4.6 Review

Anti-human platelet antigen-5b antibodies and fetal and neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia; incidental association or cause and effect?

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 198, 期 1, 页码 14-23

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.18173

关键词

anti-HPA-5b; fetal medicine; fetal and neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most cases of FNAIT are caused by maternal anti-HPA-1a antibodies, while anti-HPA-5b antibodies are the second most common antibodies. However, there is no evidence supporting the idea that anti-HPA-5b antibodies cause severe thrombocytopenia or bleeding complications.
Most cases of fetal and neonatal thrombocytopenia (FNAIT) are caused by maternal anti-human platelet antigen-1a antibodies (anti-HPA-1a). Anti-HPA-5b antibodies are the second most common antibodies in suspected FNAIT cases. Given the high prevalence of anti-HPA-5b antibodies in pregnant women delivering healthy newborns, the association with FNAIT may be coincidental. This review of the literature related to FNAIT using the MEDLINE database was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. A retrospective analysis of a single-centre cohort of 817 suspected FNAIT cases was conducted. The pooled prevalence of anti-HPA-5b antibodies in unselected pregnant women of European descent was 1.96% (n = 3113), compared with 3.4% (n = 5003) in women with suspected FNAIT. We found weak evidence that a small proportion of pregnant women presenting with anti-HPA-5b antibodies will give birth to a newborn with mild thrombocytopenia. The neonatal platelet counts were not different between suspected FNAIT cases (n = 817) with and without maternal anti-HPA-5b antibodies. The prevalence of maternal anti-HPA-5b antibodies was not different between neonates with intracranial haemorrhage and healthy controls. The current experimental and epidemiological evidence does not support the hypothesis that anti-HPA-5b antibodies cause severe thrombocytopenia or bleeding complications in the fetus or newborn.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据