Anti-D cannot agglutinate red cells of any Del phenotype in routine serology. Many individuals with East Asian ancestry who type D-negative in serology harbor a Del phenotype. Almost all such individuals carry one distinct DEL variant, dubbed Asian-type DEL, known as RHD*01EL.01, RHD*DEL1, RHD:c.1227G>A, formerly known as RHD(K409K). Clinical evidence strongly suggests that Asian-type DEL individuals can safely be transfused with RhD-positive blood and do not need anti-D prophylaxis in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Anti-D can be formed after D-incompatible platelet transfusions due to contaminating D+ red blood cells. These antibodies are of particular importance in women of childbearing potential, because anti-D is most often involved in severe cases of hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn. This systematic review determined the frequency of anti-D after D+ platelet transfusions and risk factors for D alloimmunization.
METHODS: Relevant literature was searched using PubMed, Embase and Web of Science until December 2022. Overall anti-D frequency and risk factors were estimated using a random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS: In 22 studies, a total of 3028 D- patients received a mean of six D+ platelet transfusions. After a mean follow-up of seven months 106 of 2808 eligible patients formed anti-D. The pooled anti-D frequency was 3.3% (95% CI 2.0-5.0%; I2 71%). After including only patients with an undoubtable follow-up of at least 4 weeks, 29 of 1497 patients formed anti-D with a pooled primary anti-D rate of 1.9% (95% CI 0.9-3.2%, I2 44%). Women and patients receiving whole blood derived platelets had two and five times higher anti-D rates compared with men and patients receiving apheresis derived platelets, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Anti-D immunization is low after D incompatible platelet transfusions and dependent on recipients\' sex and platelet source. We propose anti-D prophylaxis in girls and women, capable of becoming pregnant in the future, that received D+ platelets, regardless of platelet source, to reduce the risk of anti-D induced hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn.

BACKGROUND: Low-titer group O whole blood (LTOWB) for treatment of hemorrhagic shock sometimes necessitates transfusion of RhD-positive units due to short supply of RhD-negative LTOWB. Practitioners must choose between using RhD-positive LTOWB when RhD-negative is unavailable against the risk to a female of childbearing potential of becoming RhD-alloimmunized, risking hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN) in future children, or using component therapy with RhD-negative red cells. This survey asked females with a history of red blood cell (RBC) alloimmunization about their risk tolerance of RhD alloimmunization compared to the potential for improved survival following transfusion of RhD-positive blood for an injured RhD negative female child.
METHODS: A survey was administered to RBC alloimmunized mothers. Respondents were eligible if they were living in the United States with at least one red cell antibody known to cause HDFN and if they had at least one RBC alloimmunized pregnancy.
RESULTS: Responses from 107 RBC alloimmmunized females were analyzed. There were 32/107 (30%) with a history of severe HDFN; 12/107 (11%) had a history of fetal or neonatal loss due to HDFN. The median (interquartile range) absolute improvement in survival at which the respondents would accept RhD-positive transfusions for a female child was 4% (1%-14%). This was not different between females with and without a history of severe or fatal HDFN (p = .08 and 0.38, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Alloimmunized mothers would accept the risk of D-alloimmunization in a RhD-negative female child for improved survival in cases of life-threatening bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Current Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB) standards require transfusion services to have a policy on Rh immune globulin (RhIG) immunoprophylaxis for when RhD-negative patients are exposed to RhD-positive red cells. This is a survey of AABB-accredited transfusion services in the United States (US) regarding institutional policies and practices on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD-negative patients receive RhD-positive (i.e., RhD-incompatible) packed red blood cell (pRBC) and platelet transfusions.
RESULTS: Approximately half of the respondents (50.4%, 116/230) have policies on RhIG administration after RhD-incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, while others had policies for only pRBC (13.5%, 31/230) or only platelet (17.8%, 41/230) transfusions, but not both. In contrast, 18.3% (42/230) report that their institution has no written policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD-incompatible transfusions. Most institutions (70.2%, 99/141) do not have policies addressing safety parameters to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required to prevent RhD alloimmunization after RhD-incompatible pRBC transfusions.
CONCLUSIONS: With approximately half of US AABB-accredited institutions report having policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after both RhD-incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, some institutions may not be in compliance with AABB standards. Further, most with policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD-incompatible pRBC transfusion do not have written safeguards to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required.
CONCLUSIONS: This survey underscores the diverse and inadequate institutional policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD exposure in Rh-negative patients via transfusion. This observation identifies an opportunity to improve transfusion safety.