A 5-year-old boy presents with platelet count of 2 × 109/L and clinical and laboratory evidence of immune thrombocytopenia. He has epistaxis and oral mucosal bleeding. Complete blood count reveals isolated thrombocytopenia without any decline in hemoglobin and he is Rh+. You are asked if anti-D immunoglobulin is an appropriate initial therapy for this child given the 2010 Food and Drug Administration “black-box” warning.

Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) in children is usually self-limited and can often be managed by cautious observation. However, the presence of “wet” bleeding, such as the oral mucosal bleeding experienced by this child, is considered an indication for treatment aimed at increasing the platelet count. Corticosteroids, IVIG, and anti-D immunoglobulin (anti-D) are all considered appropriate frontline treatments for acute bleeding in both adults and children. Anti-D has been shown to have comparable efficacy rates to IVIG (∼ 70%)1,2  and an overall favorable side effect profile.3,4  In 2010, a specific warning was issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) highlighting the risk of intravascular hemolysis, acute renal failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) after administration of anti-D to patients with ITP.5  In the years that have followed, anecdotal evidence suggests that providers are less comfortable with using anti-D and the data support that the use of the agent for frontline therapy has significantly decreased in the postwarning period, although the decline may have begun before the warning.6,7 

To examine the current best evidence for anti-D as frontline treatment of newly diagnosed ITP in adults and children, we conducted a PubMed search using the terms “anti-D,” “Rh,” “RhIg,” and “Rhesus immunoglobulin” along with “ITP.” In addition, the references of included studies were reviewed to identify any additional publications. Of the 33 results that were categorized as clinical trials, 22 were excluded because they did not involve anti-D (n = 5), were not a therapeutic trial (n = 5), used nonstandard administration (n = 1), primarily evaluated response in patients with chronic ITP (n = 9), or duplicated patients reported in another study (n = 2). Three additional trials not categorized as a clinical trials but reporting efficacy data on anti-D were added. The included studies reporting efficacy data are found in Table 1. In summary, multiple clinical trials in both adults and children have shown that anti-D effectively raises the platelet count in the majority of treated patients and is associated with an acceptable safety profile (Table 1). Duration of effect appears to be comparable to IVIG, with some reports of longer duration of effect in anti-D–treated patients.8 

Table 1.

Studies reporting anti-D efficacy in adults and children including patients with newly diagnosed ITP

Studies reporting anti-D efficacy in adults and children including patients with newly diagnosed ITP
Studies reporting anti-D efficacy in adults and children including patients with newly diagnosed ITP

AEs indicates adverse events; and SAEs, significant adverse events.

*Classified by standard terminology at the time of publication; acute ITP < 6 months in duration.

†Chronic ITP > 6 months in duration.

With the increasing use of anti-D after licensure in 1995, rare cases of exaggerated hemolysis and DIC have been reported,9,10  ultimately resulting in the release of a “black-box” warning by the FDA highlighting the risks of intravascular hemolyis, acute renal failure, and DIC after IV administration of anti-D for ITP. Monitoring recommendations were provided.5  The adverse events reported to the FDA and to Cangene BioPharma, the maker of WinRho SDF, the most widely used anti-D preparation, have been comprehensively reviewed in a recent publication and the data are summarized in Table 2.3  The incidence of the severe hemolytic reactions is estimated at 1 in 1115 patients and has not significantly changed since licensure (Table 2).3  Severe hemolytic reactions occurred within 4 hours in 94% of cases. The risk of development of acute hemolytic reactions appears to be highest in adults > 65 years of age, patients with baseline hemolysis or renal function abnormalities, and those with current or recent significant infection, especially EBV. In patients with increased risk based on the above factors, an alternative therapy for ITP is recommended.

Table 2.

Reported acute hemolytic reactions and total infusions per year since licensure

Reported acute hemolytic reactions and total infusions per year since licensure
Reported acute hemolytic reactions and total infusions per year since licensure

Modified with permission from Despotovic et al.3 

For patients who do not have identified risk factors for a severe hemolytic event, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the use of anti-D as a frontline treatment option in adults and children with ITP (Grade 2B recommendation). During the postinfusion period, clinicians should monitor for any evidence of severe hemolysis by obtaining a complete blood count and urinalysis and should perform further testing as necessary.3  After discharge, patients and families should be educated about signs and symptoms that warrant evaluation. Future studies should address possible alternative administration strategies (including subcutaneous administration), the application of monitoring recommendations in routine clinical practice, the effect that the recommended monitoring has had on reducing the number of serious hemolytic reactions, and the role of routine premedication strategies (eg, corticosteroids, diphenhydramine, acetaminophen) to decrease infusion reactions.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: The authors declare no competing financial interests. Off-label drug use: None disclosed.

Jenny Despotovic, Hematology Service, Texas Children's Cancer Center, 6701 Fannin Street, 14th Floor, Houston, TX 77030; Phone: 832-822-4302; Fax: 832-825-0285; e-mail: jmdespot@txch.org.

1
Provan
 
D
Stasi
 
R
Newland
 
AC
, et al. 
International consensus report on the investigation and management of primary immune thrombocytopenia
Blood
2010
, vol. 
115
 
2
(pg. 
168
-
186
)
2
Tarantino
 
MD
Young
 
G
Bertolone
 
SJ
, et al. 
Single dose of anti-D immune globulin at 75 microg/kg is as effective as intravenous immune globulin at rapidly raising the platelet count in newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenic purpura in children
J Pediatr
2006
, vol. 
148
 
4
(pg. 
489
-
494
)
3
Despotovic
 
J
Lambert
 
MP
Herman
 
J
, et al. 
RhIG for the treatment of immune thrombocytopenia: consensus and controversy
Transfusion
2012
, vol. 
52
 
5
(pg. 
1126
-
1136
)
4
Neunert
 
C
Lim
 
W
Crowther
 
M
, et al. 
The American Society of Hematology 2011 evidence-based practice guideline for immune thrombocytopenia
Blood
2011
, vol. 
117
 
16
(pg. 
4190
-
4207
)
5
US Food and Drug Administration
WinRho SDF (Rho(D) immune globulin intravenous (human): risk of intravascular hemolysis
Accessed September 26, 2013 
6
Long
 
M
Kalish
 
L
Neufeld
 
E
Grace
 
R
Trends in anti-D immune globulin for childhood immune thrombocytopenia: usage, response rates, and adverse effects
Am J Hematol
2012
, vol. 
87
 
3
(pg. 
315
-
317
)
7
Thompson
 
J
Klima
 
J
Despotovic
 
J
O'Brien
 
S
Anti-D immunoglobulin therapy for pediatric ITP: before and after the FDA's black box warning
Pediatr Blood Cancer
2013
, vol. 
60
 
11
(pg. 
E149
-
151
)
8
Scaradavou
 
A
Woo
 
B
Woloski
 
BM
, et al. 
Intravenous anti-D treatment of immune thrombocytopenic purpura: experience in 272 patients
Blood
1997
, vol. 
89
 
8
(pg. 
2689
-
2700
)
9
Gaines
 
AR
Acute onset hemoglobinemia and/or hemoglobinuria and sequelae following Rh(o)(D) immune globulin intravenous administration in immune thrombocytopenic purpura patients
Blood
2000
, vol. 
95
 
8
(pg. 
2523
-
2529
)
10
Gaines
 
AR
Disseminated intravascular coagulation associated with acute hemoglobinemia or hemoglobinuria following Rh(0)(D) immune globulin intravenous administration for immune thrombocytopenic purpura
Blood
2005
, vol. 
106
 
5
(pg. 
1532
-
1537
)
11
Rodeghiero
 
F
Schiavotto
 
C
Castaman
 
G
, et al. 
A follow-up study of 49 adult patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura treated with high dose immunoglobulins and anti-D immunoglobulins
Haematologica
1992
, vol. 
77
 
3
(pg. 
248
-
252
)
12
Blanchette
 
V
Imbach
 
P
Andrew
 
M
, et al. 
Randomised trial of intravenous immunoglobulin G, intravenous anti-D, and oral prednisone in childhood acute immune thrombocytopenic purpura
Lancet
1994
, vol. 
344
 
8924
(pg. 
703
-
707
)
13
Bussel
 
JB
Graziano
 
JN
Kimberly
 
RP
Pahwa
 
S
Aledort
 
LM
Intravenous anti-D treatment of immune thrombocytopenic purpura: analysis of efficacy, toxicity, and mechanism of effect
Blood
1991
, vol. 
77
 
9
(pg. 
1884
-
1893
)
14
Freiberg
 
A
Mauger
 
D
Efficacy, safety and dose response of intravenous anti-D immune globulin (WinRho SDF) for the treatment of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura in children
Semin Hematol
1998
, vol. 
35
 
Suppl 1
(pg. 
23
-
27
)
15
Newman
 
GC
Novoa
 
MV
Fodero
 
EM
, et al. 
A dose of 75 microg/kg/d of i.v. anti-D increases the platelet count more rapidly and for a longer period of time than 50 microg/kg/d in adults with immune thrombocytopenic purpura
Br J Haematol
2001
, vol. 
112
 
4
(pg. 
1076
-
1078
)
16
George
 
JN
Raskob
 
G
Vesely
 
SK
, et al. 
Initial management of immune thrombocytopenic purpura in adults: a randomized controlled trial comparing intermittent anti-D with routine care
Am J Hematol
2003
, vol. 
74
 
3
(pg. 
161
-
169
)
17
Son
 
DW
Jeon
 
IS
Yang
 
SW
Cho
 
SH
A single dose of anti-D immunoglobulin raises platelet count as efficiently as intravenous immunoglobulin in newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenic purpura in Korean children
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol
2008
, vol. 
30
 
8
(pg. 
598
-
601
)
18
Shahgholi
 
E
Vosough
 
P
Sotoudeh
 
K
, et al. 
Intravenous immune globulin versus intravenous anti-D immune globulin for the treatment of acute immune thrombocytopenic purpura
Indian J Pediatr
2008
, vol. 
75
 
12
(pg. 
1231
-
1235
)
19
Naithani
 
R
Kumar
 
R
Mahapatra
 
M
Tyagi
 
S
Saxena
 
R
Efficacy and safety of anti-D for the treatment of adults with immune thrombocytopenia
Platelets
2009
, vol. 
20
 
7
(pg. 
525
-
527
)
20
Kane
 
I
Ragucci
 
D
Shatat
 
IF
Bussel
 
J
Kalpatthi
 
R
Comparison of intravenous immune globulin and high dose anti-D immune globulin as initial therapy for childhood immune thrombocytopenic purpura
Br J Haematol
2010
, vol. 
149
 
1
(pg. 
79
-
83
)
21
Papagianni
 
A
Economou
 
M
Tragiannidis
 
A
, et al. 
Standard-dose intravenous anti-D immunoglobulin versus intravenous immunoglobulin in the treatment of newly diagnosed childhood primary immune thrombocytopenia
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol
2011
, vol. 
33
 
4
(pg. 
265
-
269
)
22
Celik
 
M
Bulbul
 
A
Aydogan
 
G
, et al. 
Comparison of anti-D immunoglobulin, methylprednisolone, or intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in newly diagnosed pediatric immune thrombocytopenic purpura
J Thromb Thrombolysis
2013
, vol. 
35
 
2
(pg. 
228
-
233
)
23
Alioglu
 
B
Ercan
 
S
Tapci
 
A
, et al. 
A comparison of intravenous immunoglobulin (2g/kg totally) and single doses of anti-D immunoglobulin at 50 ug/kg, 75 ug/kg in newly diagnosed children with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: Ankara hospital experience
Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis
2013
, vol. 
24
 
5
(pg. 
505
-
509
)