METHODS: We conducted a multicentre randomised controlled study of 420 patients from 1st January 2016 to 31st December 2017 to evaluate the use of DBC in IOL in an Asian population looking at the adverse effects in the first 12 h after insertion. Women were assigned randomly to cervical ripening with either a DBC or a prostaglandin pessary. The adverse events in the 12 h after DBC or first prostaglandin inserted, the efficacy of a DBC to a prostaglandin in labour induction and maternal satisfaction were evaluated.
RESULTS: There were significantly less women with uterine hyperstimulation in the DBC (2 vs 24, p ≤ 0.0001) compared to the prostaglandin group. There were no women with uterine hyperstimulation and non-reassuring foetal status in the DBC while there were 5 women with uterine hyperstimulation and foetal distress in the prostaglandin group. Use of entonox was significantly less in the DBC group (p = 0.009). There were no significant differences in both groups in caesarean section, vaginal deliveries and time to delivery, although significant less time was needed to achieve cervical os dilation more than 4 cm in the DBC group (p ≤ 0.0001). Neonatal birth outcomes were similar. Women's pain scores were similar for both methods. 80.1% of women allocated the DBC and 76.8% of women allocated the PGE were keen to recommend their method of induction.
CONCLUSION: Double balloon catheter remains a good alternative method for inducing women in view of a good safety profile with low risk of hyperstimulation and high maternal satisfaction.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02620215.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight hundred and twenty-eight subjects (404 PD patients, and 424 age and gender-matched control subjects without neurological disorders) were recruited. Genotyping was done by Taqman® allelic discrimination assay on an Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Real-Time PCR machine.
RESULTS: The heterozygous A419V genotype was found in only 1 patient with PD, compared to 3 in the control group (0.4% vs 1.3%), giving an odds ratio of 0.35 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.01 to 3.79; P = 0.624).
CONCLUSION: A419V is not an important LRRK2 risk variant in our Asian cohort of patients with PD. Our data are further supported by a literature review which showed that 4 out of 6 published studies reported a negative association of this variant in PD.