Evidence Hub

Red cell specifications for blood group matching in patients with haemoglobinopathies: An updated systematic review and clinical practice guideline from the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines

Julia S. Wolf, Isabelle Blais‐Normandin, Aarti Bathla, Homa Keshavarz, Stella T. Chou, A. Al-Riyami, Cassandra D. Josephson, E. Massey et al.

British Journal of Haematology, 2024

583 participants · 23 citations

Abstract

Red blood cell (RBC) antigen matching beyond ABO and RhD is commonly recommended for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) and thalassaemia. We present an updated systematic literature review to inform evidence‐based guidelines on RBC matching. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to develop recommendations. Six new observational studies (4 prospective, 2 retrospective) were identified. The six studies reported on 583 patients in total, including cross‐over designs, with sample sizes from 10 to 343. Studies were heterogeneous, utilising varying degrees of RBC matching and different definitions for ‘extended’ matching. All reported on alloimmunisation. One study reported on molecular matching. The reported prevalence of alloimmunisation using limited matching was 0%–50% and with extended matching was 0%–24%. Eighty‐two patients were alloimmunised before study entry. The risk of bias across studies was moderate to critical. The guideline panel recommends that ABO, RhDCcEe, and K‐compatible RBCs are selected for individuals with SCD and thalassaemia, even in the absence of alloantibodies, and that RBCs which are antigen‐negative to already existing clinically significant antibodies are chosen. There is a need for comparative research to define the benefit, impact, cost‐effectiveness, and feasibility of extended RBC matching strategies to prevent alloimmunisation.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 583 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free