Dataset Information

Prevalence and geographical variation of Factor V Leiden in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis: A meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous results regarding the prevalence of Factor V Leiden (FVL) in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) varied remarkably. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the potential association between FVL and CVT.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched for relevant case-control studies. The data were pooled for analysis of the association between FVL and CVT with a random-effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the results. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and the Egger's test.

Results

A total of 39 case-control studies including 1807 cases of CVT and 7699 control cases were included. FVL was more common in patients with CVT (195/1822) than in controls(369/7795), [odds ratio(OR) = 2.70, 95% confidence interval(CI) 2.16-3.38, P < 0.00001]. Results of subgroup analyses indicated that the association between FVL and CVT varied according to geographic regions. The associations between FVL and CVT were significant in studies from Germany (OR = 2.42, 95%CI 1.70-3.45, P < 0.00001), Brazil(OR = 2.82, 95%CI 1.24-6.42, P = 0.01), France (OR = 5.44, 95%CI 1.35-21.92, P = 0.02), Iran (OR = 6.61, 95%CI 1.83-23.93, P = 0.004), and Tunisia (OR = 6.54, 95%CI 2.89-14.82, P < 0.00001), but not in those from Italy (OR = 1.49, 95%CI 0.59-3.78, P = 0.40) or the US (OR = 2.37, 95%CI 0.59-9.42, P = 0.22).

Conclusion

FVL may be more common in patients with CVT. However, the association between FVL and CVT varied depending on the geographic origin of the studies.

SUBMITTER: Li X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6114929 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common. Current guidelines suggest that patients with unprovoked VTE should continue anticoagulants unless they have a high bleeding risk, whereas all others can stop. Prediction models may refine this dichotomous distinction, but existing models apply only to patients with unprovoked first thrombosis. We aimed to develop a prediction model for all patients with first VTE, either provoked or unprovoked.Methods and findingsData were used from two population-based cohorts of patients with first VTE from the Netherlands (Multiple Environment and Genetic Assessment of Risk Factors for Venous Thrombosis [MEGA] follow-up study, performed from 1994 to 2009; model derivation; n = 3,750) and from Norway (Tromsø study, performed from 1999 to 2016; model validation; n = 663). Four versions of a VTE prediction model were developed: model A (clinical, laboratory, and genetic variables), model B (clinical variables and fewer laboratory markers), model C (clinical and genetic factors), and model D (clinical variables only). The outcome measure was recurrent VTE. To determine the discriminatory power, Harrell's C-statistic was calculated. A prognostic score was assessed for each patient. Kaplan-Meier plots for the observed recurrence risks were created in quintiles of the prognostic scores. For each patient, the 2-year predicted recurrence risk was calculated. Models C and D were validated in the Tromsø study. During 19,201 person-years of follow-up (median duration 5.7 years) in the MEGA study, 507 recurrences occurred. Model A had the highest predictive capability, with a C-statistic of 0.73 (95% CI 0.71-0.76). The discriminative performance was somewhat lower in the other models, with C-statistics of 0.72 for model B, 0.70 for model C, and 0.69 for model D. Internal validation showed a minimal degree of optimism bias. Models C and D were externally validated, with C-statistics of 0.64 (95% CI 0.62-0.66) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.63-0.66), respectively. According to model C, in 2,592 patients with provoked first events, 367 (15%) patients had a predicted 2-year risk of >10%, whereas in 1,082 patients whose first event was unprovoked, 484 (45%) had a predicted 2-year risk of <10%. A limitation of both cohorts is that laboratory measurements were missing in a substantial proportion of patients, which therefore were imputed.ConclusionsThe prediction model we propose applies to patients with provoked or unprovoked first VTE-except for patients with (a history of) cancer-allows refined risk stratification, and is easily usable. For optimal individualized treatment, a management study in which bleeding risks are also taken into account is necessary.

Project description:Abstract Introduction Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) are common complications in patients with glioblastoma (GBM). Factor V Leiden (FVL) polymorphism (rs6025, c.1601 G>A) is a known risk factor for VTE, evaluated in cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) in different tumor types. Little is known about the role of this variant in development of CAT in patients with GBM. Material and Methods A cohort of 116 GBM patients (73 males and 43 females) all treated with concomitant temozolomide and radiotherapy, were genotyped for FVL using PCR- pyrosequencing. Of the cohort, 40 patients were diagnosed with and 76 without VTE. Allele frequencies of respective variant were also compared with data from the SweGen Variant Frequency Browser (https://swegen-exac.nbis.se/). Statistical analyses in regard to VTE and its association with FVL and prognostic factors were performed. Results The variant A/G of FVL was carried by 17 (15%) of the patients and 99 (85%) were wild type, G/G. Chi2 test including the prognostic factors age, type of surgery, gender and blood group showed that these were evenly distributed between those with G/G and A/G, except for blood group in relation to FVL variant, which showed a borderline significance (p=0.07). Among the patients having blood group 0, 32% (n= 32) were G/G and 59% (n= 10) were A/G. Statistical tests did not reveal any correlation between blood group and FVL variant. In the logistic regression analysis apart from FVL, age, gender and blood group were included. This showed a significant difference for blood group 0 versus non-0 (A, B or AB) for decreased risk of VTE (P=0.014). There was no significant difference between heterozygous FVL (A/G) versus the G/G genotype in VTE risk (p=0.09). There were no differences in survival in relation to VTE or not or variant of FVL. The FVL AG variant is slightly overrepresented among GBM compared to the normal Swedish population, but does not reach statistical significance, OR 1.63 (0.93–2.84). Conclusions We examined the influence of FVL variants together with clinical factors in a homogenously treated cohort of GBM patients for the risk to develop a VTE. We confirmed blood group 0 versus non-0 as reducing the VTE risk. For FVL c.1601 G>A variant, the differences between AG vs GG did not reach statistical significance. In our cohort we found a trend towards increased risk of developing GBM for the A/G variant. We plan to further study other factors involved in coagulation for their potential role in GBM patients.