4.7 Article

The relationship between Helicobacter pylori infection and Alzheimer's disease in Japan

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 258, 期 8, 页码 1460-1463

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-011-5957-5

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; Helicobacter pylori; Urine test

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22390085, 22659087, 23790798] Funding Source: KAKEN
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK062813] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although two studies have indicated a possible link between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection, these were reported from Europe, where the prevalence of H. pylori infection is not very high. In this study, the prevalence of H. pylori infection was examined in AD patients in Japan, where there is a high prevalence of H. pylori. Consecutive patients referred to the Memory and Dementia Outpatient Clinic from August 2002 to March 2009 were studied. H. pylori infection status was determined by measuring urinary levels of anti-H. pylori antibody (RAPIRUN(A (R))). Multiple stepwise logistic regression analyses were used to examine the associations of AD with the main predictor variables. Of the 917 patients who visited the clinic, 385 were diagnosed as having AD. Ninety-seven patients did not have dementia and were considered controls. On univariate analysis, average age and the proportion of males were significantly higher in AD patients than in controls. There was no difference in the prevalence of H. pylori infection between patients with AD and controls (62.0% vs. 59.7%, p = 0.67, crude odds ratio (OR), 1.10). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that older age and male sex, but not H. pylori status, were significantly associated with AD (p < 0.001, p = 0.01, p = 0.83, respectively). The prevalence of H. pylori infection did not differ between AD patients and controls among Japanese subjects. The high prevalence of H. pylori in controls may contribute to the discrepancy with previous reports.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据