3.9 Article

Helicobacter pylori seroprevalence in patients with chronic prostatitis: A pilot study

期刊

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/00365590903535981

关键词

Chronic prostatitis; Helicobacter pylori; seropositivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. This study investigated the possible relationship between Helicobacter pylori infection and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). The rate of seropositivity for antibodies against H. pylori was determined in a cohort of subjects with CP/CPPS and prostatitis-free control subjects. Material and methods. Sixty-four consecutive patients with CP/CPPS and 55 randomly selected asymptomatic men were recruited to the study. Blood samples from enrolled patients and control subjects were analysed using an enzyme-linked Immulite analyser immunoglobulin G serological test for H. pylori diagnosis. Prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen level, maximum urinary flow rate, and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score of the subjects were also determined. The results were analysed with chi-squared and Student's t test and statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software. Results. There were no significant differences in age and social status between the CP/CPPS and control groups (p > 0.05). Total NIH-CPSI score was significantly higher in the CP/CPPS group. Seropositivity for antibody against H. pylori was higher in the CP/CPPS than the control group (p < 0.05). Conclusions. This pilot study supports the hypothesis that H. pylori may play a role in CP/CPPS. The infection may be related to the immune response and increased cytokines in seminal plasma and/or expressed prostatic secretion. However, no study has investigated the relationship between CP/CPPS and H. pylori stool antigen positivity. This study showed that H. pylori seropositivity is high in CP/CPPS patients, but this needs to be confirmed by other studies.

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

3.9
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