Stroke risk associated with NSAIDs uses in women with dysmenorrhea: A population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Dysmenorrhea is among the most common type of gynecological problem, affecting young women across the globe. This study assessed the comparative risk of stroke associated with the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and non-NSAIDs in women with dysmenorrhea while taking into account the following factors such as age, history of pregnancy, NSAIDs uses and its duration of use, and selected comorbidities.
METHODOLOGY: We used a quantitative research approach based on a comparative case-control study design. The study data was selected from the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database (LHID) 2000, of the Taiwan National Health Research Institutes. Among the estimated 23.4 million insured Taiwanese, who were covered by the Taiwan health insurance system, in the 2000 registry of beneficiaries, one million individuals were randomly selected from the database. A total of 24,955 females suffering from dysmenorrhea were selected for the study. Out of those 3238 (13%) participated in the study group and 21,717 (87%) were randomly distributed into the controls group. Women in the age range, 15-49 years, who did not have any history of stroke, hysterectomy, and/or ovariectomy, were included in the study. A comparative proportional distribution analysis was used for data analysis.
RESULTS: Age and use of NSAIDs and its duration of usage were factors associated with an increased incidence of stroke. The stroke incidence rate was 12.77 per 10,000 person-years, and 1.83-fold higher in NSAIDs use cohort than in comparisons with adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 1.47 (95% CI = 0.93-2.32). Among women with dysmenorrhea use of NSAIDs, the stroke incidence increased to 2.29-fold (aHR 95% CI = 1.36-3.84) in those use for ≧24 days per month and to 0.51-fold (aHR 95% CI = 0.13-2.10) in those use for 6-12 days per month.
CONCLUSIONS: Women with dysmenorrhea who use NSAIDs have a higher risk of stroke. Especially young women, the risk of stroke is further increased, and the longer the medication, the higher the risk of stroke. Every woman with symptoms of dysmenorrhea deserves specialized outpatient treatment and care.

Introduction

Dysmenorrhea is among the most common types of gynecological problem affecting young women across the globe [1-5]. Although there are notable variations across different communities around the world, the prevalence of dysmenorrhea ranges from 50–90% [1]. It is usually characterized by aching abdominal pain, present before the onset, and during menstruation, which is generally the most common symptom seen in women. Nausea tiredness, headache, itchiness, diarrhea, and vomiting are some other accompanying symptoms [1, 3]. Dysmenorrhea can be of two types: primary dysmenorrhea (PD) or secondary dysmenorrhea (SD). PD is the type of dysmenorrhea that manifests itself without any accompanying organic pathological condition in the reproductive organs, while SD is caused by an organic pathological condition in the reproductive system [4]. In addition, PD differs from SD in that, its occurrence usually starts shortly after menarche while that of the former is dependent on the presence or absence of an organic disease(s) in the reproductive system [1, 4].

There are a variety of factors that have been closely linked with the risk of developing dysmenorrhea. The key contributing factor is an increase in the secretion level of hormones, mainly vasopressin and oxytocin [6]. Notably, alterations in hormonal balance is not only common among women who experience abnormal menstrual patterns, but such alterations are also a risk factor for mediating the pathogenesis of hypertension [5, 6]. It is noticed that women with dysmenorrhea are at a high risk of sustaining blood pressure and other related health complications [5]. This is a major health concern given the general prevalence of practicing the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)as the first-line therapy for the treatment of PD [2, 3, 6]. Moreover, owing to its high prevalence, dysmenorrhea is frequently considered as a self-treated health condition among patients of all age groups. Specifically, teenagers are prone to experiencing PD-related symptoms, with an estimated 60% of all incidences of PD being reported during the teenage years [7].

Despite being relatively premature, studies have shown that over 84% of teenagers who experience PD engage in self-treatment of associated symptoms, without seeking any advice from a physician and about 78% of them choose medications without adult supervision [7, 8]. In fact, studies have reported that not only most of these teenagers choose their medications based on convenience and availability [2] but also over half of them lack understanding of the correct dosing requirements of the over the counter (OTC) medications used for self-treatment of PD [7, 8]. Furthermore, even among adults, incidences of polypharmacy and incorrect dosages and/or dosing frequency of taking NSAIDs for self-treatment of PD-related symptoms is not uncommon [2, 8]. Unfortunately, this trend of self-treatment among women dealing with PD is continuing, despite recent research findings which have associated long-term use of NSAIDs with increased risk for undesirable cardiovascular outcomes among patients [6].

Particularly, it is seen that extended use of NSAIDs among women with dysmenorrhea, also increases the risks for of sustaining common cardiac adverse effects such as hypertension, stroke, bleeding and heart attack [8-13]. However, despite this consensus on the association of long-term use of NSAIDs with increased risk of adverse cardiovascular effects, there still remains an inherent lack of unanimity on whether or not women with dysmenorrhea are at a higher risk of sustaining stroke from the blood pressure elevation, caused by an alteration in the level of their hormones due to extended use of NSAIDs. The risk of sustaining a stroke excessively exacerbates the detrimental effects of dysmenorrhea on women, impacting not only them individually, but also their family members and the society as a whole. It needs to be emphasized that stroke is the third leading cause of death across the globe and is a common cause of disability and mortality in societies around the world [13, 14].

Additionally, there are notable variations not only in terms of potential stroke risk but also on the type of stroke detected among women who have and those who do not have dysmenorrhea [6]. In spite of the widespread prevalence of stroke risk in women with dysmenorrhea, there are no detailed clinical studies based on the relationship of dysmenorrhea, extended use of NSAIDs, and stroke risk as a health concern. In this study, we sought to investigate the comparative risk of stroke among women affected with dysmenorrhea, associated with NSAIDs use and non-NSAIDs use. We conducted a case-control study to assess stroke risk in such women by taking into account various factors such as age, history of pregnancy, NSAIDs use, and duration of use. Our aim was to identify the role of selected comorbidities in NSAID users. Data for this study was obtained from insurance claims of the Taiwan National Health Research Institutes database, by selecting women who suffered from dysmenorrhea and were prescribed NSAIDs at least two times.

Methodology

Study design and study population

In this study, we used a quantitative research approach based on a comparative cross-sectional case-control study design. The choice of conducting a case-control study design for this study was essential to ensure that both the cases and controls were sampled from an existing source population, that was clearly predefined in relation to details of its sample size [16]. Specifically, this study design offers the benefit of eliminating the problem of referral or partial verification bias, commonly seen with typical case-control designs. Moreover, this study design also ensured that all the patients who were selected for the study signify a true representation of the actual disease status and act as a standard reference of interest for the study [15, 16]. Furthermore, a nested case-control design allows a simple way for obtaining all the measures of diagnostic accuracy for the target sample [16]. The study data was selected from the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database (LHID) 2000, of the Taiwan National Health Research Institutes. Out of the estimated 23.4 million insured Taiwanese who were covered by the Taiwan health insurance system, as documented in the 2000 registry of beneficiaries, one million individuals were randomly selected from the database. As a subset of the insurance claims data of the registry of beneficiaries, LHID 2000 is a reliable representation of the entire population of Taiwan. Therefore, to conduct this study, this database was chosen as the study population. It has been reported that from 1997, coverage of the residents of Taiwan by the national health insurance system has been estimated to be more than 99% of the entire population [17]. Additionally, the LHID 2000 database of the Taiwan National Health Research Institute boasts about maintaining comprehensive documentation of all insurance claims data of the involved beneficiaries, including their specifics such as demographics, medications prescriptions, surgical procedures, and clinical examinations, as well as information regarding inpatient and outpatient care offered and cost of care involved, from 1996 to 2013. While conducting the study, permission to access and use the insurance claims data from the database was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of China Medical University and Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan (CMUH104-REC2-115). During our study research, we adhered to the principles as mentioned in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Selection criteria

From the claims data in the LHID 2000 database, we identified 27,749 females with diagnosed dysmenorrhea (ICD-9-CM: 625.3) for at least twice from 2000 to 2008. After excluding those aged < 15 or > 50 years (n = 1545) and those with the history of hysterectomy or ovariectomy (Procedure Code 68 and 65, respectively), or stroke (n = 1249). The dysmenorrhea diagnosed date was defined as index date (Fig 1). Of the remaining 24,955 women with dysmenorrhea were eligible for this study and divided into two groups. The comparison group included 21,717 women who did not have any documented history of using NSAIDs or had used NSAIDs only once, for the treatment of dysmenorrhea, since the time they were diagnosed with the condition. Seventy people in the control group had a stroke. The control group included 3238 with documented of using NSAIDs to the treatments of dysmenorrhea, at least twice and 27 people had strokes.

Fig 1

Flowchart showing the process of sample selection.

*p<0.001.

Stroke outcome and associated factors

For each woman, we checked whether they had a stroke (ICD-9 code:430–437) [6, 11]. Stroke types include hemorrhagic stroke (HS, ICD-9 codes 430–432), ischemic stroke (IS, ICD-9 code 434), transient cerebral ischemia (TIA, ICD-9 code 435) and other acute and other ill-defined cerebrovascular diseases (OCD, ICD-9 code 436 and 437). The demographic data file provided information on age was stratified into five subgroups (15–19, 20–24, 25–29, 30–39 and 40–49 years), and pregnancy (ever and no). We also searched for comorbidities that were potentially linked to stroke including: diabetes (ICD-9 code: 250), hyperlipidemia (ICD-9 code: 272), obesity (ICD-9 code: 278), hypertension (ICD-9 code: 401–405), thyroid disease (ICD-9 code: 420–426), arrhythmia (ICD-9 code: 427) and alcohol-related diseases (ICD-9 code: 291, 3030, 305, 571.0–571.3, 790.3, V11.3) were specifically examined among those dysmenorrhea women. All baseline comorbidities were defined before the index date.

Data analysis

We used SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Carey USA) to perform the data analyses for this study, with a p-value of <0.05 considered statistically significant. Chi-square test was conducted to compare the difference of categorical variables between cohorts with and without NSAIDs use. Data analysis involved the use of logistic regression analysis as the statistical method. Baseline demographic statuses and comorbidities were compared between the cases and controls. Logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the crude and adjusted odds ratios (cOR and aOR) of stroke and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) to identify whether these variables were also associated with NSAIDs user. We used a multivariable-adjusted model to estimate the average risk of stroke in women dealing with dysmenorrhea, who used NSAIDs and in those who did not use NSAIDs. The NSAIDs cohort to the comparison cohort hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. The multivariable Cox model was used to estimated adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), controlling for age, pregnancy and all comorbidities. A P-value of 0.05 was used as the statistical significance. To determine whether the risk of stroke is associated with the length of time NSAIDs being used and also verifying its association, a multivariable-adjusted model was used to estimate the average stroke risk and proportional distributions of stroke risk, by calculating the number of days per month a woman with dysmenorrhea women with dysmenorrhea used NSAIDs. The duration for which NSAIDs was used by women with dysmenorrhea was stratified into five subgroups: none, ≤ 5, 6–12, 13–24, and ≥ 24 days per month. The model was adjusted for age and pregnancy. The significance level was examined by conducting the t-test. We used Kaplan-Meier method to calculate and plot the cumulative incidence of stroke for both cohorts, with the difference examined by log-rank test. The incidence of stroke was calculated by dividing the sum of stroke development by the sum of follow-up person-years, presented by 100 person-years.

Results

For this study, a total of 27,749 females were identified from the LHID 2000 database as newly diagnosed dysmenorrhea cases, who have filed insurance claims from 2000 to 2008. After excluding females who were of age, below 12 years and 50 years and above (n = 1545) and those who had known history of stroke, hysterectomy, and/or ovariectomy (n = 1249) by the time they were first diagnosed with dysmenorrhea, the study included a total of 24,955 remaining adolescents and women, of age group15-49 years. The study comprised of 3238 (13%) NSAID treatment cases (study group) and 21717 (87%) non-NSAID treatment patients (control group) (Fig 1).

The mean ages for the cases and the controls were 30.2 (SD = 8.58) and 29.2(SD = 8.57) years, respectively (Table 1). The lack of a history of pregnancy increased the risk of being diagnosed with dysmenorrhea among women in the country (57.2% vs 42.8% in the cases and 61.6% vs. 38.4% in the controls). The results showed that females of age group, 30–39 years had the highest number of newly diagnosed dysmenorrhea (n = 945 (29.2%) of cases and n = 6360 (29.3%) of controls), while those between12-19 years had the least number (n = 345 (10.7%) of cases and n = 2703 (12.5%) of controls) (Table 1). In terms of the prevalence of stroke risk associated with age in women with dysmenorrhea, the study showed that out of the total sample, 70 (0.32% of the total study sample) and 27 of the women (0.83% of the total sample for the study) developed stroke in the controls and cases groups, respectively (Fig 1).

Table 1

Baseline comparison in women with dysmenorrhea, with and without NSAIDs uses.

	NSAID users				p-value	Odds ratio(95%CI)
	Yes		No
	N = 3238		N = 21717
	(13.0%)		(87.0%)
Age, years	n	(%)	n	(%)	0.009	Crude	Adjusted
15–19	345	(10.7)	2703	(12.5)		Ref.
20–24	690	(21.3)	4508	(20.8)		1.20 (1.05–1.38)**	1.15 (1.00–1.32)
25–29	726	(22.4)	4950	(22.8)		1.15 (1.00–1.32)*	1.03 (0.90–1.19)
30–39	945	(29.2)	6360	(29.3)		1.16 (1.02–1.33)*	0.96 (0.83–1.10)
40–49	532	(16.4)	3196	(14.7)		1.30 (1.13–1.51)***	1.01 (0.87–1.18)
Mean (SD)	30.2	(8.58)	29.7	(8.57)	0.001		1.00 (0.99–1.00)
Follow-up years
Mean (SD)	6.53	(3.06)	4.75	(3.08)	<0.0001
Pregnancy					<0.0001
Ever	1386	(42.8)	8336	(38.4)		1.20 (1.12–1.30)***	1.17 (1.08–1.27)***
No	1852	(57.2)	13381	(61.6)		Ref.	Ref.
Comorbidity
Diabetes	123	(3.80)	493	(2.27)	<0.0001	1.70 (1.39–2.08)***	1.26 (1.01–1.57)*
Hypertension	144	(4.45)	605	(2.79)	<0.0001	1.62 (1.35–1.96)***	1.30 (1.06–1.58)*
Hyperlipidemia	218	(6.73)	895	(4.12)	<0.0001	1.68 (1.44–1.96)***	1.36 (1.15–1.62)***
Obesity	41	(1.27)	160	(0.74)	0.002	1.73 (1.22–2.44)**	1.36 (0.95–1.93)
Arrhythmia	229	(7.07)	953	(4.39)	<0.0001	1.66 (1.43–1.93)***	1.46 (1.26–1.71)***
Thyroid disease	416	(12.9)	1988	(9.15)	<0.0001	1.46 (1.31–1.64)***	1.32 (1.18–1.48)***
Alcohol-related diseases	48	(1.48)	165	(0.76)	<0.0001	1.97 (1.42–2.72)***	1.76 (1.27–2.45)***

NSAIDs: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Adjusted OR: multiple analysis after adjusting for age, pregnancy, comorbidities; CI, confidence interval.

* p <0.05,

** p <0.01,

*** p <0.001.

The results highlighted that the probability for developing stroke increases with age as seen among the cases and controls group overall (n = 29 at 40–49 years vs. n = 3 at 15–19 years in the controls and n = 7 at 40–49 years vs. n = 2 at 15–19 years in the cases) (Table 2). However, compared to the control group, the risk of stroke was the highest in the study group (cases) among women of age between 30–39 years (n = 24, CI = 95%). This is a significant finding as this age group accounted for more than half of the total number that developed stroke among the case group. It was seen that incidence rate per 10000 person- was 12.77 in the cases group compared to 6.79 in the control group. Notably, it was evident in the study that women who were suffering from dysmenorrhea and had a history of using NSAID for 24 days or more, per month, not only contributed to majority of the cases, but were also at the highest risk for developing stroke (n = 20, out of the 27 women who developed stroke in the cases group) (Table 3).

Table 2

Risk of stroke compared between NSAIDs use cohort and comparison cohort among women with dysmenorrhea.

Age, years	Cohort	Event	PY	IR	HR (95% CI)
					Crude	p	Adjusted*	p
15–19	Comparison	3†	16667	1.80	1.0		1.0
	NSAIDs	2†	2581	7.75	4.81 (0.80–28.8)	0.09	5.23 (0.87–31.3)	0.07
20–24	Comparison	5	23965	2.09	1.0		1.0
	NSAIDs	4†	4749	8.42	3.95 (1.05–14.8)	0.04	4.27 (1.13–16.1)	0.03
25–29	Comparison	8	22186	3.61	1.0		1.0
	NSAIDs	0	4727	0.00	NA		NA
30–39	Comparison	25	26731	9.35	1.0		1.0
	NSAIDs	14	5754	24.33	2.46 (1.27–4.76)	0.008	2.22 (1.13–4.36)	0.02
40–49	Comparison	29	13510	21.47	1.0		1.0
	NSAIDs	7	3327	21.04	0.91 (0.40–2.10)	0.83	0.70 (0.30–1.62)	0.40
All	Comparison	70	103058	6.79	1.0		1.0
	NSAIDs	27	21138	12.77	1.83 (1.17–2.86)	0.008	1.47 (0.93–2.32)	0.10

PY: person-years; IR: incidence rate per 10000 PY; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval.

*Model was adjusted for age, pregnancy and all comorbidities listed in Table 1.

event: less than 5.

Table 3

Stroke risk seen in women with dysmenorrhea in association with use of NSAIDs and its duration of usage.

	N	Event	PY	IR	HR (95% CI)
					Crude	p	Adjusted*	p
NSAIDs use day, per month
None	21717	70	103058	6.79	1.00		1.00
< = 5	230	0	2006	0.00	NA		NA
6–12	763	2 †	5472	3.65	0.52 (0.13–2.13)	0.36	0.51 (0.13–2.10)	0.35
13–24	851	5 †	5581	8.96	1.30 (0.52–3.21)	0.58	1.17 (0.47–2.91)	0.73
≧24	1394	20	8079	24.76	3.56 (2.16–5.86)	<0.0001	2.29 (1.36–3.84)	0.002

PY: person-years; IR: incidence rate per 10000 PY; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval.

*Model was adjusted for age, pregnancy and all comorbidities listed in Table 1.

event: less than 5.

The results showed that in general, the risk of developing stroke increases with increase in the number of days per month that a woman who has dysmenorrhea uses NSAID as a treatment option (IR = 24.76 for cases who used NSAID treatment for 24 or more days per month) (Table 3). The study results did not show any evidence linking, NSAID for treatments use at the rate of 5 or less days per month to any risk of developing stroke among women with dysmenorrhea, regardless of their age, pregnancy and comorbidity status. However, the data indicated an overall higher risk of developing stroke among women with dysmenorrhea, who had one or more comorbidity and were using NSAIDs for the treatment.

Table 4 indicates that the stroke risk in the subgroup of women who had one or more comorbidity was higher than that posed by age (cSHR = 1.83 at p = 0.008 v. aSHR = 1.47 at 0.11). Notably, as evident in Table 1, hyperlipidemia (ICD-9 code: 272), thyroid disease (ICD-9 code: 420–426), and arrhythmia (ICD-9 code: 427) were the most common, while obesity (ICD-9 code: 278) and alcohol-related diseases (ICD-9 code: 291, 3030, 305, 571.0–571.3, 790.3, V11.3) were the least common types of comorbidities seen among the cases in this study. In addition, we found that diabetes (ICD-9 code: 250) and hypertension (ICD-9 code: 401–405) were moderately prevalent among women who suffered from dysmenorrhea, in both the cases and controls groups of the study.

Table 4

Subhazard ratios of stroke based on the comparison linked-risk regression.

	Comparison group	NSAIDs	p
Stroke
cSHR (95% CI)	1.0	1.83 (1.17–2.88)	0.008
aSHR* (95% CI)	1.0	1.47 (0.92–2.36)	0.11

SHR, subhazard ratio; CI: confidence interval.

*Model was adjusted for age, pregnancyand all comorbidities and medications listed in Table 1.

Fig 2 shows that the number of cumulative incidences of stroke in women who had dysmenorrhea and used NSAID treatments, was significantly higher compared to those who did not use NSAID treatment over the follow-up time. Moreover, this effect was higher in the case group as compared to that of controls, but there was no significant difference noted with regard to the timing of developing stroke between both the groups. In both the groups, the risk of stroke peaked and relatively flattened, after 12 months of follow-up time (CI = 0.02 for cases and 0.01 for controls at p = 0.07).

Fig 2

Log-risk test for evaluating the comparative cumulative incidence of stroke among NSAID users and non-NSAID users.

Discussion

The study results indicated that generally, there is a significant of using NSAID as a treatment among women who had newly diagnosed dysmenorrhea have a higher risk of stroke. Especially young women, the risk of stroke is further increased, and the longer the medication, the higher the risk of stroke. Previous research studies that were conducted on the risk of developing stroke in women with dysmenorrhea have attributed an increased risk of stroke, to alterations in hormonal balance which in turn causes incidents of pathogenesis of hypertension [5, 6]. In particular, hormonal imbalances and hypertension are not only common among women who experience abnormal menstrual patterns, but also that these conditions are associated with increasing the risk of sustaining blood pressure and related health complications, including stroke in women with dysmenorrhea [5]. The present study explored the comparative risk of developing stroke, associated with NSAID treatment, and non-NSAID treatment use among women with dysmenorrhea with or without the comorbidities, which have been generally linked to increase the likelihood of causing stroke. There were fewer incidents of stroke reported among women in the controls group as compared to the cases group. This study demonstrated more incidents of stroke among women in the cases group who used more NSAID-based treatments per month as compared to those who used fewer NSAIDs per month.

This study showed that particularly, women who had dysmenorrhea and used NSAID treatments were twice as likely to develop stroke as compared to women who did not use NSAID treatments. This indicates that use of NSAIDs can significantly increase the risk of developing stroke in women with dysmenorrhea. However, this risk increases with the rate of usage of NSAIDs per month. The results demonstrated that women who used NSAIDs for 24 days or more in a month were nearly 25 times more likely to develop stroke than those who engaged in occasional NSAIDs usage. The stroke risk in women with dysmenorrhea also increased with age and in presence of comorbidities.

It is worth noticing that unlike previous research where prevalence of newly diagnosed dysmenorrhea was comparatively high among women in their teenage and early adulthood, this study found that the condition was more prevalent among age group, 20–39 years (72.9%) in both case and control group. This disparity can be attributed to the fact that, the present study did not adjust the data analysis models according to the differences in varied types of dysmenorrhea that were being investigated. This implies that the high prevalence of dysmenorrhea found among women of age group, 20–39 years, could be due to combination effects of both PD and SD. The high prevalence of self-treatment of dysmenorrhea among patients, regardless of their age, can also account for the small numbers of adolescents and young adults aged below 20 years who sought related treatment interventions from formal health care services in the nation over the studied period. Given the proximity and inherent sharing of cultural values, tastes, and preferences between Taiwanese and Chinese population, the usage of traditional Chinese medicine for dysmenorrhea treatment remains high among women of Taiwan. Hence, in Taiwan this further prevents the utilization of formal health care services among women with dysmenorrhea.

It is reported that both self-preparation and self- administration of traditional Chinese medicines for treating dysmenorrhea are common practices among women with dysmenorrhea. Moreover, previous studies that have compared the clinical efficacy of self-prepared dysmenorrhea paste, in combination with other Chinese herbal medicine practices such as umbilical therapy and acupuncture, have shown relatively higher effective rate for treating PD as compared to studies where conventional medicines were used [18-20]. Literature also showed that high utilization of traditional Chinese medicine as compared to conventional western drugs, in China and its neighboring countries such as Taiwan, is generally due to a perception that a western medicine in the long-term are associated with higher risks, impacting the overall health and wellbeing of users [1, 21–23]. Overall, results of the study demonstrated that the risk of developing stroke among women with dysmenorrhea is associated with various other factors such as age, NSAIDs usage frequency, any prior history of pregnancy and/or any other comorbidity which have been closely linked to stroke risk.

It was seen that the proportion of women with dysmenorrhea who used NSAIDs and developed stroke was comparatively greater than that of women who did not use NSAIDs and developed stroke. In the study, incidence rate was 12.77 in the case group as compared to 6.79 in the control group. This indicates that there is a two-fold increase in the likelihood of developing stroke among women who have used NSAIDs for the treatment of dysmenorrhea. The findings in the present study have attributed these common comorbidities such as hyperlipidemia (ICD-9 code: 272), thyroid disease (ICD-9 code: 420–426) and arrhythmia (ICD-9 code: 427) with an increased risk of developing stroke among women with dysmenorrhea which is consistent with results shown in previous research where hypertension and hormonal imbalances were linked with increased stroke risk [6, 24, 25]. These comorbidities are one of the major risk factors for initiating stroke among women with dysmenorrhea, who generally prefer to use NSAID as a treatment option.

As previously discussed that the extended use of NSAIDs among women with dysmenorrhea has been linked with an increasing risks for sustaining common cardiovascular adverse effects such as hypertension, stroke, bleeding and heart attack [8-13]. However, more importantly, the risk of developing NSAID-related adverse cardiovascular outcomes among patients, increases with polypharmacy or the use of multiple NSAIDs, commonly seen in patients who have multiple chronic comorbidities. It needs to be emphasized that stroke is the third leading cause of death across the globe and often leads to disability and mortality, affecting the population worldwide. This impact is mainly due to its association with various chronic comorbidities as seen in our modern society [13, 14, 23, 24]. In addition, the health risks associated with consumption of NSAIDs are largely cumulative in nature [25-29]. In other words, the risk of sustaining adverse health reactions and related outcomes from using NSAIDs will generally increase with the increase in duration and frequency of using such treatments.

In this study, we found that the cumulative incidence rates of stroke were higher in the cases than those of the controls. The present study also found that the risk of stroke is significantly increased with increase in the number of days per month that a woman with dysmenorrhea uses NSAID as a treatment modality 5(IR = 24.76 for cases who used NSAID treatment for 24 or more days per month) (Table 3). However, the study results did not show any evidence linking NSAIDs with treatments use at the rate of 5 or less days per month, to any risk of developing stroke in women with dysmenorrhea regardless of their age, pregnancy and comorbidity status. The findings of this study indicate that the risk of stroke associated with the use of NSAID among women with dysmenorrhea can be significantly blamed on the common practice of self-treatment for dysmenorrhea-related symptoms due to the convenience and cost-effective availability of NSAIDs as common general-use OTC medications in the society. However, with this lack of involvement of qualified healthcare professionals in the use of NSAIDs for self-treatment of dysmenorrhea-related symptoms presents with high likelihood of an ‘as needed’ attitude in the taking of these medications and associated risks of adverse drug outcomes, both in the short- and long-term, among these women.

Furthermore, given their preferential use as first-line medications of choice for pain treatment in practice, incidences of polypharmacy in taking NSAIDs are not uncommon. The result of the present study indicated that the risk of stroke linked to use of NSAIDs, among women with dysmenorrhea differs, depending on the consumption of NSAIDs by individuals. This is quite likely given not only the inherent multiplicity of generics of NSAIDs available in the market, but also that the active elements in NSAIDs are common constituents in most other medications which are commonly used in clinical treatment. As such, discouraging the culture of self-treatment for dysmenorrhea by using OTC NSAIDs can significantly help in reducing the stroke risk associated with NSAIDs in women with dysmenorrhea. This approach will be conducive to improving the prospects of safe-prescribing of NSAIDs.

Overall, compared to the controls group, the prevalence of stroke among women with dysmenorrhea in the case group was notably high (0.32% vs. 0.83% in the non-NSAIDs and NSAIDs use groups, respectively). This finding seems to contradict previous studies which have found a general comparative clinical efficacy, if not better, for using traditional herbal medicine and practices compared to conventional medicines on PD [18-20]. The disparity can be explained by the fact that, just like the use of conventional medicines such as NSAIDs, use of traditional medicines continues to present with inadequacy of effectiveness and shows likely adverse outcomes due to the problems related to its self-preparation and treatment [19, 23]. This emphasizes the need for advocating professional aid in the treatment of dysmenorrhea as a critical measure, for reducing stroke risk among such women.

Conclusions

In this study, we have identified the comparative stroke risk associated with the use of NSAIDs uses and non-NSAIDs uses among women dealing with dysmenorrhea and how age, pregnancy history and selected comorbidities impacts the overall risk. As a whole, from the present study it is clear that the risk of stroke in women using NSAIDs for dysmenorrhea, increases significantly with increase in the quantity and frequency of using NSAIDs. Additionally, comorbidities also increase the stroke risk in these women, as they are generally under the influence of multiple medications which further amplifies the risk. Therefore, this study supports previous research that recommends the need for discouraging self-treatment to deal with dysmenorrhea symptoms, in the absence of physician advice or lack of adult supervision.

Limitation

Although this study was strengthened by the use of the large insurance claims database, there were several limitations. First, information on body mass index, lifestyle of diet, smoking and drinking, and family health history was unavailable to adjust for these potential confounders in data analyses. However, the impact from some of these factors might be minor because women are more likely to avoid unhealthy behaviors. Smoking and drinking are rare habits in women in Taiwan and obesity is not prevalent as well. The study results might not be generalizable to non-Chinese populations and populations with higher rates of obesity. Second, the issue of lacking the type of used NSAIDS, the dose of used NSAIDs, the time between NSAID consumption which might increase the stroke in these groups. Third, NSAIDs as common general use OTC medications in the Taiwan society and easy to buy at pharmacies. However, with this lack of involvement of qualified healthcare professionals (example; Doctor, Pharmacist) in the use of NSAIDs treatment of dysmenorrhea.

Disease ICD-9 code.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

21 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-13819

Stroke Risk associated with NSAIDs Uses in Women with Dysmenorrhea;a population-based Cohort Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Kindly address the reviewers comments and submit a point by point rebuttal letter. If you do not agree with reviewers comments, you can give your explanation with supporting evidence. Good luck

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Muhammad Junaid Farrukh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "the database was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of China Medical University and Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan (CMUH104-REC2-115)".

Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"This study was supported in part by grants from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taiwan

(MOHW108-TDU-B-212-133004), China Medical University Hospital (DMR-108-024 and

DMR-108-111), Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (Grant no. MOST108-2410-H-

039-001) and China Medical University (Grant no. CMU109-MF-119)"

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript"

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5.Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

6. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Although the research could potentially fill an existing knowledge gap, the provided data do not support the conclusion. First of all, the distribution of the stroke risk factors in case group and control group is not equal. Adjusting the stated risk factors would not solve the problem of confounding, as the potential confounders are more than those suggested by authors. Secondly and related to the first point, the risk of confounding by the indication is likely for observed results. Many details that could clarify the issue are missing, including the type of used NSAIDS, the dose (not only the duration) of used NSAIDs, the time between NSAID consumption and incidence of stroke, and so on. Moreover, for those who experienced stroke in the case group (and majority fell in the group of using more than 24 days/month) the cumulative used NSAID is unclear. The authors also do not provide any clue about the type of observed stroke in the cases and controls, whereby the plausibility of the conclusion could be improved. Another problem that may violate the conclusion of the study is the access to OTC NSAIDs which is totally neglected.

Since there are large scale meta-analyses that concluded no association between NSAIDs and stroke, in general, the authors could argue those findings only and only with providing the detailed information above to be able to reject the null hypothesis with a low risk of type one error.

The statistical analysis is not appropriately done. The used statistical software is not stated, as well as the specific statistical tests the authors applied to the data. Where overall means or proportions could be simply compared, those comparisons are missing.

The English should be improved, as there are a lot of grammatical defects.

Reviewer #2: In the selection criteria, The author did not mention the causes of dysmenorrhea on the basis of which they conducted this study.

The Authors didn't mention about how long the patients used the NSAIDs? How does taking NSAIDs twice can cause a stroke?

Reviewer #3: Good article. Consider to reword some of the discussion to ensure the audience able to follow. Grammar and typos need correction. Double brackets are confusing so please change. Ensure that the conclusion in abstract tally with the discussion overall. However, authors need to highlight the main findings for the study.

1. Good article with a lot of data presented in the manuscript.

2. Abstract: results section: statement is too generalised. Suggest to reword to highlight the important results

3. Abstract: conclusion does not reflect the objective of the study, consider to emphasize the main ideas

4. Page 8 : Statement ‘ the study results indicated…..’ suggest to put in the discussion

5. Figure 1 comparing 70(0.32%) controls vs 27 (0.83%) cases. Please indicate the p value

6. The authors suggest that NSAIDs have a high risk for stroke. However, the table 1 showed s those on NSAIDs also have other comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension etc) which are the traditional risk factors for stroke. How do the authors taken this into account? Arrhythmia, thyroid disease, hyperlipidemia accounted for the high number of cases. However, need to specify if it was atrial fibrillation as this will cause high incidence of embolic stroke

7. Authors did not specify what type of stroke in the article? Infarct or haemorrhage ? How was the diagnosis of stroke made?

8. In the text, certain words like ‘women with dysmenorrhea’ are in upper case. Please change to lower case. Double brackets in the results are confusing, suggest to change,

9. Discussion should highlight on the study’s main findings regarding NSAIDs use and stroke risk

10. Table 2 need to simplify to allow easy understanding

11. Table 3 – less than 5, use the symbol

12. References are not standardised. Books and journals, 7,8,17,20,21,23,24,25,27,28,30,31

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Fazlollah Keshavarzi

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Stroke Risk associated with NSAIDs Uses in Women with Dysmenorrhea.docx

Click here for additional data file.

5 Oct 2021

Dear Dr.Muhammad Junaid Farrukh

Thank you for the comments and suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to ensure that our manuscript meets the publication style of PLOS ONE.

(Please see the revised manuscript.)

Submitted filename: 20210821_reponse to reviewer.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Oct 2021

Stroke Risk associated with NSAIDs Uses in Women with Dysmenorrhea;a population-based Cohort Study

PONE-D-21-13819R1

Dear Dr. Ming-Hung Lin

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Muhammad Junaid Farrukh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

3 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-13819R1

Stroke Risk associated with NSAIDs Uses in Women with Dysmenorrhea : a population-based Cohort Study

Dear Dr. Lin:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Muhammad Junaid Farrukh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE