Copyright
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Exp Med. Jun 20, 2025; 15(2): 102345
Published online Jun 20, 2025. doi: 10.5493/wjem.v15.i2.102345
Published online Jun 20, 2025. doi: 10.5493/wjem.v15.i2.102345
Table 1 Clinical Interpretation of widespread weak D in distinct groups
Number | Ethnic group | Weak D subtypes | Clinical interpretation | Ref. |
1 | Caucasian | Weak D types 1, 2, 3 | Can be treated as D-positive for RhIG administration and transfusion | [32,34] |
2 | Asian | Asia type DEL (RHD 1227 G > A) | Appears D-negative in conventional serology but can be treated as D-positive | [34] |
3 | Iranian | Weak D type 15 | Most prevalent; weak D types 1, 2, and 3 account for 15% of cases | [33] |
4 | Brazilian | Weak D types 1, 2, 3, 4 | Most frequent in descending order; presence of both caucasian and arican D variants | [35] |
5 | Australian | Weak D types 1, 2, 3 | Found in 75% of weak D samples; some other types (1.1, 5, 15, 17, 90) showed partial D-epitope profiles | [36] |
6 | Chinese | Various | 45 RHD alleles were identified, including 11 novel variants; 3.5% carried DEL alleles | [37] |
Table 2 Summary of the challenges and opportunities in managing weak D phenotypes and the importance of Rhesus D antigen blood group genotyping and standardized practices for improved patient care and resource management
Number | Aspect | Challenge | Opportunities | Ref. |
1 | Serological testing | Variable results and interpretations across laboratories. Discrepancies between automated gel and manual tube testing | Standardization of testing methods and interpretation guidelines. Use of multiple testing methods to improve accuracy | [32,50] |
2 | RhD interpretations | Inconsistent reporting terms are used to interpret weak D-reactive maternal RhD types. Risk of misclassification of partial D as weak D | Development of consistent immunohematologic terminology. Integration of RHD genotyping for accurate classification | [32,49,50] |
3 | RhIG management | Unwarranted antiglobulin testing leads to recommendations against giving RhIG in some cases. Unnecessary RhIG administration for certain weak D types | RHD genotype-guided management of RhIG therapy. Early pregnancy RHD genotyping to optimize RhIG use | [11,32,48] |
4 | Fetomaternal hemorrhage testing | Use of contraindicated fetal rosette test for weak D-reactive newborns, risking false-negative results | Implementation of appropriate testing methods for accurate assessment of fetomaternal hemorrhage | [32] |
5 | RBC transfusion | Unnecessary use of D-negative RBCs for patients with certain weak D types | Conservation of D-negative RBC units through RHD genotyping and appropriate management of weak D types 1, 2, and 3 as D-positive | [11,48] |
6 | Population differences | Variation in RHD allele distribution among different populations | Population-specific genotyping strategies and transfusion policies | [47,56] |
7 | Novel alleles | Continuous discovery of new RHD alleles | Ongoing research to characterize new alleles and their clinical significance | [51,52] |
8 | Timing of genotyping | Delayed genotyping leads to complicated clinical management | Early RHD genotyping, preferably during early pregnancy, to guide patient management | [48,53] |
- Citation: Sainath PB, Ramaiyan V. Weak D phenotype in transfusion medicine and obstetrics: Challenges and opportunities. World J Exp Med 2025; 15(2): 102345
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-315x/full/v15/i2/102345.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5493/wjem.v15.i2.102345