Originally Posted by dinahx
I suppose I have a strong emotional feeling about Rhogam but that is because I feel really strongly that it is poorly understood by many facets of the medical community, and that includes the NCB community.
The largest benefit is definitely postnatal. Sensitization rates with zero Rhogam would be about 13% for Rh- women carrying Rh+ fetuses. Postnatal Rhogam drops that to only 1%. So you are only going from a 1% to a 0.1% risk with the 28 week shot in a low risk pregnancy.
Based on those numbers, probably as this is maybe my final pregnancy, I could have taken a calculated risk to skip the 28 week shot with zero consequences, even w/o the Fetal blood typing. IMO it depends on if you think you could deal with a future isoimmunized pregnancy & how likely you think you are to try to have one or two or more . . .
I am a huge advocate for reducing Rhogam use with Prenatal blood typing or @ least with Paternal blood type ID (as some providers give it to all Rh- women on the theory that the father could be anyone). But IMHO that is only because of a theoretical risk to the mother (specifically BSE, MadCow & then it just being a blood product), rather than any risk to the baby.
Thank you for the stats. Much appreciated.
So if I get the post natal Rhogam, and opted out from the prenatal Rhogam, I'm only deciding on a 1% to a 0.1% risk with the 28 week shot in a low risk pregnancy. If I didn't get the routine Rhogam my risk would be 1% instead, of 0.1%?
Now taking the risk difference of 1% VS the Risk of being exposed to blood products when the need is not there. The impacts on the mothers/babies immune systems still remain unknown. Rhogams saftey Information:
RhoGAM® and MICRhoGAM® Ultra-Filtered PLUS Rho(D) Immune Globulin (Human) are made from human plasma. Since all plasma-derived products are made from human blood, they may carry a risk of transmitting infectious agents, e.g., viruses, and theoretically the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) agent. RhoGAM® and MICRhoGAM® are intended for maternal administration. Do not inject the newborn infant. Local adverse reactions may include redness, swelling, and mild pain at the site of injection and a small number of patients have noted a slight elevation in temperature. Patients should be observed for at least 20 minutes after administration. Hypersensitivity reactions include hives, generalized urticaria, tightness of the chest, wheezing, hypotension and anaphylaxis. RhoGAM® and MICRhoGAM® contain a small quantity of IgA and physicians must weigh the benefit against the potential risks of hypersensitivity reactions. Patients who receive RhoGAM® and MICRhoGAM® for Rh-incompatible transfusion should be monitored by clinical and laboratory means due to the risk of a hemolytic reaction.
The patient label of both RhoGam and WinRho clearly states that neither drug has ever been scientifically tested for safety on pregnant women or fetuses. With any drug made of human blood plasma, there is a slight risk of transmitting disease. So adverse reactions in both mother and fetus are certainly possible.
Rhogam was known to contain mercury and we all know the effects it can cause especially in the body of a fetus not even born yet, but then came the announcement that Rhogam was allegedly mercury free. But here is the catch:
If you are an Rh-negative mother, remember that, although Thimerosal-free Rho-GAM became available in 2002, the supply of mercury-containing Rho-GAM is still on the market. Remember the word “thimerosal” means it contains 49.6% mercury. This is especially important because fifty-three percent of mothers of autistic children are Rh negative, while only three percent of mothers of normal children are Rh-negative. REF: http://healthfreedoms.org/2012/02/16/why-do-53-of-autistic-children-have-rh-negative-mothers/
It is stated "Thermersol has been removed since 2001-02. BUT Johnson and Johnson uses thimerosal in the manufacturing process, then adds a post-manufacturing process to remove the preservative...but "trace amounts" of mercury remain in the medicine. J & J admitted this in Congressional testimony a few years back. J&J is the only brand my hosptials/doctor uses.
If thermersol was in Rhogam and given to mothers by the medical industry that most trusted, why did they all of a sudden "remove it" back in 2001?. Shouldn't really be a shock to some who wonder why we question the medical industry.
Although many have had the shot and all is fine, nobody can predict how one can react after the shot is given. Nobody can prove the mother or their baby has had some sort of reaction, or death due to the shot itself.
Seems to me getting the shot over such a minimal difference compared to the possible risks of the shot isn't worth it for the baby. Is it necessary really for MY situation? Something I have to really research. How are the risks really outweighing the benefits having said the above?
Edited by Catmom2 - 11/25/13 at 7:28am