No association between Helicobacter pylori infection or CagA-bearing strains and glaucoma.
Kurtz Shimon, Regenbogen Michael, Goldiner Ilana, Horowitz Noya, Moshkowitz Menachem
AI Summary
This study found no significant association between *H. pylori* infection or its virulent CagA strains and any type of glaucoma, suggesting *H. pylori* is not a glaucoma risk factor.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Accumulating evidence indicates that a variety of infections contribute to the pathogenesis of glaucoma. The role of Helicobacter pylori infection in glaucoma is controversial.
Design
Prospective, population-based study.
Participants
Patients with various types of glaucoma and a control group of patients with cataract.
Methods
We evaluated seropositivity to H. pylori and to its cytotoxin-associated gene A (CagA) product in patients with various types of glaucoma and compared the findings to those of a control group of patients with cataract.
Results
H. pylori infection and CagA seropositivity were detected in 31/51 (60.8%) and 26/51 (51%) glaucoma patients compared with 22/36 (61.1%) and 19/36 (52%) control patients, respectively (P=0.88, 0.67, not significant). Similar rates of H. pylori infection and CagA-positive strain were found in all glaucoma subgroups, and none of them was statistically different from those of controls.
Conclusions
Neither H. pylori infection nor seropositivity for virulent CagA-bearing H. pylori strains have significant association with the occurrence of glaucoma of any type.
MeSH Terms
Shields Classification
Related Articles5
Prevalence and Visual Outcome of Glaucoma With Uveitis in a Thai Population.
Cohort StudyGlaucoma in patients with ocular cicatricial pemphigoid.
Retrospective Cohort StudyRisk Factors for Secondary Glaucoma in Herpetic Anterior Uveitis.
Cohort StudyUveitis in Adults: A Review.
ReviewClinical features of retinal vasculitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the International Uveitis Study Group (IUSG) Retinal Vasculitis Study (ReViSe) Report 3.
Systematic ReviewIs this article assigned to the wrong chapter(s)? Let us know.