Table 4:
Studies comparing harmane concentrations in ET cases and controls
| Authors (location) | ET (all) | Definite ET | Probable ET | Possible ET | Control |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Louis et al 2002 [12] (New York) |
5.21 g−10/ml (n = 100) p = 0.005 |
2.28 g−10/ml (n = 100) | |||
| Louis et al 2005 [15] (New York) |
Log harmane = 0.61 ± 0.67 g−10/ml (n = 106) p = 0.035 |
Log harmane = 0.74 ± 0.69 g−10/ml (n = 38) | Log harmane = 0.56 ± 0.67 g−10/ml (n = 53) | Log harmane = 0.48 ± 0.64 g−10/ml (n = 15) | Log harmane = 0.43 ± 0.72 g−10/ml (n = 161) |
| Louis et al 2008 [13] (New York) |
2.61 g−10/ml (n = 150) p = 0.016 |
1.82 g−10/ml (n = 135) | |||
| Louis et al 2013 [14] (Madrid) |
2.90 g−10/ml in familial ET (n = 62) 2.41 g−10/ml in sporadic ET (n = 68) p = 0.049 a |
2.09 g−10/ml (n = 135) | |||
| Current study 2019 (Faroe Islands) |
1.74 g−10/ml (n = 26) p = 0.92 |
4.13 g−10/ml (n = 3) p = 0.126 |
2.28 g−10/ml (n = 12) p = 0.91 |
1.27 g−10/ml (n = 11) p = 0.28 |
1.53 (n = 196) |
Values are median harmane unless otherwise specified as log harmane.
a
in an adjusted logistic regression model comparing familial ET to controls.
p values show comparisons with controls.