In Wintrobe's Clinical Hematology, 11th ed. (Greer JP, Foerster J, Lukens JN, Rodgers GM, Paraskevas F, Glader BE, (eds). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2004.Flegel WA. Molecular genetics of RH and its clinical application. Transfus Clin Biol. 2006 Mar-Apr;13(1-2):4-12. Kennedy MS, McNanie J, Waheed A. Detection of anti-D following antepartum injections of Rh immune globulin. Immunohematology 1998;14(4):138-40.Koelewijn JM, de Haas M, Vrijkotte TG, van der Schoot CE, Bonsel GJ. Risk factors for RhD immunisation despite antenatal and postnatal anti-D prophylaxis.BJOG. 2009 Sep;116 (10): 1307-14. Epub 2009 Jun 17.* Kumar S, Regan F. Management of pregnancies with RhD alloimmunisation. BMJ. 2005 May 28;330(7502):1255-8. (UK perspective but much valuable information relevant to all)* Murray NA, Roberts IAG. Haemolytic disease of the newborn. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2007 Mar; 92(2): F83–F88. Oepkes D, Seaward PG, Vandenbussche FP, Windrim R, Kingdom J, Beyene J, Kanhai HH, Ohlsson A, Ryan G; DIAMOND Study Group. Doppler ultrasonography versus amniocentesis to predict fetal anemia. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jul 13;355(2):156-64.Ramsey G. Inaccurate doses of Rh immune globulin after Rh-incompatible fetomaternal hemorrhage: survey of laboratory practice.Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009 Mar; 133(3):465-9. Reid ME. The Rh antigen D: a review for clinicians. Blood Bulletin 2008 Apr; 10(1).Sandler SG. Effectiveness of the RhIg dose calculator. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010 Jul;134(7): 967-8.Shulman IA, Calderon C, Nelson JM, Nakayama R. The routine use of Rh-negative reagent red cells for the identification of anti-D and the detection of non-D red cell antibodies. Transfusion 1994 Aug;34(8):666-70.Tamul KR. Determining fetal-maternal hemorrhage with flow cytometry. Advance 2000. Posted online June 5, 2000.Westhoff CM, Sloan SR. Molecular genotyping in transfusion medicine. Clin Chem 2008;54(12): 1948-50.ONLINE RESOURCESPaxton A. Bringing new rigor to RhIg calculations. CAP Today May 2008. *Wagle S, Deshpande PG. Hemolytic disease of the newborn. eMedicine / WebMD. Updated Apr. 9, 2010.	View Page

MediaLab, Inc.

http://www.MediaLabInc.net | (877) 776-8460 (tollfree) | sales@medialabinc.net