Factor V Leiden mutation in women with early recurrent pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis and systematic review of the causal association
- 1k Downloads
Recently, the interest has focused on the increased prevalence of thrombophilic defects in women with gestational complications.
To explore whether women with early recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) are at increased risk of being carriers of the Factor V Leiden (FVL) mutation compared to those who have a normal reproductive history.
A manual and electronic literature search was undertaken to identify studies with a case–control population of women with two or more first trimester RPLs of undetermined origin and age- and ethnicity-matched control group with normal reproductive history and at least one full-term delivery. Both groups were screened for FVL mutation. A quality assessment was performed according to the pre-established validity criteria and using the Cochrane handbook guidelines for observational studies. The combinability of studies was assessed by clinical and statistical methods (Breslow–Day’s test of homogeneity). Quantitative data were abstracted with regard to the prevalence of FVL mutation in the case and control group, and 2 × 2 tables were created. The ratio comparing the odds of FVL mutation in women with early RPL with the odds of FVL mutation in women with normal reproductive outcome was calculated with its 95 % confidence interval (CI) by Mantel–Haenszel method.
Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for review. A total of 2,147 women were screened for the FVL mutation, 1,305 women with early RPL, and 842 women with no gestational complications. Women with early RPL had indeed a statistically significantly increased carrier frequency of FVL mutation, the common OR being 1.68 (95 % CI: 1.16–2.44).
FVL carrier state may increase the susceptibility for early RPL. Testing for FVL mutation should be considered in women with unexplained early RPL and thrombophylaxis has been suggested in women with unexplained RPL associated with FVL mutation.
KeywordsFactor V Leiden Recurrent pregnancy loss Recurrent spontaneous abortions First trimester Thrombophilia Coagulation defects
Factor V Leiden
Recurrent pregnancy loss
Activated protein C
CS re-addressed specific questions, discussed in detail data, analysis, and results, and wrote the final draft of the manuscript. TAJ conceived the study, designed the study, analyzed data and results, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. MW conceived the study and reviewed the paper. We are very grateful to the Saudi Cultural Bureau, Ottawa, ON, for the support of Dr. Al-Jishi.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data.
- 11.Tormen D, Simioni P, Prandoni P, Luni S, Innella B, Sabbion P et al (1999) The risk of fetal loss in family members of probands with factor V Leiden mutation. Thromb Hamost 82:1237–1239Google Scholar
- 14.Dahlback B (1995) Molecular genetics of thrombophilia factor V gene mutation causing resistance to activated protein C as a basis of the hypercoagulable state. J Clin Lab Med 125:566–571Google Scholar
- 24.Khan K, Riet GT, Glanville J et al (2000) Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD’s guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews, 2nd edn. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, YorkGoogle Scholar
- 25.Formulating the problem. In: Alderson P, Green S, Higgins JPT (eds) [Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook 4.2.2 ed]. Available at http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/hbook.htm
- 28.Bauer KA (1995) Management of patients with hereditary defects predisposing to thrombosis including pregnant women. Throm Haemost 74:94–100Google Scholar
- 43.Breslow NE, Day NE (1980) Statistical methods in cancer research. Vol 1. The analysis of case–control studies. IARC Sci Publ 32:335–338Google Scholar
- 52.Reznikoff-Etievant MF, Cayol V, Carbonne B, Robert A, Coulet F (2001) Factor V Leiden and G20210A prothrombin mutations are risk factors for very early recurrent miscarriage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 108:1251–1254Google Scholar
- 53.Sackett D, Haynes BR, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P Deciding whether your treatment has done harm in clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. 2nd edition, Little, Brown and Company, pp 285Google Scholar
- 55.Clark P, Brennand J, Conkie JA (1998) Activated protein C sensitivity, protein C, protein S and coagulation in normal pregnancy. Throm Haemost 79:1166–1170Google Scholar
- 65.Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M (2001) Systematic reviews of observational studies. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman D (eds.) BMJ Publishing Group, London pp 211–227Google Scholar
- 67.Berlin JA, Miles CG, Cirigliano MD, et al. (1997) Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? Results of a randomized trial. Online J Current Clin Trials (Doc no 205)Google Scholar