Does high body mass index (>25 kg/m2) or weight (>80 kg) reduce the effectiveness of anti-D prophylaxis in Rh(D)-negative pregnant women? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Objectives: Haemolytic disease of the foetus and newborn (HDFN) occurs when maternal antibodies, often triggered by foetal antigens, destroy foetal and neonatal red blood cells. Factors like antibody strength, quantity and gestational age influence HDFN severity. Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis (RAADP) has significantly reduced HDFN cases. However, the effect of overweight/obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 25/30 kg/m(2)) on anti-D prophylaxis efficacy remains unclear. This systematic review will examine the impact of BMI on anti D prophylaxis effectiveness in Rh(D) negative pregnant women. Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocols. We searched databases from 1996 to 2023, focusing on studies exploring the link between high BMI/weight and anti-D serum levels in Rh(D)-negative pregnant women with Rh(D)-positive foetuses. Ten eligible studies were included, three suitable for meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting Observation Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. Statistical analyses included Pearson correlation coefficients and risk differences. Results: Our meta-analysis revealed a significant negative correlation (r = -0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.83 to -0.35, p = 0.007) between high BMI/weight and serial anti-D levels in in Rh(D)-negative pregnant women with Rh(D)-positive foetuses. High BMI/weight had lower odds of serial anti-D level exceeding 30 ng/mL (arcsine risk difference [ARD] = 0.376, 95% CI: 0.143-0.610, p = 0.002). Heterogeneity among studies was low (I-2 = 0). Conclusion: While our analysis suggests a potential linkage between high BMI/weight and reduced efficacy of anti-D prophylaxis, caution is warranted due to study limitations. Variability in study design and confounding factors necessitate careful interpretation. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and refine clinical recommendations.