OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the V Leiden mutation is consistently associated with hypertension in pregnancy across populations of pregnant women. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of studies comparing women with and without hypertension in pregnancy for the V Leiden mutation. METHODS: Studies were identified with MEDLINE and EMBASE searches complemented with perusal of bibliographies of retrieved articles and communication with investigators. Data were evaluated with random effects models and between-study heterogeneity was estimated. Sensitivity analyses examined the effect of population and study characteristics. Bias diagnostics evaluated the evolution of the postulated effect over time and the potential for publication bias. RESULTS Across 19 studies (2742 hypertensive women, 2403 controls), V Leiden mutation increased the odds of hypertensive disease of pregnancy by 2.25-fold [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.50-3.38], but there was large between-study heterogeneity (P = 0.002). The results were similar and heterogeneity persisted when sensitivity analyses were limited to studies with Caucasians, proteinuria, diastolic hypertension threshold > 110 mmHg, specified selection of cases, and matching. While studies published up to 2000 showed an odds ratio of 3.16 (95% CI, 2.04-4.92), no association was seen in studies published in 2001-2002 (odds ratio 0.97; 95% CI, 0.61-1.54). There was also evidence of potential publication bias: the five largest studies showed no association (odds ratio 1.21; 95% CI, 0.84-1.74). CONCLUSIONS: Although modest effects of V Leiden mutation on the risk of hypertension in pregnancy cannot be excluded, the association observed in early and small studies may be typical of bias, in particular time-lag bias and publication bias.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the V Leiden mutation is consistently associated with hypertension in pregnancy across populations of pregnant women. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of studies comparing women with and without hypertension in pregnancy for the V Leiden mutation. METHODS: Studies were identified with MEDLINE and EMBASE searches complemented with perusal of bibliographies of retrieved articles and communication with investigators. Data were evaluated with random effects models and between-study heterogeneity was estimated. Sensitivity analyses examined the effect of population and study characteristics. Bias diagnostics evaluated the evolution of the postulated effect over time and the potential for publication bias. RESULTS Across 19 studies (2742 hypertensivewomen, 2403 controls), V Leiden mutation increased the odds of hypertensive disease of pregnancy by 2.25-fold [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.50-3.38], but there was large between-study heterogeneity (P = 0.002). The results were similar and heterogeneity persisted when sensitivity analyses were limited to studies with Caucasians, proteinuria, diastolic hypertension threshold > 110 mmHg, specified selection of cases, and matching. While studies published up to 2000 showed an odds ratio of 3.16 (95% CI, 2.04-4.92), no association was seen in studies published in 2001-2002 (odds ratio 0.97; 95% CI, 0.61-1.54). There was also evidence of potential publication bias: the five largest studies showed no association (odds ratio 1.21; 95% CI, 0.84-1.74). CONCLUSIONS: Although modest effects of V Leiden mutation on the risk of hypertension in pregnancy cannot be excluded, the association observed in early and small studies may be typical of bias, in particular time-lag bias and publication bias.
Authors: Elias Zintzaras; Georgios Kitsios; Gavan A Harrison; Hannele Laivuori; Katja Kivinen; Juha Kere; Ioannis Messinis; Ioannis Stefanidis; John P A Ioannidis Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2006-07-26 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: John Allotey; Kym Ie Snell; Melanie Smuk; Richard Hooper; Claire L Chan; Asif Ahmed; Lucy C Chappell; Peter von Dadelszen; Julie Dodds; Marcus Green; Louise Kenny; Asma Khalil; Khalid S Khan; Ben W Mol; Jenny Myers; Lucilla Poston; Basky Thilaganathan; Anne C Staff; Gordon Cs Smith; Wessel Ganzevoort; Hannele Laivuori; Anthony O Odibo; Javier A Ramírez; John Kingdom; George Daskalakis; Diane Farrar; Ahmet A Baschat; Paul T Seed; Federico Prefumo; Fabricio da Silva Costa; Henk Groen; Francois Audibert; Jacques Masse; Ragnhild B Skråstad; Kjell Å Salvesen; Camilla Haavaldsen; Chie Nagata; Alice R Rumbold; Seppo Heinonen; Lisa M Askie; Luc Jm Smits; Christina A Vinter; Per M Magnus; Kajantie Eero; Pia M Villa; Anne K Jenum; Louise B Andersen; Jane E Norman; Akihide Ohkuchi; Anne Eskild; Sohinee Bhattacharya; Fionnuala M McAuliffe; Alberto Galindo; Ignacio Herraiz; Lionel Carbillon; Kerstin Klipstein-Grobusch; SeonAe Yeo; Helena J Teede; Joyce L Browne; Karel Gm Moons; Richard D Riley; Shakila Thangaratinam Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Christina K H Yu; Juan P Casas; Makrina D Savvidou; Manpreet K Sahemey; Kypros H Nicolaides; Aroon D Hingorani Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2006-03-16 Impact factor: 3.007