Rhogam - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 116 Old 05-21-2006, 10:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
SaraFR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Forgive my ignorance,

Being that I'm not pg. (far as I'm aware-that nursing throws off your body), this isn't relevant currently. I'm more looking for food for thought. I did end up having the vax with both boys. This was before I was aware of most of the vax issues.

My question is, how can one have the Rh incompatability and not vax? What can you do instead to prevent the body from reacting to an Rh pos. baby?
SaraFR is offline  
#2 of 116 Old 05-21-2006, 11:27 PM
 
maxmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti
Posts: 2,454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
In a nutshell, you can't.

It's unlikely to cause problems in a first pregnancy, or the first after having been prophylaxed in previous pregnancies. But I chose to prophylax, no sweat, because I'm already isoimmunized against another blood group factor (Kell) and I didn't need Rh isoimmunization on top of that.

Isoimmunization to Rh is not a minor problem. The prenatal treatments of an affected fetus are amniocentesis and in utero transfusion; after birth, some babies require a full exchange transfusion. Yes, isoimmunization is more likely after an abdominal trauma, but small utero-placental bleeds are quite common and can be enough to sensitize.

My experience with Kell has, quite frankly, scared the s*** out of me. It reminded me how common an experience isoimmunization was before RhoGAM, and how dismal the outcomes can be.

mama to Max (2/02) and Sophie (10/06); wife to my fabulous girl
maxmama is offline  
#3 of 116 Old 05-21-2006, 11:31 PM
 
trini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: mommy heaven
Posts: 2,076
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Can I jump on this thread and ask a related question?

Is it necessary to do it during the pg AND at delivery? Would it be effective to just do it at delivery, therefore preventing it from affecting the baby in any way?

Proud mom to superhero.gifds2 (7/05), angel2.gif ds 1 (born into heaven at 38 weeks 11/03), and 5 more angels angel.gif (4/02) angel.gif (7/10) angel.gifangel.gif (11/10) angel.gif (11/12)

trini is offline  
#4 of 116 Old 05-21-2006, 11:39 PM
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't understand why pregnant women have the jab when they are pregnant.

They have the jab because they are told if they have antibodies in the blood from a previous pregnancy that will damage the baby?

Well, keep in mind a very important point about RhoGam and that is that the antibodies attack ALL RH positive cells. The entire premise is that if the mother's blood mixes with the baby's blood, the antibodies will neutralize the baby's blood cells before the mother can create her own antibodies against the baby. The dilemna is that if the mother's and baby's blood does actually mix it is equally likely that the RhoGam antibodies will cross over and attack the baby itself. This happens frequently but isn't discussed by most doctors. It is a big reason to only get the shot after pregancy if the baby really is RH+

The RhoGam antibodies will attach to your baby's blood cells and render them incapable of delivering oxygen. This has long term consequences on brain development. Most doctors are completely ignorant of this issue.

The RhoGam antibodies do not cross the placenta. But neither do blood cells from the baby which is exactly why the RhoGam is injected. In very rare circumstances, such as the mother becoming injured, the blood of the mother and baby can mix. It's a paradox, only when the antibodies are needed can they harm the baby.

The RhoGam antibodies are put there to attack any baby's blood that comes across. But if there is mixing then the antibodies can go across the other way and they do exactly that. Antibodies diffuse much more readily through the bloodstream than whole cells.

Immunology textbooks still correctly point out that RhoGam should be given after childbirth only if the baby is RH+. These are the mothers that are at high risk. However the company that manufactures RhoGam lobbied to have it's use expanded to all RH- mothers during and after pregnancy to 'guarantee' that all high risk mothers were protected. Doctors try to rationalize this by saying that even during the first pregnancy blood can mix and antibodies can be produced that will attack the baby. This almost never happens because the blood would have to mix twice, once to stimulate the production of Abs in the mother and the second time for those antibodies to diffuse to the baby. And regardless, the paradox comes into play because if the mother's Abs can diffuse to harm the baby, then so can the injected RhoGam Abs. They are the same exact antibodies.

Each RhoGam injected contains blood serum pooled from several different persons with the antibodies. The manufacturer can not possibly screen or remove all viruses from it. But that's a separate issue.

The Rhogam antibodies in the injection are identical to the antibodies that the Rh- mother makes against her child. The Rhogam antibodies were collected from RH- mothers who did have an immune response to their RH+ babies. The Rhogam antibodies will attack and destroy the baby's red blood cells (if they do come across the placenta) before the mother's immune response kicks in and makes her own antibodies. You give rhogam to a mother after delivery because that is when the blood mixes. The rhogam antibodies destroy the baby's cells so that the mother's immune system never sees them and therefore never becomes sensitized to make those exact same antibodies.

If you give the Rhogam antibodies during pregnancy you have just created the situation you were trying to avoid. The whole point is for the pregnant mother to NOT have antibodies against her own child circulating in her system while she is pregnant.

Any blood mixing would allow those antibodies to attack the baby.

It does not matter if the mother's immune system made those antibodies or another mother's immune system (rhogam) made those antibodies. They are identical down to their molecular structure and you do not want them to contact the baby.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#5 of 116 Old 05-21-2006, 11:40 PM
 
maxmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti
Posts: 2,454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by trini
Can I jump on this thread and ask a related question?

Is it necessary to do it during the pg AND at delivery? Would it be effective to just do it at delivery, therefore preventing it from affecting the baby in any way?
It's debatable. Yes, the largest blood exposure will come at birth. But it is possible to have a small utero-placental bleed with no symptoms, and that blood exposure could be enough to sensitize.

I freely admit my isoimmunization paranoia, because I never saw my Kell isoimmunization coming and it occurs the same way Rh sensitization does. Would the postpartum dose of RhoGAM be enough? Probably, for the vast majority of pregnancies. But I personally prefer to prophylax.

mama to Max (2/02) and Sophie (10/06); wife to my fabulous girl
maxmama is offline  
#6 of 116 Old 05-21-2006, 11:42 PM
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hmmm maybe I should rewrite that?

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#7 of 116 Old 05-21-2006, 11:55 PM
 
maxmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti
Posts: 2,454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara
Hmmm maybe I should rewrite that?
I think we posted simultaneously. But I am a huge example of how possible it is to be sensitized during pregnancy. At the start of my pregnancy with my son, my Kell titer was negative. At my 28 week antibody screen, my titer was positive. At some point in that pregnancy, when I had not had any abdominal trauma or other known placental disruption, enough fetal blood entered my circulation to create an antibody response.

So yes, I do believe in "silent" isoimmunization, and if there was an equivalent to RhoGAM for Kell, I would have gotten it in a heartbeat. I'm spending this pregnancy in various perinatologists' offices discussing at what point in my titers I need a cordocentesis and transfusions, and when I become a hostile enough uterine environment that it's better for my child to be a micropreemie than continue being attacked by my antibodies. Right now, my titers are not rising and I'm hopeful. But I also know that utero-placental bleeds are most likely to occur in the third trimester, and I'm only 19 weeks.

mama to Max (2/02) and Sophie (10/06); wife to my fabulous girl
maxmama is offline  
#8 of 116 Old 05-22-2006, 01:08 AM
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
But your baby will not be damaged unless there is an event which will cause a second bleed. You are essentially in the same position as a person who has just had the shot.

You have antibodies which if you bleed again, could affect your babies, so you are actually in the identical position as a woman who has received rhogam. A woman who is given rhogam during pregnancy also has antibodies which, if she has a bleed and blood mixes will likewise damage her baby.

I don't understand why people don't see that.

It's basic, clear medicine.

The very argument you give here, shows WHY a woman shouldn't have rhogam during pregnancy.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#9 of 116 Old 05-22-2006, 10:17 AM
 
caedmyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,255
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
OK I'm not sure if I am understanding this right. Does it work the way a sensitivity to a bee sting does, in that the first exposure sensitizes but there won't be a reaction until the second exposure?

And if that is the case, in subsequent pregnancies is the person in the first exposure position, where a reaction will occur with one exposure in that pregnancy, or is that only if there was an exposure in the first pregnancy?

Hopefully that makes sense...
caedmyn is offline  
#10 of 116 Old 05-22-2006, 11:45 AM
 
rozzie'sma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Amdist the urban decay
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I would suggest reading Anti-D in Midwifery panacea or Paradox by Sara Wickham. There are things that you can do to prevent the mixing of blood but it is not a guarantee that sensitization will not occur, It is a hard subject to think about. As an rh- woman myself who is only able to have rh+ babies dur to my dh being homozygous positive, I am going to refuse the 28 week injection but get the after birth injection. THe 28 week injection came about because docs were being lazy about informing women after a sensitizing event (blow to the abdomen, bleeding etc) that they need the shot and a small percentage of women were becoming sensitized. The 28 week shot is not even recommended in most european countries. Also they have been no studies done on what effects it may have on the offpring of a positive daughter whose mother recieved rhogam prenatally. It is not a black and white issue by any means. Please read her book, search your soul, and the answer will hopefully come to you. THis has been one of the toughest decissions of my life.
rozzie'sma is offline  
#11 of 116 Old 05-22-2006, 12:31 PM
 
japonica's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada-->Australia
Posts: 987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
This is all very interesting and I'm enjoying the food for thought...just thought I'd share my experience...

I am isoimmunized for anti-D. I was given Win-RHO (Canadian version of RhoGAM) during my first pg at 13 weeks (bleeding), 30 weeks, and at delivery. I was testing negative for antibodies up until delivery. We lost my daughter when I was 40 weeks pg and the follow up pathology on the placenta indicated that there was a "feto-maternal hemorrhage" (even though I had no signs of bleed) at the end of the pg (that and massive inflammation of the placenta--so some type of reaction was going on--no infections were found in my b/w results). With my second pg, the initial b/w indicated that I had become sensitized. I find your info very thought-provoking MT...maybe more was going on that we realized with the WinRHO. Like many people's experiences with vaxes, we were told that with me being Rh neg, it was just something we HAD to do...and also that it was almost 100% effective (so imagine my surprise when I found out I had been sensitized anyway after all those shots).

My second pg went fairly well...my DH is homozygous positive for D, so any additional pgs will be affected as well. My titers stayed fairly low (highest was 1:8), my DD did not become overly anemic and only needed the lights for a week, but no transfusions, after she was born.

We are considering trying for a third child and are meeting with the perinatalogist to get an idea of what to expect this time around.

Quote:
As an rh- woman myself who is only able to have rh+ babies dur to my dh being heterozygous positive
If your DH was heterzygous, would you have a chance that your baby could be neg for D? That was why we had my DH tested because of that possibility he could be +/- and we could end up with an unaffected baby...My DH turned out to be homozygous for D, so we're stuck with every pg being affected. Well, that's how it was explained to us anyway.

J

Mother to DD#1  s/b @40w 2003 for unknown reasons; DD#2   9.5 years old; DS  6 years old 
  Why are daughters protected but not sons?
 
 
 
  
japonica is offline  
#12 of 116 Old 05-22-2006, 12:41 PM
 
maxmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti
Posts: 2,454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara
But your baby will not be damaged unless there is an event which will cause a second bleed. You are essentially in the same position as a person who has just had the shot.

You have antibodies which if you bleed again, could affect your babies, so you are actually in the identical position as a woman who has received rhogam. A woman who is given rhogam during pregnancy also has antibodies which, if she has a bleed and blood mixes will likewise damage her baby.

I don't understand why people don't see that.

It's basic, clear medicine.

The very argument you give here, shows WHY a woman shouldn't have rhogam during pregnancy.
If you look at the outcomes for babies whose moms received RhoGAM v. those whose moms were sensitized, you are going to be looking at two very different groups of babies. The RhoGAM babies have received, if any, extremely small doses of antibody, and there have not been negative efffects associated with it in reputable studies. These are essentially healthy babies.

The babies born to sensitized moms are at high risk for HDNB, hydrops fetalis (which, by the way, carries a mortality rate of approximately 50%; I really doubt you can come up with data that shows a congruent risk for receiving RhoGAM) and severe neurologic sequelae. Do I choose to avoid these known risks at the cost of a theoretical risk? You bet your ass I do, and my midwife, my perinatologist, my OB and the neonatologist I consulted with (all of whom have actually seen affected babies, as I suspect you have not) agree.

It's a risk-benefit analysis; for me, this is what I chose. At no point did I say that all women should get antenatal RhoGAM. What my point remains is that one does not know whether she will have a silent utero-placental bleed, and that needs to be factored into whether one chooses to have antenatal RhoGAM, which has documented efficacy and some theoretical risk.

mama to Max (2/02) and Sophie (10/06); wife to my fabulous girl
maxmama is offline  
#13 of 116 Old 05-22-2006, 03:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
SaraFR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Both of my boys were neg. so the shot during the pregnancy ended up not being needed (not that we nkew the blood type till after birth).

Is it just as effective to get no shot during the pg. but get one postpartum IF the baby ends up being pos.?
SaraFR is offline  
#14 of 116 Old 05-22-2006, 05:29 PM
 
rozzie'sma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Amdist the urban decay
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The US didn't used to do a prenatal Rhogam AT ALL. That didn't start till the 80's
rozzie'sma is offline  
#15 of 116 Old 05-22-2006, 05:36 PM - Thread Starter
 
SaraFR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Was it added prenatally for money-making reasons or for effectiveness?

Athough, after being on the vax forum for a bit I'm willing to wager that the answer will be it was added for financial health.
SaraFR is offline  
#16 of 116 Old 05-22-2006, 06:51 PM
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The information I posted here was put up some time ago, by someone else on the board, who is at the moment somewhat busy, but gave me permission to post it if it was needed.

I have asked them to come and explain, if they can find the time.

I understand the principles in the information I posted, that the poster was trying to get across.

There was another post posted by the person I've asked to come and explain, regarding rhogam to try to explain it further. This is what that post said:

Quote:
The rh+ cells of the baby stimulate rhogam production by the rh-mother's immune system. We want to prevent rhogam from circulating in the mother while she is pregnant because those antibodies will harm the baby. To do this we give rhogam immediately after birth so that any rh+ cells that are still in the mother will be destroyed. This keeps the mother's immune system from seeing those cells and producing her own rhogam which would stay in her circulation where they could attack any subsequent rh+ babies. Doctors would like us to inject rhogam antibodies during pregnancy to prevent the formation of rhogam antibodies. The rhogam will destroy all the rh+ cells thus preventing the mother from making her own rhogam antibodies. But what's the point, you prevented the mother's antibodies from being there by putting someone else's antibodies in the exact same spot. This is the point which I am not getting across: rhogam is the immune response to the baby. It is the pooled serum from rh- mother's who have had an immune response to their rh+ babies. You do not want those antibodies to come into contact with your rh+ baby.

Rhogam works. It works well. It should be administered after pregnancy like it is in Europe. During pregnancy is a decision that was made by the manufacturer to make money.

If a woman has a miscarriage she should have the shot immediately. If there is an amniocentesis performed it may be worth while to have the injection but there is some risk to that. It makes no sense to give the injection at 28 weeks during a healthy pregnancy. The blood does not mix in a sufficient manner to cause an immune response in the mother. If there were that much mixing then the injected antibodies (rhogam) would have access to the baby and kill the baby's red blood cells. It's a no win situation with rhogam at 28 weeks. The reason the manufacturer can get away with it is exactly because there is usually no blood mixing. The rhogam works it's way out of the mother's system without ever doing anything.

Another way to look at rhogam. Rhogam kills the baby's red blood cells no matter where those cells are. If the baby's blood cells are in the mother, those cells will be destroyed. If the baby's red blood cells are circulating through the baby delivering oxygen to the baby's brain, the rhogam will still kill those cells and deprive the baby of oxygen. It is not a good idea to take any chance that would allow the rhogam access to the baby. The doctors are concerned only about baby's cells circulating in the mother but antibodies diffuse much more easily than whole cells so the rhogam will readily find the baby's cells where the baby is than for the whole cells of the baby to find their way to the rhogam.

The makers of rhogam have funded some lame studies to show that getting the injection DURING pregnancy is more effective. I have found that most doctors are not intelligent enough to see the paradox becasue they blindly accept FDA and CDC recommendations. But there is a wonderful study that compared the efficacy of the post-natal vs. the ante-natal shot. The study examined the corporate studies and explained how they are flawed. It turns out there is absolutely no evidence to show that ante-natal is more effective than post-natal. So mothers should only get the shot post-natal IF the baby is rh+ (and the mother is rh-).


Here is a link to that study http://www.upstate.edu/fmed/cebp/Pre...ompilation.pdf You have to go to page 226

Page 234 summary on Th issues states
Quote:
6. We found no direct evidence of benefit of antnatal anti-D prophylaxis in terms of maternal or neonatal morbidity or mortality
Pg 236 makes the point that
Quote:
One Cochrane review of randomised trials of antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for Rh-negative women (Crowther 2000) See table 1. The reviewers searched for RCT's of the effect of antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for Rh-negative women after 27 weeks... only two trials were found. Both were of marginal quality (one with poor randomization scheme and the other with high dropout rates) ....The articles were appraised with the level of evidence shceme and described narratively and the results as qualitative comparison of the individual studies results....the overallquality of this evidence is fair to poor due to the lack of good quality RCTs and relinace on open label studies often with historical controls. There is no direct evidence that antenatal propphylaxis reduces maternal or neonatal morbidity or mortality or improves patient satisfaction....
the studies were weakly positive, but so weakly as to be meaningless in my opinion. Manufacturers are usually very good at constructing studies to prove their point, and if in those two studeis, they haven't been able to show conclusive benefit, then I'd wager there is none at all....

Fact. Rhogam antibodies cross the placenta and attack the baby's red blood cells (if the baby is rh+)? Well again it's just obvious but take a look at the package insert. Here's a quote from rhogam: ""Some babies born of women given Rho(D) immune globulin (human) antepartum have weakly positive direct antiglobulin (Coombs) tests at birth."" There's your admission by the company. Weak or not the test proves the presence of the antibodies in baby's whose mother received the shot while pregnant. One antibody molecule can wipe out one red blood cell - that's all it takes. Any amount of antibodies is dangerous because it decreases the baby's red blood cells and hence the oxygen that the baby's brain receives.

Hopefully the person concerned will drop by. If that doesn't happen, you'll just have to put your thinking and decision making caps on.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#17 of 116 Old 05-22-2006, 07:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
SaraFR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
MT-That gave me some good reading. Are there any other links that anyone can provide?
SaraFR is offline  
#18 of 116 Old 05-23-2006, 11:15 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,000
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Great thread.

I never thought about rhogam during pg (although I took it without thinking much...) and needed some extra as we had a bleed during delivery.

Having just had a miscarriage, I am wondering about my status now. Any thoughts on when a shot is necessary post mc?
monocyte is offline  
#19 of 116 Old 05-24-2006, 01:02 AM
 
japonica's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada-->Australia
Posts: 987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
I recall being told to get a shot within within 72 hours of bleeding, trauma, amnio etc....not sure if that's correct though...

J

Mother to DD#1  s/b @40w 2003 for unknown reasons; DD#2   9.5 years old; DS  6 years old 
  Why are daughters protected but not sons?
 
 
 
  
japonica is offline  
#20 of 116 Old 05-24-2006, 01:45 AM
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Japonica is correct.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
#21 of 116 Old 05-24-2006, 10:54 AM
 
schatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: hangin' at the Dingo Cafe
Posts: 1,326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Fact. Rhogam antibodies cross the placenta and attack the baby's red blood cells
here's my anectdote to add -- my dd who is Rh+ was born with a very low red blood cell count -- they thought they would have to give her a transfusion. I had the 28-week rhogam shot. No proof but someone would be hard pressed to convince me that the rhogam shot did not cause my dd's low blood cell count. Yes, it could be from other factors although the docs could not give me an explanation of why it happened. I opted out of the 28-week shot with my son. He did not have the problems my dd had but he is also Rh- like me. So, had I gone ahead and had the 28 week shot with my son, would he not have had the low count because he is negative and therefore the antibodies would not have attacked his cells - not sure but the catch is that you don't know the status of the baby in-utero. If you read the Cochrane review, you'll see that the antenatal shot is given at varying times depending on the country (28 weeks, 34 weeks, both) and that it reduces the risk of sensitization by about 1% (from something like 1.3% to .3%). Thanks but no thanks - I'll take the postnatal shot IF I have an Rh+ baby. JMO.
schatz is offline  
#22 of 116 Old 05-24-2006, 11:42 AM
 
amybw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: at home
Posts: 1,595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for this info! I have been contemplating it myself.


Amy
amybw is offline  
#23 of 116 Old 05-24-2006, 12:36 PM
 
Amila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hellertown, PA
Posts: 2,698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just wanted to give my two cents about Rhogam. I agonized over this for like months. What it came down to was:

1. I was not crazy about getting a human blood product, regardless of how "small" the risks of virus transmittance are. Judging from the government's definition of "small risks" regarding vaccines I don't put a lot of faith into the CDC.

2. I felt extremely uncomfortable putting anything into my body during pregnancy, given the possible future "unknown" problems that can result for a negative girl when she decides to have children. And the fact that there are some nasty chemicals in there. AND the fact that there have never been any studies done on the possible risks to the fetus, as Rhogam is a Class C drug: http://www.safefetus.com/DrugDetail....M&TradeId=4936

(When I brought this up to my doctor, he said "There are no risks- no one has ever reported any fetal problems as a result of Rhogam" to which I replied "But there have never been ANY studies done on this" to which he replied "Well how could there be?")

3. I believe it to be pretty unlikely that mom and baby's blood mixes in the course of a normal pregnancy free of trauma or intervention.

4. I read a fantastic book (and really the only one out there) by Sara Wickham called "Anti-D in Midwifery" It is extremely scientific, gives tons of info on the actual studies done to support Rhogam (they are pathetic, few and far between, and don't even follow the scientific method). I told myself I wouldn't make a final decision until I read this book (and I am glad I did).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/075...Fencoding=UTF8

So I declined the antenatal dose, and got a load of crap from the doctor (I have since switched). He said I was the only person in 12 years to decline, and that I was being ridiculous and foolish. When I started feeding him statistics, he laughed and told me I can't believe everything I read, and that those numbers seem "a bit off." That is when I pulled out the package insert:

http://www.orthoclinical.com/Product...1-20-971-3.pdf

where I got my info from and flung it in his face. He certainly shut up then!

What I gleaned from the insert was that without ANY rhogam, your risks of becoming sensitized are 12-13%. With ONLY the post-labor injection, your risks go down to 1-2%. With both antenatal AND post-labor, your risks are .1-.2%.

I plan to have my baby typed after she is born, and if she is positive, then I will go ahead and get the Rhogam. In my mind, at least I am doing it because I actually know shes positive, I am only putting myself at risk, and I am taking it with the knowledge that I might actually need it because the stats for blood mixing in labor are much more real than during pregnancy. Basically I am taking a 1-2% risk.

Also, I think it is important to note that I have fully come to the understanding in my own mind that if I do become sensitized, then that is a consequence of my actions, and I still will not regret my decision. I don't feel that I can regret a decision of not potentially putting my beloved baby #1 at risk to save any future babies I might have. Other women who desire to have large families might feel differently, and that is okay too. Anyway, I hope this helps someone who may be really on the fence. I find that doing my research from government documents that SUPPORT the drugs actually aid in my decision making process (ironic as that may be).
CordeliaLynn likes this.

Amy, mommy to Ava, 6, Gavin, 4, Lila, 2, and Baby #4 due in early November! joy.gif
Amila is offline  
#24 of 116 Old 06-26-2006, 02:08 AM
 
japonica's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada-->Australia
Posts: 987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

Mother to DD#1  s/b @40w 2003 for unknown reasons; DD#2   9.5 years old; DS  6 years old 
  Why are daughters protected but not sons?
 
 
 
  
japonica is offline  
#25 of 116 Old 12-29-2006, 12:31 AM
 
Gitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ready to move on...
Posts: 14,805
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Bumping for someone new.
Gitti is offline  
#26 of 116 Old 12-29-2006, 02:34 AM
 
illumini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know this is an old thread but I have a quick question concerning Rhogam. I have had 3 m/c's and a molar preganacy (no live babies as of now). In two of my m/c's I was not aware of my rh status and therefore did not get the shot. It was during my 3rd that I was tested and given the shot. I was also given the shot during my surgery for the molar. My doctor told me I needed to receive the shot early on in subsequent pregnancies in order to keep my body from rejecting the fetus. I never questioned him on this (but I have on plenty of other things ) Do think it will be necessary to do the shot early and then again during birth? Thanks in advance! You ladies have really helped me gather information for my future children (and pregnancies).

Lauren

Lauren- geek.gif Hippie belly.gif wife to  S Mum to : babyf.gif D 11/09 and due end of August!
 
lactivist.giffemalesling.GIFfamilybed1.gifcd.gifhomebirth.jpgsaynovax.gif
 
        
illumini is offline  
#27 of 116 Old 12-29-2006, 02:59 AM
Spy
 
Spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,227
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rozzie'sma View Post
The US didn't used to do a prenatal Rhogam AT ALL. That didn't start till the 80's
I am curious what people used to do before any sort of Rhogam. Rh negative women are not exactly rare.
Spy is offline  
#28 of 116 Old 12-29-2006, 03:19 AM
 
maxmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti
Posts: 2,454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spy View Post
I am curious what people used to do before any sort of Rhogam. Rh negative women are not exactly rare.
Before RhoGam was available, there was a strong possibility of an Rh-discordant couple having multiple miscarriages, stillbirths and neonatal deaths or disability due to hemolysis. There are a number of non-Rh blood groups for whom this is still the case, but because their numbers are much smaller, there is no prophylaxis available. As I mentioned before, Kell (for which I am negative, and my husband is homozygous positive) is one of the blood groups for which this is the case, and I feel very strongly about the risks of HDNB and the known benefits of RhoGam.

mama to Max (2/02) and Sophie (10/06); wife to my fabulous girl
maxmama is offline  
#29 of 116 Old 12-29-2006, 11:38 AM
 
Peppermint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: work-in-progress
Posts: 5,662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
: as I have few weeks to decide on this. I had the Rhogam during each of my other 3 pregnancies, and after my last pregnancy as he was my first + child. I a have c-section births, and during my last pregnancy had a "window" develop, I am concerned that I am at increased risk of blood mixing, but- then of course, concerned about what MT is saying about how the rhogam during pregnancy could actually attack the child I have in there now.: I have lots of reading to do in the next few weeks, and will compile some for my Dr. to read between my 24 and 28 week visits. He is a reasonable man, and not at all the normal "head in the sand" type, so hopefully he will read what I give.

:Patty :fireman Catholic, intactalactivist, co-sleeping, GDing, HSing, no-vax Mama to .........................:..........hale:
Peppermint is offline  
#30 of 116 Old 12-29-2006, 03:20 PM
 
japonica's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada-->Australia
Posts: 987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
In two of my m/c's I was not aware of my rh status and therefore did not get the shot. It was during my 3rd that I was tested and given the shot.
I'm assuming they also tested your titre levels to see if you had developed anti-D antibodies from the first 2 m/c's or else why bother getting the shot for the third one?

Quote:
My doctor told me I needed to receive the shot early on in subsequent pregnancies in order to keep my body from rejecting the fetus.
That sounds off to me. From my understanding, it's intended for use after trauma or bleeding (if used at all in early pg) and is used by OBs in late pg, around 28-30 weeks to prevent sensitization in the third tri and presumably at delivery. I've not heard of OBs using it routinely in early pg if there's no sign of bleeding. Strange.

Quote:
Do think it will be necessary to do the shot early and then again during birth?
No. Just my 2 cents, I would just wait until after birth, get tested, and then get the shot. But that's me. I experienced Rhogam failure (administered as it was supposed to be by health professionals), so I'm sceptical of its efficacy. Plus, now knowing what I do about how it works (and its ingredients), I would avoid it prenatally.

Quote:
Before RhoGam was available, there was a strong possibility of an Rh-discordant couple having multiple miscarriages, stillbirths and neonatal deaths or disability due to hemolysis. There are a number of non-Rh blood groups for whom this is still the case, but because their numbers are much smaller, there is no prophylaxis available. As I mentioned before, Kell (for which I am negative, and my husband is homozygous positive) is one of the blood groups for which this is the case, and I feel very strongly about the risks of HDNB and the known benefits of RhoGam.
Just my perspective, but I have my doubts about it. I've met a lot of women online who were given RhoGam as indicated, and still became sensitized. So, I question its efficacy...if the OBs and health professionals know what they're doing (and women are reporting to their OBs for the shot within that 72 hour window), why are so many women still getting sensitized? Having also come through one sensitized pg successfully and chatting with dozens of women online who have also had successful sensitized pgs (not intervention-free by any means though), becoming sensitized is not the worst case scenario that OBs and nurses make it out to be. Yes, it's no picnic to have IUTs or other interventions, but getting sensitized does not equal pg loss due to HDNB. Not one of the ladies I know on the iso board has had a loss from HDNB. Some are on their third iso pg. I just met with my OB this summer. My titres are up to 1:32 already before even TTCing a 3rd child, yet neither the OB nor peris recommended against it. They did not think it was a problem to proceed. I think responsible management of iso pgs by peris and MFMs makes a huge difference in outcomes.

Mother to DD#1  s/b @40w 2003 for unknown reasons; DD#2   9.5 years old; DS  6 years old 
  Why are daughters protected but not sons?
 
 
 
  
japonica is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off