Factor V Leiden and Prothrombin G20210A in Portuguese Women with Recurrent Miscarriage: Is it Worthwhile to Investigate?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of factor V Leiden (FVL) and prothrombin (PT) G20210A mutations in Portuguese women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM) and a control group of parous women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: FVL and PT G20210A analysis were carried out in 100 women with three or more consecutive miscarriages and 100 controls with no history of pregnancy losses. Secondary analysis was made regarding gestational age at miscarriage (embryonic and fetal losses). RESULTS: Overall, the prevalence of FVL and PT G20210A was similar in women with RM (5 and 3%) compared with controls (5 and 1%) OR 1.36 (CI 95% 0.45-4.08). In RM embryonic subgroup, PT G20210A was observed in 1.3% of women and FVL prevalence (2.6%) was inclusively lesser than that of controls. Both polymorphisms were more prevalent in women with fetal losses than in controls, although statistical significance was not reached due to the small size of the >10 weeks' subgroup. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that neither FVL nor PT G20210A is associated with RM prior to 10 weeks of gestation. Therefore, its screening is not indicated as an initial approach in Portuguese women with embryonic RM and negative personal thromboembolic history.

Different in Vivo Reactivity Profile in Health Care Workers and Patients with Spina Bifida to Internal and External Latex Glove Surface-Derived Allergen Extracts

BACKGROUND: Allergy to natural rubber latex is a well-recognized health problem, especially among health care workers and patients with spina bifida. Despite latex sensitization being acquired in health institutions in both health care workers and patients with spina bifida, differences in allergen sensitization profiles have been described between these two risk groups. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the in vivo reactivity of health care workers and patients with spina bifida to extracts of internal and external surfaces of latex gloves and also to specific extracts enriched in major allergens for these risk groups. METHODS: Gloves from different manufacturers were used for protein extraction, and salt precipitation and hydrophobic interaction chromatography (HIC) were applied to obtain the enriched latex extracts. The major latex allergens were quantified by an enzyme immunoassay. The extracts obtained were tested in 14 volunteers using skin prick tests (SPT). RESULTS: Latex glove extracts enriched in the hydrophobic allergens that are most often seen in patients with spina bifida were obtained by selective precipitation, whereas HIC produced extracts enriched in the hydrophilic allergens commonly found in health care workers. The health care workers had positive SPTs to glove extracts from internal surfaces and to the hydrophilic allergen-enriched extracts. By contrast, patients with spina bifida had larger skin reactions both to external glove extracts and to the extracts enriched with the hydrophobic major allergens for this risk group. Despite the protein concentration of these extracts being less than half the concentration of the commercial extract, the weal-and-flare reactions were of similar magnitude. CONCLUSION: Using novel latex extracts, our study showed a different in vivo reactivity pattern in health care workers and in patients with spina bifida to extracts of the internal and external surfaces of gloves, which suggests that sensitization may occur by different routes of exposure, and that this influences the allergen reactivity profiles of these risk groups