4.3 Article

Association between Helicobacter pylori infection and cognitive impairment in the elderly

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE FORMOSAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 117, 期 11, 页码 994-1002

出版社

ELSEVIER TAIWAN
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2017.11.005

关键词

Helicobacter pylori; Infection; Cognitive impairment; Elders

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan [100-2314-B-002-103, 101-2314-B-002-126-MY3, 104-2314-B-002-038-MY3]
  2. Academia Sinica

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/purpose: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection has been positively associated with cognitive impairment. However, previous studies have shown inconsistent findings. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 587 elderly participants (age >= 65) from the annual elderly health checkup program at the National Taiwan University Hospital from 2011 to 2013. Both global and domain-specific cognition were assessed using various neuropsychiatric tests. Multivariable linear regression and logistic regression models were utilized to assess the association between the serum H. pylori IgG level and cognitive impairment. Results: Compared with the lowest quartile of H. pylori IgG (Q1), the highest quartile (Q4) was associated with lower scores on verbal fluency-vegetables (beta = -0.24), domain-specific attention [digit span-forward: beta = -0.19; odds ratio (OR) = 1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03-3.24], and attention factors (beta = -0.20; OR= 2.67, 95% CI = 1.51-4.73). No significant association was observed for global cognition. Stratified analyses revealed that, among men, the highest quartile of serum H. pylori IgG (Q4) was associated with impaired scores on verbal fluency-vegetables (beta = -0.38; OR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.42-6.38). Conclusion: Our findings disclosed a positive association between serum H. pylori level and cognitive impairment, which provides important information for the primary prevention of cognitive impairment through the eradication of H. pylori. Copyright (C) 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.3
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