Comparison of the efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for patients with primary dysmenorrhea: A network meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are used as first-line treatment of primary dysmenorrhea, but there has been no optimal clinical choice among non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs yet. The present study was to assess the relative benefits of different common non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for primary dysmenorrhea patients with a network meta-analysis.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials were screened by our criteria and included in the network meta-analysis. Pain relief was considered as primary outcomes and adverse effect was supplied as a safety outcome, while additional rescue, assessment score, and pain intensity difference were secondary outcomes. All the indexes were evaluated with odds ratio or standardized mean difference. Surface under cumulative ranking curve result was used to calculate the ranking of each treatment.

Results

Totally, 72 randomized controlled trials of 5723 patients and 13 drugs were included in our study after screening. As for pain relief, all drugs except nimesulide, rofecoxib, and waldecoxib were superior to aspirin (odds ratio with 95% credible intervals, diclofenac: 0.28 (0.08, 0.86), flurbiprofen: 0.10 (0.03, 0.29), ibuprofen: 0.32 (0.14, 0.73), indomethacin: 0.21 (0.07, 0.58), ketoprofen: 0.25 (0.10, 0.64), mefenamic acid: 0.28 (0.09, 0.87), naproxen: 0.31 (0.15, 0.64), piroxicam: 0.15 (0.03, 0.59), and tiaprofenic acid: 0.17 (0.04, 0.63)). Aspirin also required additional rescue when compared with the majority of other drugs (flurbiprofen: 3.46 (1.15, 11.25), ibuprofen: 6.30 (2.08, 20.09), mefenamic acid: 7.32 (1.51, 37.71), naproxen: 2.66 (1.17, 6.55), and tiaprofenic acid: 9.58 (1.43, 94.63)). As for assessment of the whole treatment, ketoprofen, naproxen, rofecoxib, and ibuprofen got higher score significantly than placebo. In addition, ibuprofen performed better than placebo in pain intensity difference. Considering the safety, tiaprofenic acid and mefenamic acid were noticeable in low risk, and indomethacin revealed higher risk than any other drugs. According to the results of network analysis and surface under cumulative ranking curve, flurbiprofen was considered to be the best one among all the treatments in efficacy, and aspirin was worse than most of others. On the other hand, tiaprofenic acid and mefenamic acid were indicated as the safest drugs.

Conclusion

Considering the efficacy and safety, we recommended flurbiprofen and tiaprofenic acid as the optimal treatments for primary dysmenorrhea.

Keywords

Primary dysmenorrhea non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs efficacy safety network meta-analysis

Introduction

Dysmenorrhea is commonly divided into two types: primary dysmenorrhea (PD) and secondary dysmenorrhea. PD is defined as the hypogastric pain originated from uterine without pathology during menstrual period which often occurs with the menarche or after the establishment of the ovulatory cycles of reproductive women and usually lasts two or three days during each period.¹ About 43%–91% adolescent females (under 20 years) are reported with PD and show a decreasing tendency as the age grows older.² Women experiencing severe PD will be debilitated to accomplish daily works, even absent from school or job. According to the previous studies, PD is often considered to be the result of abnormal prostaglandin release which leads to strong contracts of uterus and reduced oxygen supply to the uterus muscles.³ Besides, unhealthy lifestyle (such as smoking, intemperance, and stressfulness) and family history may also have some negative influence on the symptoms of PD.⁴

There are several treatments for PD like non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), oral contraceptive drugs, physical therapy interventions, Chinese traditional herbology, and so on.⁵ Among them, NSAIDs are the first-line treatment.⁶ There are many types of NSAIDs which are widely used as analgesics and anti-inflammatory agent through inhibiting cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes including COX-1 and COX-2. The pain relieve ability of NSAIDs is mainly attributed to COX-2 enzymes inhibition—an important pathway related to hormone release and the process of inflammation, while their adverse effects (such as indigestion, headaches, and lethargy, which are considered to be the most concerning adverse effects in PD patients) are thought to be involved with the COX-1 enzymes inhibition.^7,8 Recently, selective COX-2 inhibitors have been established to mitigate the adverse effects in gastrointestinal tract and extend the drug effects with lower dose.⁹ However, this kind of drug has been discovered to be related to increase the risk of heart complications if taken regularly and thus should be used more prudently.¹⁰ Therefore, the requirement to evaluate efficacy and safety of NSAIDs is imminent for patients with PD.

To date, a large number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs have been conducted,^11,12 and several published meta-analysis studies also compared the mainly used NSAIDs in the PD treatment.¹³ However, the traditional meta-analysis only evaluates the direct comparison of pair-wised drugs, and there also exists conflict between different studies. Therefore, the purpose of this network meta-analysis is to indicate the relative efficacy and safety among most of the NSAIDs through not only direct but also indirect comparisons. We expect to draw a conclusion about the optimal treatment of PD by analyzing all published RCTs data of 13 individual NSAIDs.

Materials and methods

Literature search and selection criteria

We searched through China National Knowledge Internet, MEDLINE, and Embase to obtain the relevant RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for patients with PD using the key words “primary dysmenorrhea,” “randomized controlled trial,” “non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents,” “aspirin,” “diclofenac,” “flurbiprofen,” “ibuprofen,” “indomethacin,” “ketoprofen,” “mefenamic acid,” “nimesulide,” “piroxicam,” “rofecoxib,” “tiaprofenic acid,” and “valdecoxib” in searching process (Supplemental Material). As for ketorolac and celecoxib, they were not been included in this network meta-analysis due to their serious adverse effects and main function which are often in the treatment in arthritis.

One RCT would be included in this network meta-analysis if it fulfilled each of the following criteria: (1) trials evaluating the efficacy or safety of NSAIDs in patients with PD, (2) trials that were designed as single-/double-/triple-blind, (3) trials covering at least one of the outcomes of interest, and (4) trials that using the same or close evaluation index (the way to describe the pain intensity difference and other outcomes). Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and studies to evaluate the trial eligibility, and all conflicts were solved through discussion. There was no language restriction.

Outcome measures and data extraction

The primary efficacy outcome was pain relief (the proportion of patients who received effective or at least moderate pain relief), and the incidence of total treatment-related adverse effects like insomnia and gastrointestinal disease was added as a complementally safety outcome. As for secondary outcomes, we also assessed the requirements for additional rescue and pain intensity difference from baseline to end point. Using rescue medication or other medical assistance beyond the trials during specified time periods would be regarded as additional rescue. Pain intensity difference was defined as change scores of pain intensity rated by patients from baseline to end point. Assessment of the whole treatment from patients in each trail was also included in the secondary outcome; a higher score represents a better global assessment of patients.¹¹ However, since all these outcomes contained more than one score scale, we standardized each continuous data during analysis.

After excluding the studies that failed to fulfill the criteria, two independent reviewers screened each study and extracted relevant data concerning of the outcomes of this network meta-analysis. The main information was extracted including basic study background, enrollment numbers, detailed interventions, and outcome measures.

Statistical analysis

We used a Bayesian framework with STATA software (13.0) and R software (V3.3.1) for this network meta-analysis. One advantage of using the Bayesian framework was its ability to produce ranking probabilities which could be used to evaluate medications with respect to each end point. The forest plots showed the result of the meta-analysis included in this research. Furthermore, odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes, respectively, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) between the two treatments on each outcome. Moreover, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was computed based on the outcomes above to estimate the performance of different interventions, and higher SUCRA represented better efficacy and safety. The inconsistency of each outcome between direct and indirect evidence was evaluated by node-splitting results and the heat plots.

Results

Study selection and characteristics of included trials

A total of 1476 potentially relevant publications were identified by literature research. Then, 316 publications were removed as duplicates and 1039 publications were excluded due to the weak relevance to the subject. As a result, we retrieved 121 publications with full length into systematic review and included 70 studies with 72 RCTs of 5723 patients into our network meta-analysis due to the selection criteria as shown earlier.^{11,12,14–81} The flowchart of the whole process is shown in Figure 1. Among the 70 studies, 18 trials were three-arm studies, 48 trials were conducted between one intervention and placebo, and 6 trials were between two different interventions. All trials included 13 drugs as follows: aspirin, diclofenac, flurbiprofen, ibuprofen, indomethacin, ketoprofen, mefenamic acid, mefenamic, nimesulide, piroxicam, rofecoxib, tiaprofenic acid, and valdecoxib. The network structure is shown in Figure 1 and Figure S1, the circle area represented the enrollment of each treatment, and lines width showed the number of compared trials. Main characteristics of the included publications and trials are presented in Table 1.

Figure 1.

Flowchart and network structure for pain relief. The network plots show direct comparison of different drugs, with node size corresponding to the sample size. The number of included studies for specific direct comparison decides the thickness of solid lines.

Table 1.

Main characteristics of included studies.

Trial	Country	Type	Blinding	No.	Study period	Intervention 1			Intervention 2			Intervention 3
Trial	Country	Type	Blinding	No.	Study period	Drug	Size	Dosage	Drug	Size	Dosage	Drug	Size
Three-arm trials
Daniels et al.⁷²	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	120	4 cycles	Valdecoxib	183	20 mg/40 mg	Naproxen	93	550 mg	Placebo	94
Daniels et al.⁶⁷	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	118	4 cycles	Valdecoxib	192	20 mg/40 mg	Naproxen	96	550 mg	Placebo	96
Morrison et al.⁶⁶	USA	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	127	–	Rofecoxib	233	25 mg + 25 mg/50 mg +25 mg	Naproxen	122	550 mg	Placebo	118
Marchini et al.⁶²	Italy	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	60	3 cycles	Ibuprofen	56	400 mg	Diclofenac	56	50 mg	Placebo	57
Tilyard and Dovey⁶¹	New Zealand	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	50	8 cycles	Mefenamic acid	40	250 mg	Tiaprofenic acid	40	200 mg	Placebo	40
Mehlisch⁶⁰	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	70	3 cycles	Ketoprofen	180	25-mg LD/50 mg/75 mg	Naproxen	60	500-mg LD +250 mg	Placebo	60
Pasquale et al.⁵⁶	USA	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	74	1 cycle	Piroxicam	39	20 mg/40-mg 1d +20 mg/40 mg	Ibuprofen	15	400 mg	Placebo	11
Palmisano and Lamb⁵⁵	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	36	3 cycles	Ketoprofen	36	150 mg	Ibuprofen	36	800 mg	Placebo	36
Mehlisch⁵⁴	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	43	3 cycles	Ketoprofen	26	150 mg	Ibuprofen	26	800 mg	Placebo	26
Shapiro⁵⁰	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	43	4 cycles	Flurbiprofen	43	50 mg	Aspirin	43	650 mg	Placebo	43
Kauppila et al.⁴⁹	Finland	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	42	6 cycles	Tiaprofenic acid	31	200 mg	Naproxen	31	250 mg	Placebo	31
Roy⁴³	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	48	2 cycles	Mefenamic acid	48	–	Ibuprofen	48		Placebo	48
Gookin et al.⁴⁰	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	42	3 cycles	Ibuprofen	31	400 mg	Indomethacin	31	25 mg	Placebo	31
Delia et al.³⁷	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	59	3 cycles	Flurbiprofen	59	50 mg	Aspirin	59	650 mg	Placebo	59
Rosenwaks et al.³⁶	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	32	2 cycles	Naproxen	23	275 mg	Aspirin	23	325 mg	Placebo	16
Pogmore and Filshie³³	UK	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	80	3 months	Flurbiprofen	39	50 mg	Aspirin	39	500 mg	Placebo	39
Pulkkinen and Csapo²⁹	USA	RCT, crossover	Single-blind	15	2 cycles	Naproxen	15	1100 mg	Ibuprofen	15	800 mg	Placebo	30
Kajanoja¹⁷	Finland	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	47	6 cycles	Indomethacin	90	25 mg	Aspirin	89	500 mg	Placebo	90
Two-arm trials
Salmalian et al.⁸¹	Iran	RCT, parallel	Triple-blind	56	2 cycles	Ibuprofen	24	200 mg	Placebo	28
Iacovides et al.¹²	South Africa	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	24	2 cycles	Diclofenac	24	50 mg	Placebo	24
Heidarifar et al.⁸⁰	Iran	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	50	2 cycles	Mefenamic acid	24	250 mg	Placebo	23
Nahid et al.⁷⁹	Iran	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	120	3 cycles	Mefenamic acid	55	250 mg	Placebo	51
Daniels et al.⁷⁷	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	149	3 cycles	Naproxen	123	550 mg	Placebo	122
		RCT, crossover	Double-blind	154	3 cycles	Naproxen	120	550 mg	Placebo	121
Iacovides et al.⁷⁸	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	10	–	Diclofenac	10	150 mg	Placebo	10
Chantler et al.⁷⁶	South Africa	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	12	3 cycles	Diclofenac	12	100 mg	Placebo	12
Daniels et al.¹¹	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	135	3 cycles	Naproxen	124	500 mg	Placebo	125
Doubova et al.⁷⁵	Mexico	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	88	–	Ibuprofen	46	1200 mg	Placebo	42
Dawood and Khan-Dawood⁷⁴	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	12	3 cycles	Ibuprofen	10	400 mg	Placebo	10
Letzel et al.⁷³	Germany	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	127	3 cycles	Naproxen	92	500 mg	Placebo	93
De Mello et al.⁷¹	Brazil	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	337	3 cycles	Meloxicam	190	7.5 mg/15 mg	Mefenamic acid	97	500 mg
Bitner et al.⁷⁰	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	109	3 cycles	Naproxen	89	500 mg	Placebo	88
Malmstrom et al.⁶⁹	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	73	3 cycles	Naproxen	60	550 mg	Placebo	60
Milsom et al.⁶⁸	UK	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	1242	3 cycles	Naproxen	412	400 mg/200 mg	Placebo	206
Di Girolamo et al.⁶⁵	Argentina	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	24	3 cycles	Ibuprofen	24	400 mg	Placebo	24
Ezcurdia et al.⁶⁴	Spain	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	52	–	Ketoprofen	44	50 mg	Placebo	44
Mehlisch and Fulmer⁶³	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	54	4 cycles	Naproxen	53	550 mg	Placebo	51
Fedele et al.⁵⁹	Italy	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	55	4 cycles	Naproxen	14	250 mg	Placebo	31
Andersch and Milsom⁵⁸	Sweden	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	60	4 cycles	Flurbiprofen	57	50 mg	Naproxen	57	250 mg
Akerlund and Stromberg⁵⁷	Sweden	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	42	2 cycles	Ketoprofen	39	100 mg	Naproxen	39	500 mg
Pulkkinen⁵³	Finland	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	14	4 cycles	Nimesulide	28	100 mg	Placebo	18
Kapadia⁵²	UK	RCT, parallel	Single-blind	56	3 cycles	Naproxen	28	550 mg	Ibuprofen	23	400 mg
Fraser and McCarron⁵¹	Australia	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	38	6 cycles	Ibuprofen	38	400 mg	Placebo	38
Wilhelmsson et al.⁴⁸	Sweden	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	83	–	Piroxicam	83	40 mg + 20 mg	Naproxen	83	1000 mg
Saltveit⁴⁷	Norway	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	92	4 months	Piroxicam	92	20 mg	Placebo	92
Osathanondh et al.⁴⁶	USA	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	85	6 months	Aspirin	24	650 mg	Placebo	24
Milsom and Andersch⁴⁵	Sweden	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	60	4 cycles	Ibuprofen	57	6^a200 mg	Naproxen	57	4^a125 mg
Rondel et al.⁴⁴	Germany	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	12	4 cycles	Nimesulide	12	200 mg	Placebo	12
Lalos and Nilsson⁴²	Sweden	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	21	4 periods	Naproxen	20	250 mg	Placebo	20
Jacobson et al.⁴¹	Sweden	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	39	4 cycles	Naproxen	39	500 mg + 250 mg	Placebo	39
Gleeson and Sorbie³⁹	Canada	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	27	6 cycles	Ketoprofen	27	–	Placebo	27
Chan et al.³⁸	USA	RCT, cross-over	Double-blind	12	3 cycles	Naproxen	12	275 mg	Placebo	12
Riihiluoma et al.³⁵	Finland	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	35	4 cycles	Diclofenac	58	25 mg	Placebo	57
Chan et al.³⁴	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	14	–	Naproxen	20	550 mg + 275 mg	Placebo	20
Morrison et al.³²	USA	RCT, crossover	Triple-blind	55	3 cycles	Ibuprofen	51	400 mg	Placebo	51
Hamann³⁰	Denmark	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	30	4 cycles	Naproxen	26	250 mg	Placebo	26
Henzl et al.³¹	–	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	431	–	Naproxen	212	–	Placebo	219
Elder and Kapadia²⁴	–	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	32	6 cycles	Indomethacin	32	25 mg	Placebo	32
Pulkkinen 1979	USA	RCT, crossover	Single-blind	15	2 cycles	Ibuprofen	15	400 mg	Placebo	15
Morrison and Jennings²⁷	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	32	4 cycles	Indomethacin	16	25 mg	Placebo	16
Larkin et al.²⁶	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	22	–	Ibuprofen	22	400 mg	Placebo	22
Jacobson et al.²⁵	Sweden	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	34	2 cycles	Naproxen	16	250–500 mg	Placebo	18
Dandenell et al.²³	Sweden	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	97	2 cycles	Naproxen	48	250 mg	Placebo	49
Budoff²²	USA	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	46	6 cycles	Mefenamic acid	23	250 mg	Placebo	21
Sande et al.²¹	Norway, USA	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	32	3 cycles	Naproxen	15	275 mg	Placebo	17
Pulkkinen and Csapo²⁰	Finland, USA	RCT, crossover	Single-blind	12	–	Ibuprofen	12	800 mg	Placebo	12
Pauls¹⁹	Canada	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	17	3 cycles	Naproxen	9	275 mg	Placebo	8
Lundstrom¹⁸	–	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	52	6 cycles	Naproxen	26	550 mg + 275 mg +275 mg	Placebo	26
Janbu et al.¹⁶	Norway	RCT, crossover	Double-blind	30	3 cycles	Aspirin	30	500 mg	Placebo	30
Hanson et al.¹⁵	USA	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	64	3 cycles	Naproxen	29	275 mg	Placebo	35
Henzl et al.¹⁴	USA	RCT, parallel	Double-blind	20	4 cycles	Naproxen	10	550 mg + 275 mg	Placebo	10
		RCT, parallel	Double-blind	23	4 cycles	Naproxen	12	550 mg + 275 mg	Placebo	12

Note: RCT: randomized controlled trials.

^aThe article does not mention the type of dysmenorrhea. 1d: Day 1.

Overall outcomes

All the data of this network meta-analysis results for five outcomes are presented in Tables 2 to 4 and the forest plots in Figure 2 and Figures S2 to S5. For the primary outcomes shown in Table 2, the comparison between each pair of drugs was evaluated. As for pain relief, all drugs except aspirin were superior to placebo. When aspirin was compared with other drugs, the results showed that it was worse than most of the drugs such as diclofenac (OR = 0.28, 95% CrI = 0.08–0.86), indomethacin (OR = 0.21, 95% CrIs = 0.07–0.58), and flurbiprofen (OR = 0.10, 95% CrI = 0.03–0.29), and so on. On the other hand, considering the safety, tiaprofenic acid and mefenamic acid were noticeable in low incidence of adverse effects, and indomethacin revealed higher adverse effects than any other drugs.

Table 2.

Network meta-analysis results for pain relief (lower left) and adverse effects (upper right).

Placebo	0.99 (0.59, 1.65)	3.22 (0.97, 12.55)	1.82 (1.04, 3.29)	0.90 (0.56, 1.45)	3.60 (1.68, 7.46)	0.73 (0.36, 1.46)	0.66 (0.31, 1.39)	1.08 (0.87, 1.38)	–	1.14 (0.56, 2.20)	1.17 (0.64, 2.23)	0.45 (0.08, 1.68)	1.22 (0.75, 2.05)
0.57 (0.29, 1.11)	Aspirin	3.25 (0.84, 14.15)	1.86 (1.00, 3.46)	0.91 (0.42, 1.82)	3.60 (1.60, 8.08)	0.74 (0.32, 1.75)	0.65 (0.27, 1.68)	1.09 (0.64, 1.90)	–	1.14 (0.48, 2.69)	1.19 (0.54, 2.66)	0.46 (0.07, 1.93)	1.23 (0.61, 2.53)
0.16 (0.06, 0.39)	0.28 (0.08, 0.86)	Diclofenac	0.57 (0.13, 2.27)	0.28 (0.07, 0.91)	1.13 (0.22, 4.57)	0.23 (0.05, 0.93)	0.20 (0.05, 0.83)	0.34 (0.09, 1.15)	–	0.35 (0.08, 1.40)	0.36 (0.08, 1.48)	0.14 (0.02, 0.83)	0.38 (0.09, 1.42)
0.06 (0.02, 0.17)	0.10 (0.03, 0.29)	0.35 (0.09, 1.55)	Flurbiprofen	0.49 (0.21, 1.05)	1.93 (0.77, 4.85)	0.39 (0.17, 1.00)	0.35 (0.14, 0.91)	0.59 (0.33, 1.07)	–	0.61 (0.25, 1.48)	0.64 (0.28, 1.49)	0.25 (0.04, 1.05)	0.66 (0.32, 1.42)
0.18 (0.11, 0.30)	0.32 (0.14, 0.73)	1.14 (0.42, 3.22)	3.19 (0.95, 10.70)	Ibuprofen	4.06 (1.63, 9.30)	0.82 (0.35, 1.84)	0.73 (0.32, 1.67)	1.21 (0.76, 2.05)	–	1.28 (0.55, 2.83)	1.32 (0.61, 2.86)	0.51 (0.09, 1.95)	1.36 (0.70, 2.69)
0.12 (0.05, 0.29)	0.21 (0.07, 0.58)	0.73 (0.20, 2.75)	2.05 (0.50, 8.25)	0.64 (0.23, 1.77)	Indomethacin	0.20 (0.08, 0.57)	0.18 (0.07, 0.55)	0.30 (0.14, 0.67)	–	0.32 (0.11, 0.85)	0.33 (0.12, 0.90)	0.13 (0.02, 0.57)	0.34 (0.14, 0.85)
0.15 (0.07, 0.28)	0.25 (0.10, 0.64)	0.90 (0.30, 2.94)	2.56 (0.71, 9.03)	0.79 (0.37, 1.75)	1.23 (0.41, 3.86)	Ketoprofen	0.90 (0.32, 2.59)	1.48 (0.73, 3.06)	–	1.57 (0.57, 4.06)	1.60 (0.64, 4.10)	0.63 (0.10, 2.89)	1.67 (0.72, 3.94)
0.16 (0.06, 0.40)	0.28 (0.09, 0.87)	0.97 (0.27, 3.78)	2.77 (0.66, 11.59)	0.86 (0.31, 2.39)	1.34 (0.36, 5.10)	1.07 (0.35, 3.35)	Mefenamic acid	1.67 (0.76, 3.56)	–	1.73 (0.63, 4.53)	1.79 (0.70, 4.71)	0.70 (0.11, 2.89)	1.86 (0.77, 4.66)
0.18 (0.12, 0.25)	0.31 (0.15, 0.64)	1.09 (0.41, 3.03)	3.10 (0.98, 9.49)	0.97 (0.53, 1.77)	1.51 (0.56, 4.06)	1.21 (0.59, 2.41)	1.13 (0.41, 3.00)	Naproxen	–	1.05 (0.51, 2.01)	1.08 (0.58, 2.03)	0.41 (0.07, 1.57)	1.13 (0.68, 1.88)
0.21 (0.05, 0.92)	0.37 (0.07, 1.88)	1.30 (0.23, 7.77)	3.67 (0.56, 23.34)	1.15 (0.23, 5.64)	1.79 (0.30, 10.38)	1.43 (0.27, 7.39)	1.34 (0.22, 7.85)	1.19 (0.25, 5.47)	Nimesulide	–	–	–	–
0.08 (0.02, 0.28)	0.15 (0.03, 0.59)	0.53 (0.11, 2.51)	1.49 (0.28, 7.46)	0.46 (0.12, 1.73)	0.72 (0.15, 3.35)	0.58 (0.14, 2.29)	0.54 (0.11, 2.51)	0.48 (0.14, 1.60)	0.41 (0.06, 2.83)	Piroxicam	1.03 (0.43, 2.66)	0.40 (0.06, 1.84)	1.07 (0.48, 2.53)
0.21 (0.05, 0.99)	0.37 (0.07, 2.01)	1.31 (0.23, 8.41)	3.71 (0.57, 24.53)	1.16 (0.23, 5.99)	1.80 (0.30, 11.36)	1.46 (0.27, 7.85)	1.35 (0.22, 8.33)	1.20 (0.25, 5.99)	1.02 (0.12, 8.94)	2.48 (0.36, 19.11)	Rofecoxib	0.38 (0.07, 1.65)	1.04 (0.47, 2.27)
0.10 (0.03, 0.30)	0.17 (0.04, 0.63)	0.59 (0.13, 2.69)	1.67 (0.33, 8.17)	0.52 (0.14, 1.84)	0.81 (0.18, 3.67)	0.65 (0.17, 2.46)	0.61 (0.15, 2.39)	0.54 (0.16, 1.77)	0.45 (0.07, 3.06)	1.13 (0.21, 6.17)	0.45 (0.06, 3.06)	Tiaprofenic acid	2.72 (0.66, 14.59)
0.23 (0.09, 0.58)	0.41 (0.13, 1.26)	1.46 (0.41, 5.64)	4.10 (0.98, 16.78)	1.28 (0.45, 3.67)	1.99 (0.54, 7.46)	1.62 (0.53, 4.90)	1.49 (0.40, 5.53)	1.34 (0.54, 3.35)	1.13 (0.20, 6.62)	2.77 (0.63, 12.94)	1.11 (0.18, 6.62)	2.46 (0.57, 10.91)	Valdecoxib

Note: The column treatments are compared against row treatments.

Table 3.

Network meta-analysis results for additional rescue (lower left) and assessment (upper right).

Placebo

−0.12 (−0.93, 0.68)

–

−0.69 (−1.29, −0.10)

−0.65 (−1.42, 0.12)

−0.91 (−1.73, −0.10)

–

−0.71 (−1.11, −0.30)

−1.05 (−2.33, 0.23)

–

−0.86 (−1.62, −0.11)

–

−0.60 (−1.60, 0.40)

1.19 (0.52, 2.64)

Aspirin

–

−0.57 (−1.55, 0.40)

−0.53 (−1.47, 0.41)

−0.79 (−1.93, 0.35)

–

−0.58 (−1.48, 0.31)

−0.93 (−2.44, 0.58)

–

−0.74 (−1.84, 0.36)

–

−0.48 (−1.76, 0.81)

4.10 (1.49, 11.59)

3.46 (1.15, 11.25)

Flurbiprofen

–

7.46 (3.42, 17.12)

6.30 (2.08, 20.09)

1.80 (0.50, 6.69)

Ibuprofen

0.04 (−0.83, 0.92)

−0.22 (−1.12, 0.69)

–

−0.01 (−0.73, 0.71)

−0.36 (−1.77, 1.05)

–

−0.17 (−1.13, 0.79)

–

0.09 (−1.07, 1.26)

–

Indomethacin

−0.26 (−1.36, 0.84)

–

−0.05 (−0.92, 0.81)

−0.40 (−1.89, 1.09)

–

−0.21 (−1.29, 0.87)

–

0.05 (−1.21, 1.31)

2.27 (0.55, 9.78)

1.92 (0.38, 10.38)

0.55 (0.10, 3.22)

0.31 (0.06, 1.58)

–

Ketoprofen

–

0.21 (−0.70, 1.11)

−0.14 (−1.66, 1.38)

–

0.05 (−1.06, 1.16)

–

0.31 (−0.98, 1.60)

8.67 (2.2, 34.81)

7.32 (1.51, 37.71)

2.10 (0.38, 11.70)

1.16 (0.23, 5.75)

–

3.82 (0.5, 27.66)

Mefenamic acid

–

3.16 (2.29, 4.66)

2.66 (1.17, 6.55)

0.77 (0.28, 2.20)

0.42 (0.19, 0.98)

–

1.39 (0.35, 5.58)

0.36 (0.09, 1.55)

Naproxen

−0.35 (−1.69, 1.00)

–

−0.16 (−0.96, 0.64)

–

0.11 (−0.9, 1.11)

–

Nimesulide

–

0.19 (−1.30, 1.67)

–

0.45 (−1.17, 2.08)

3.67 (1.19, 11.70)

3.10 (0.79, 12.81)

0.90 (0.19, 4.14)

0.49 (0.13, 1.79)

–

1.62 (0.25, 10.18)

0.43 (0.07, 2.53)

1.16 (0.35, 3.82)

–

Piroxicam

–

1.22 (0.45, 3.46)

1.03 (0.29, 3.90)

0.30 (0.07, 1.25)

0.17 (0.05, 0.59)

–

0.54 (0.09, 3.00)

0.14 (0.03, 0.79)

0.39 (0.14, 1.05)

–

0.33 (0.07, 1.54)

Rofecoxib

–

0.26 (−0.97, 1.50)

11.25 (2.01, 95.58)

9.58 (1.43, 94.63)

2.75 (0.37, 28.79)

1.52 (0.23, 14.44)

–

5.00 (0.52, 62.18)

1.32 (0.14, 15.96)

3.56 (0.62, 29.96)

–

3.10 (0.39, 33.78)

9.30 (1.25, 95.58)

Tiaprofenic acid

–

2.69 (1.30, 5.87)

2.27 (0.79, 7.10)

0.65 (0.19, 2.32)

0.36 (0.12, 1.06)

–

1.19 (0.24, 5.81)

0.31 (0.07, 1.52)

0.85 (0.39, 1.79)

–

0.73 (0.19, 2.89)

2.20 (0.63, 7.61)

0.24 (0.03, 1.58)

Valdecoxib

Note: The column treatments are compared against row treatments.

Table 4.

Network meta-analysis results for secondary pain intensity difference.

Placebo
−0.02 (−1.94, 1.91)	Aspirin
−1.86 (−3.89, 0.17)	−1.84 (−4.64, 0.95)	Diclofenac
−1.99 (−5.00, 1.03)	−1.97 (−5.55, 1.60)	−0.13 (−3.76, 3.51)	Flurbiprofen
−1.56 (−2.92, −0.20)	−1.54 (−3.90, 0.81)	0.30 (−2.14, 2.75)	0.43 (−2.64, 3.50)	Ibuprofen
–	–	–	–	–	Indomethacin
−1.62 (−4.33, 1.09)	−1.61 (−4.93, 1.72)	0.24 (−3.15, 3.62)	0.37 (−3.69, 4.42)	−0.06 (−3.10, 2.97)	–	Ketoprofen
−0.95 (−2.52, 0.62)	−0.94 (−3.42, 1.55)	0.91 (−1.66, 3.47)	1.04 (−2.36, 4.43)	0.60 (−1.47, 2.68)	–	0.67 (−2.46, 3.80)	Mefenamic acid
−1.00 (−2.36, 0.35)	−0.98 (−3.34, 1.37)	0.86 (−1.58, 3.30)	0.99 (−1.71, 3.68)	0.56 (−0.91, 2.03)	–	0.62 (−2.41, 3.65)	−0.05 (−2.12, 2.02)	Naproxen
−0.88 (−3.34, 1.59)	−0.86 (−3.99, 2.27)	0.98 (−2.21, 4.18)	1.11 (−2.78, 5.01)	0.68 (−2.14, 3.50)	–	0.75 (−2.92, 4.41)	0.08 (−2.39, 2.54)	0.12 (−2.69, 2.94)	Tiaprofenic acid

Note: The column treatments are compared against row treatments.

Figure 2.

Forest plots for pain relief using ORs and 95% CrIs. OR: odds ratios; Crls: credible intervals.

The secondary outcomes of this network meta-analysis are listed in Tables 3 and 4. According to the outcomes, most of the drugs needed less additional rescue after assigned interventions compared with placebo. Nevertheless, aspirin still required additional rescue when compared with the majority of other drugs. As for assessment of the whole treatment, ketoprofen, naproxen, rofecoxib, and ibuprofen got higher score significantly than placebo. In addition, ibuprofen performed better than placebo in pain intensity difference.

Ranking conclusion

The results of SUCRA under five outcomes are shown in Table 5. According to the standing list of the primary outcomes, flurbiprofen (SUCRA: 0.904) ranked first in pain relief, successively followed by piroxicam (SUCRA: 0.787), tiaprofenic acid (SUCRA: 0.751), and indomethacin (SUCRA: 0.678). Besides, aspirin was indicated to be the worst among all of the NSAIDs in pain relief. In terms of adverse effects, the lower SUCRA suggested the higher incidence of adverse effects. Tiaprofenic acid (SUCRA: 0.872) performed best with mefenamic acid (SUCRA: 0.824) and ketoprofen (SUCRA: 0.781) followed. Combining these two primary outcomes, flurbiprofen was the most efficacious treatment in our result, and tiaprofenic acid was also a good treatment when took efficacy and safety into consideration. The ranking in secondary outcomes also revealed the excellent performance of these drugs. In addition, aspirin was considered to be the worst intervention because it ranked last among all the interventions except for placebo in most outcomes.

Table 5.

Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) results of six outcomes.

Note: The warm color represents a high SUCRA value, which also suggests a relatively high ranking.

Inconsistency test

Node-splitting analysis of five outcomes for all the drugs is shown in Tables 6 and 7. A value of P less than 0.05 indicated that there was a significant inconsistency. As the results of the analysis show that there was no significant difference in the outcome of pain relief, additional rescue, pain intensity difference, and assessment. As for the outcome of adverse effects, inconsistency between flurbiprofen and aspirin (P = 0.012), as well as naproxen and flurbiprofen (P = 0.036), was found. The net heat plot results of consistency test are also shown in Figure 3 and Figures S6 to S9, which revealed the same result.

Table 6.

Node-splitting results of the network meta-analysis for three dichotomous outcomes.

Outcomes	Comparison	OR (95% CrI)			P
Outcomes	Comparison	Direct	Indirect	Network	(Direct vs. indirect)
Pain relief	Ibuprofen vs. placebo	5.30 (3.00, 9.80)	2.80 (0.41, 19.00)	5.50 (3.30, 9.20)	0.5200
	Ketoprofen vs. placebo	6.60 (2.90, 15.00)	4.30 (0.75, 26.00)	6.90 (3.70, 13.00)	0.6550
	Naproxen vs. placebo	5.10 (3.50, 7.70)	14.00 (4.10, 51.00)	5.70 (4.10, 8.50)	0.1150
	Piroxicam vs. placebo	29.00 (3.80, 260.00)	7.20 (1.50, 34.00)	11.00 (3.70, 42.00)	0.2663
	Indomethacin vs. aspirin	3.80 (0.65, 17.00)	5.90 (1.30, 28.00)	4.80 (1.70, 14.00)	0.6425
	Naproxen vs. aspirin	5.80 (0.89, 35.00)	3.00 (1.30, 6.70)	3.20 (1.50, 7.00)	0.5188
	Ibuprofen vs. diclofenac	0.76 (0.16, 3.30)	0.65 (0.14, 2.50)	0.87 (0.31, 2.30)	0.9000
	Indomethacin vs. ibuprofen	0.87 (0.14, 4.70)	2.70 (0.69, 9.40)	1.60 (0.60, 4.60)	0.2913
	Ketoprofen vs. ibuprofen	2.00 (0.58, 7.50)	0.94 (0.33, 2.70)	1.30 (0.58, 2.70)	0.3688
	Mefenamic acid vs. ibuprofen	1.10 (0.22, 5.00)	1.80 (0.41, 7.00)	1.20 (0.43, 3.20)	0.6338
	Naproxen vs. ibuprofen	2.00 (0.28, 12.00)	0.95 (0.51, 1.80)	1.00 (0.59, 1.90)	0.4413
	Naproxen vs. ketoprofen	1.10 (0.35, 3.40)	0.60 (0.25, 1.60)	0.82 (0.41, 1.70)	0.4513
	Tiaprofenic acid vs. mefenamic acid	1.80 (0.22, 17.00)	1.30 (0.18, 10.00)	1.60 (0.47, 6.00)	0.8063
	Piroxicam vs. naproxen	1.30 (0.29, 5.80)	5.40 (0.62, 53.00)	2.00 (0.65, 7.30)	0.2850
	Tiaprofenic acid vs. naproxen	1.70 (0.28, 10.00)	3.20 (0.49, 28.00)	1.80 (0.59, 5.80)	0.6088
Adverse effects	Flurbiprofen vs. placebo	2.20 (1.00, 4.50)	0.75 (0.26, 2.00)	1.80 (1.00, 3.20)	0.0888
	Ibuprofen vs. placebo	0.99 (0.53, 1.90)	0.67 (0.30, 1.50)	0.91 (0.57, 1.50)	0.4925
	Ketoprofen vs. placebo	0.67 (0.30, 1.50)	1.80 (0.24, 14.00)	0.74 (0.36, 1.40)	0.3750
	Naproxen vs. placebo	1.10 (0.83, 1.40)	1.50 (0.75, 3.00)	1.10 (0.87, 1.30)	0.3500
	Piroxicam vs. placebo	0.90 (0.38, 2.10)	1.60 (0.53, 5.10)	1.10 (0.55, 2.20)	0.4275
	Flurbiprofen vs. aspirin	3.10 (1.40, 6.70)	0.53 (0.15, 1.80)	1.90 (0.99, 3.50)	0.0125
	Indomethacin vs. aspirin	2.50 (0.91, 6.80)	5.20 (1.20, 25.00)	3.70 (1.60, 8.30)	0.3913
	Naproxen vs. aspirin	0.61 (0.06, 4.40)	1.20 (0.66, 2.10)	1.10 (0.63, 2.00)	0.5225
	Naproxen vs. flurbiprofen	1.40 (0.49, 4.00)	0.39 (0.20, 0.80)	0.60 (0.34, 1.10)	0.0363
	Indomethacin vs. ibuprofen	6.30 (0.70, 180.00)	3.70 (1.40, 8.80)	4.00 (1.70, 9.40)	0.6863
	Ketoprofen vs. ibuprofen	0.52 (0.09, 2.70)	0.95 (0.37, 2.50)	0.81 (0.35, 1.70)	0.5288
	Mefenamic acid vs. ibuprofen	0.38 (0.10, 1.20)	1.20 (0.36, 4.00)	0.72 (0.31, 1.80)	0.1713
	Naproxen vs. ibuprofen	1.60 (0.75, 3.40)	0.97 (0.52, 1.90)	1.20 (0.74, 1.90)	0.3150
	Naproxen vs. ketoprofen	0.64 (0.06, 4.30)	1.70 (0.85, 3.80)	1.50 (0.72, 3.10)	0.3413
	Tiaprofenic acid vs. mefenamic acid	0.63 (0.06, 4.30)	0.48 (0.02, 5.00)	0.69 (0.13, 3.00)	0.8838
	Piroxicam vs. naproxen	1.50 (0.52, 4.20)	0.81 (0.31, 1.90)	1.00 (0.49, 2.10)	0.4000
	Rofecoxib vs. naproxen	0.96 (0.41, 2.50)	0.83 (0.31, 2.20)	1.10 (0.57, 2.10)	0.8150
	Tiaprofenic acid vs. naproxen	0.18 (0.01, 2.40)	0.55 (0.07, 3.30)	0.42 (0.08, 1.70)	0.5313
Additional rescue	Flurbiprofen vs. placebo	0.12 (0.03, 0.49)	0.57 (0.10, 3.10)	0.25 (0.09, 0.71)	0.1638
	Ibuprofen vs. placebo	0.10 (0.04, 0.26)	0.23 (0.05, 0.90)	0.14 (0.06, 0.29)	0.3200
	Naproxen vs. placebo	0.35 (0.23, 0.48)	0.11 (0.03, 0.44)	0.32 (0.21, 0.43)	0.1088
	Flurbiprofen vs. aspirin	0.20 (0.05, 0.89)	0.62 (0.09, 4.40)	0.30 (0.09, 0.93)	0.3650
	Naproxen vs. aspirin	0.13 (0.01, 0.88)	0.45 (0.15, 1.20)	0.38 (0.14, 0.82)	0.2663
	Naproxen vs. flurbiprofen	0.59 (0.12, 2.80)	2.40 (0.60, 9.60)	1.30 (0.42, 3.50)	0.1738
	Naproxen vs. ibuprofen	1.30 (0.31, 5.70)	3.10 (1.10, 8.80)	2.30 (0.99, 5.40)	0.2875
	Piroxicam vs. ibuprofen	1.70 (0.26, 18.00)	2.70 (0.39, 19.00)	2.00 (0.53, 7.30)	0.7175

Note: Three dichotomous end points include pain relief, adverse effects, and additional rescue. Direct, indirect, or network odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) indicate the relative efficacy or safety. Bold values means P-value is smaller than 0.05, which indicated that there was significant inconsistency.

Figure 3.

Heat plots for pain relief. The size of the gray squares indicates the contribution of the direct evidence (shown in the column) to the network evidence (shown in the row). The colors are associated with the change in inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. Blue colors indicate an increase in inconsistency, and warm colors indicate a decrease in inconsistency.

Table 7.

Node-splitting results of the network meta-analysis for two continuous outcomes.

Outcomes	Mean difference
	Comparison	Direct		Indirect		Difference		P
	Comparison	Coef.	Standard error	Coef.	Standard error	Coef.	Standard error	P
Pain intensity difference	Ibuprofen vs. placebo	−1.2558	1.0796	−2.4998	1.6782	1.2440	1.9946	0.533
	Naproxen vs. Placebo	−1.4379	1.0737	−0.1431	1.6798	−1.2948	1.9926	0.516
	Tiaprofenic acid vs. placebo	−0.3432	1.8128	−3.5687	4.0633	3.2254	4.4491	0.468
	Naproxen vs. flurbiprofen	0.9860	1.7619	−16.6152	63.4955	17.6012	63.5210	0.782
	Naproxen vs. ibuprofen	1.0838	1.2938	−0.1717	1.5209	1.2556	1.9967	0.529
	Tiaprofenic acid vs. mefenamic acid	−0.4577	1.8129	2.7677	4.0631	−3.2254	4.4491	0.468
Assessment	Aspirin vs. placebo	0.2518	0.6091	−1.5296	2.1541	1.7814	2.2388	0.426
	Ibuprofen vs. placebo	0.6275	0.4445	1.5780	1.6097	−0.9505	1.6704	0.569
	Indomethacin vs. placebo	0.6747	0.6239	0.4538	1.4531	0.2210	1.5815	0.889
	Ketoprofen vs. placebo	0.9528	0.6320	0.5631	1.8575	0.3897	1.9633	0.843
	Naproxen vs. placebo	0.6854	0.3055	1.8207	2.2829	−1.1353	2.3033	0.622
	Rofecoxib vs. placebo	0.8675	0.6165	0.8525	1.6429	0.0150	1.7561	0.993
	Valdecoxib vs. placebo	0.6082	0.8688	0.5697	1.6436	0.0384	1.8622	0.984
	Indomethacin vs. aspirin	0.8192	0.8590	−0.0481	1.1864	0.8673	1.4648	0.554
	Indomethacin vs. ibuprofen	−0.4408	0.8810	0.3675	0.9207	−0.8083	1.2745	0.526
	Ketoprofen vs. ibuprofen	0.1405	0.9008	0.3077	0.9797	−0.1672	1.3307	0.900
	Rofecoxib vs. naproxen	−0.0010	0.8642	0.3188	0.8571	−0.3198	1.2178	0.793
	Valdecoxib vs. naproxen	−0.1140	0.8685	−0.0756	1.6440	−0.0384	1.8622	0.984

Note: Three continuous outcomes include pain intensity difference and assessment. Direct, indirect, or network results of standardized mean difference and standard error indicate the relative efficacy or safety.

Discussion

PD is a high-frequency female disease which will disturb the quality of normal lives of women.⁸² NSAIDs are considered to be the first-line treatment for patients with PD; they are certain to be effective in relieving pain, but there is still no conclusion about the optimal choice in clinic.¹³ Therefore, the objective of this network meta-analysis is to draw a conclusion about the optimal treatment within several types of NSAIDs through direct and indirect statistical analysis. Although only a small amount of studies in our database performed in the recent years, the results of our research were still meaningful since NSAIDs system has been developed a long time ago and maintained its crucial role in relieving PD in the last 30 years.

The results of our network meta-analysis suggested that all the drugs except aspirin were significantly more efficacious than placebo. However, there is no significant difference between each pair of NSAIDs concerning pain relief through direct evidence, which is consistent with the research by Marjoribanks et al.³ In their research, they pointed out that NSAIDs were effective in relieving dysmenorrhea, whereas the sample size was too small to conduct a suitable meta-analysis for the comparison between two NSAIDs. Complementary to their results, the SUCRA ranking in our research provided the information of more efficacious treatments: flurbiprofen, piroxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Naproxen was an analgesic that has been applied widely in many disease and showed significant relief of pain in PD in early time.³⁸ However, with the development of NSAIDs drugs, several other drugs have been illustrated as similar efficacy to naproxen.^11,73 In our result, naproxen was not significant efficacious compared to other NSAIDs drugs and showed an average efficacy in ranking.

As for the safety outcome, tiaprofenic acid and mefenamic acid were indicated as the safest NSAIDs drugs, while indomethacin was the worst one which was more likely to cause mild gastrointestinal discomfort. Naproxen, different from the research by Marjoribanks et al., was not reported with higher incidence of gastrointestinal side effects according to our network meta-analysis. Importantly, it is generally believed that selective COX-2 inhibitors, for example, rofecoxib and valdecoxib, are related with higher risk of serious cardiovascular disease with long-term usage.⁹ Accordingly, our research demonstrated that the inferior performance of both rofecoxib and valdecoxib which were already announced withdrawal from the U.S. market in 2004 and 2005, respectively. Furthermore, it should be noted that flurbiprofen and tiaprofenic acid revealed good efficacy and were recommended to be the suitable choices for the patients with severe adverse effects. The safety ranking of flurbiprofen was not ideal in our results; however, the inconsistency of direct and indirect evidence was significant between flurbiprofen and naproxen as well as flurbiprofen and aspirin. Besides, there was only one trial having direct comparison of each pair. Thus, the relevant safety of flurbiprofen lacked enough credibility, and more researches are needed in the future.

Although the result of our network meta-analysis was relatively comprehensive, there were still several limitations which may affect the strength of each result. Firstly, even though the trials included in the research were various, the population employed was small scale (many trials included less than 100 people), and the reliability of the data was lightly weakened, especially in recommended NSAIDs like tiaprofenic acid (assessed in only 71 patients). Moreover, the availability and cost of these drugs have not been taken into consideration when they are regarded as recommended therapies. Secondly, we only evaluated the difference of efficacy and safety among NSAIDs but overlooked the dosage and frequency factor related to one drug. Also, we did not provide the optimal intake way of one single drug. Furthermore, previous studies have mentioned that the symptoms of PD were similar to the adverse effects of drug treatments which may also reduce the credibility of the results.⁶³ Thirdly, some included studies are pharmaceutically funded and may have risks of bias, though it can be adjusted with network meta-analysis method in some degree.

In conclusion, according to our network meta-analysis, we advocate flurbiprofen and tiaprofenic acid as the recommended NSAIDs therapies for patients with PD. Naproxen, as a well-established drug, did not show superior in efficacy or safety in our result. More efforts need to be made to further explore the characteristic of NSAIDs for PD patients.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for Comparison of the efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for patients with primary dysmenorrhea: A network meta-analysis

Supplemental material for Comparison of the efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for patients with primary dysmenorrhea: A network meta-analysis by Xuan Feng and Xiaoyun Wang in Molecular Pain

Footnotes

Author Contributions

XF contributed to research conception and design, data analysis, interpretation, and drafting of the manuscript. XW contributed to data analysis, interpretation, and statistical analysis. XW and XF are involved in critical revision of the manuscript, approval of final manuscript, and taking public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

Supplemental Material

Supplementary material is available for this article online.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by Lingnan traditional Chinese medicine gynecology treatment of menstruation and clinical study (No. 2013B032500013) and State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (16MLZY02), 2016 National Famous Traditional Chinese Medicine Expert Inheritance Studio Construction Project-Wang Xiaoyun Chinese Medicine Office.

References

Chen

Kwekkeboom

and Ward

SE.

Self-report pain and symptom measures for primary dysmenorrhoea: a critical review. Eur J Pain 2015; 19: 377–391.

De Sanctis V, Soliman A, Bernasconi S, Bianchin L, Bona G, Bozzola M, Buzi F, De Sanctis C, Tonini G, Rigon F and Perissinotto E. Primary dysmenorrhea in adolescents: prevalence, impact and recent knowledge. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev 2015; 13: 512–520.

Marjoribanks

Ayeleke

Farquhar

and Proctor

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for dysmenorrhoea. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 20(1): CD001751. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001751.pub2.

Jones

and Mishra

The prevalence and risk factors of dysmenorrhea. Epidemiol Rev 2014; 36: 104–113.

Tomas-Rodriguez MI, Palazon-Bru A, Martinez-St John DR, Toledo-Marhuenda JV, Asensio-Garcia Mdel R and Gil-Guillen VF. Effectiveness of medical taping concept in primary dysmenorrhoea: a two-armed randomized trial. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 16671.

Federação Brasileira das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. Primary dysmenorrhea: treatment. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2013; 59: 413–419.

Castellsague J, Riera-Guardia N, Calingaert B, Varas-Lorenzo C, Fourrier-Reglat A, Nicotra F, Sturkenboom M and Perez-Gutthann S. Individual NSAIDs and upper gastrointestinal complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies (the SOS project). Drug Saf 2012; 35: 1127–1146.

Fanelli A, Romualdi P, Vigano R, Lora Aprile P, Gensini G and Fanelli G. Non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and cardiovascular risk. Acta Biomed 2013; 84: 5–11.

Cannon

and Cannon

PJ.

Physiology. COX-2 inhibitors and cardiovascular risk. Science 2012; 336: 1386–1387.

10.

De Vecchis R, Baldi C, Di Biase G, Ariano C, Cioppa C, Giasi A, Valente L and Cantatrione S. Cardiovascular risk associated with celecoxib or etoricoxib: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials which adopted comparison with placebo or naproxen. Minerva Cardioangiol 2014; 62: 437–448.

11.

Daniels S, Gitton X, Zhou W, Stricker K and Barton S. Efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib 200 mg once daily for treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: results from two randomized controlled trials. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2008; 17: 423–437.

12.

Iacovides

Baker

and Avidon

The 24-h progression of menstrual pain in women with primary dysmenorrhea when given diclofenac potassium: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014; 289: 993–1002.

13.

Zahradnik

Hanjalic-Beck

and Groth

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and hormonal contraceptives for pain relief from dysmenorrhea: a review. Contraception 2010; 81: 185–196.

14.

Henzl MR, Buttram V, Segre EJ and Bessler S. The treatment of dysmenorrhea with naproxen sodium: a report on two independent double blind trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1977; 127: 818–823.

15.

Hanson

Izu

and Henzl

MR.

Naproxen sodium in dysmenorrhea. Its influence in allowing continuation of work/school activities. Obstet Gynecol 1978; 52: 583–587.

16.

Janbu

Lokken

and Nesheim

BI.

Effect of acetylsalicylic acid, paracetamol, and placebo on pain and blood loss in dysmenorrhoeic women. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1978; 14: 413–416.

17.

Kajanoja

Indomethacin in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea. Arch Gynak 1978; 225: 1–5.

18.

Lundstrom

Treatment of primary dysmenorrhea with prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors: a promising therapeutic alternative. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1978; 57: 421–428.

19.

Pauls

Naproxen in dysmenorrhoea. Lancet 1978; 2: 159–160.

20.

Pulkkinen

and Csapo

AI.

The effect of ibuprofen on the intrauterine pressure and menstrual pain of dysmenorrheic patients. Prostaglandins 1978; 15: 1055–1062.

21.

Sande

Salvesen

and Izu

Treating dysmenorrhea with anti-inflammatory agents: a double-blind trial with naproxen sodium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1978; 16: 240–241.

22.

Budoff

PW.

Use of mefenamic acid in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. JAMA 1979; 241: 2713–2716.

23.

Dandenell LO, Lalos O, Lisciak J, Sandstrom B, Barany S and Nilsson B. Clinical experience of naproxen in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl 1979; 87: 95–100.

24.

Elder

and Kapadia

Indomethacin in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1979; 86: 645–647.

25.

Jacobson J, Cavalli-Bjorkman K, Lundstrom V, Nilsson B and Norbeck M. Prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors and dysmenorrhea. A survey and personal clinical experience. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl 1979; 87: 73–79.

26.

Larkin

Van Orden

Poulson

and Scott

. Dysmenorrhea: treatment with an antiprostaglandin. Obstet Gynecol 1979; 54: 456–460.

27.

Morrison

and Jennings

JC.

Primary dysmenorrhea treated with indomethacin. South Med J 1979; 72: 425–428.

28.

Pulkkinen

MO.

Suppression of uterine activity by prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl 1979; 87: 39–43.

29.

Pulkkinen

and Csapo

AI.

Effect of ibuprofen on menstrual blood prostaglandin levels in dysmenorrheic women. Prostaglandins 1979; 18: 137–142.

30.

Hamann

GO.

Severe, primary dysmenorrhea treated with naproxen. A prospective, double-blind, crossover investigation. Prostaglandins 1980; 19: 651–657.

31.

Henzl

Massey

and Hanson

FW.

Primary dysmenorrhea. The therapeutic challenge. J Reprod Med 1980; 25: 226–235.

32.

Morrison

Ling

and Forman

EK.

Analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen for treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. South Med J 1980; 73: 999–1002.

33.

Pogmore

and Filshie

GM.

Flurbiprofen in the management of dysmenorrhoea. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1980; 87: 326–329.

34.

Chan

Dawood

and Fuchs

Prostaglandins in primary dysmenorrhea. Comparison of prophylactic and nonprophylactic treatment with ibuprofen and use of oral contraceptives. Am J Med 1981; 70: 535–541.

35.

Riihiluoma

Wuolijoki

and Pulkkinen

MO.

Treatment of primary dysmenorrhea with diclofenac sodium. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1981; 12: 189–194.

36.

Rosenwaks Z, Jones GS, Henzl MR, Dubin NH, Ghodgaonkar RB and Hoffman S. Naproxen sodium, aspirin, and placebo in primary dysmenorrhea. Reduction of pain and blood levels of prostaglandin F2-alpha metabolite. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 140: 592–598.

37.

DeLia JE, Emery MG, Taylor RH and Scott JR. Flurbiprofen in dysmenorrhea. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1982; 32: 76–80.

38.

Chan

Fuchs

and Powell

AM.

Effects of naproxen sodium on menstrual prostaglandins and primary dysmenorrhea. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 61: 285–291.

39.

Gleeson

and Sorbie

Efficacy of ketoprofen in treating primary dysmenorrhea. Can Med Assoc J 1983; 129: 842–844.

40.

Gookin

Forman

and Vecchio

TJ.

Comparative efficacy of ibuprofen, indomethacin, and placebo in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. South Med J 1983; 76: 1361–1362.

41.

Jacobson

Lundstrom

and Nilsson

Naproxen in the treatment of OC-resistant primary dysmenorrhea. A double-blind cross-over study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl 1983; 87–89.

42.

Lalos

and Nilsson

Dysmenorrhea in women with intrauterine contraceptive device. Treatment with a prostaglandin synthetase inhibitor, naproxen. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1983; 21: 33–37.

43.

Roy

A double-blind comparison of a propionic acid derivative (ibuprofen) and a fenamate (mefenamic acid) in the treatment of dysmenorrhea. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 61: 628–632.

44.

Rondel RK, Eberhardt R, Koch J and Schurmann W. Treatment of primary essential dysmenorrhoea with nimesulide: a double-blind cross over study. Curr Ther Res 1984; 35: 123–129.

45.

Milsom

and Andersch

Ibuprofen and naproxen-sodium in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: a double-blind cross-over study. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1985; 23: 305–310.

46.

Osathanondh

Caldwell

and Kaul

AF.

Efficacy of fenoprofen in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. J Reprod Med 1985; 30: 915–919.

47.

Saltveit

Piroxicam in primary dysmenorrhea. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1985; 64: 635–637.

48.

Wilhelmsson

Jonsson

and Halling

Piroxicam in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1985; 64: 317–321.

49.

Kauppila

Makila

and Makarainen

Tiaprofenic acid in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1986; 22: 359–363.

50.

Shapiro

SS.

Flurbiprofen for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Am J Med 1986; 80: 71–75.

51.

Fraser

and McCarron

Ibuprofen is a useful treatment for primary dysmenorrhoea. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 27: 244–247.

52.

Kapadia

A study of naproxen sodium and ibuprofen in primary dysmenorrhoea.

J Soc Occup Med 1987; 37: 77–80.

53.

Pulkkinen

MO.

Alterations in intrauterine pressure, menstrual fluid prostaglandin F levels, and pain in dysmenorrheic women treated with nimesulide. J Clin Pharmacol 1987; 27: 65–69.

54.

Mehlisch

DR.

Ketoprofen, ibuprofen, and placebo in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: a double-blind crossover comparison. J Clin Pharmacol 1988; 28: S29–S33.

55.

Palmisano

and Lamb

EJ.

Double-blind crossover comparison of ketoprofen, ibuprofen, and placebo in the treatment of patients with primary dysmenorrhea. Adv Ther 1988; 5: 128–137.

56.

Pasquale

Rathauser

and Dolese

HM.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing three single-dose regimens of piroxicam with ibuprofen in patients with primary dysmenorrhea. Am J Med 1988; 84: 30–34.

57.

Akerlund

and Stromberg

Comparison of ketoprofen and naproxen in the treatment of dysmenorrhoea, with special regard to the time of onset of pain relief. Curr Med Res Opin 1989; 11: 485–490.

58.

Andersch

and Milsom

A double-blind cross-over study comparing flurbiprofen with naproxen-sodium for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1989; 68: 555–558.

59.

Fedele L, Marchini M, Acaia B, Garagiola U and Tiengo M. Dynamics and significance of placebo response in primary dysmenorrhea. Pain 1989; 36: 43–47.

60.

Mehlisch

DR.

Double-blind crossover comparison of ketoprofen, naproxen, and placebo in patients with primary dysmenorrhea. Clin Ther 1990; 12: 398–409.

61.

Tilyard

and Dovey

SM.

A comparison of tiaprofenic acid, mefenamic acid and placebo in the treatment of dysmenorrhoea in general practice. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 32: 165–168.

62.

Marchini M, Tozzi L, Bakshi R, Pisati R and Fedele L. Comparative efficacy of diclofenac dispersible 50 mg and ibuprofen 400 mg in patients with primary dysmenorrhea. A randomized, double-blind, within-patient, placebo-controlled study. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 33: 491–497.

63.

Mehlisch

and Fulmer

RI.

A crossover comparison of bromfenac sodium, naproxen sodium, and placebo for relief of pain from primary dysmenorrhea. J Womens Health 1997; 6: 83–92.

64.

Ezcurdia M, Cortejoso FJ, Lanzón R, Ugalde FJ, Herruzo A, Artigas R, Fernández MF, Torres F and Mauleón D. Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of dexketoprofen and ketoprofen in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 38: 65S–73S.

65.

Di Girolamo G, Gimeno MA, Faletti A, de los Santos AR, Marti ML and Zmijanovich R. [Menstrual prostaglandin and dysmenorrhea: modulation by non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs]. Medicina 1999; 59: 259–264.

66.

Morrison BW, Daniels SE, Kotey P, Cantu N and Seidenberg B. Rofecoxib, a specific cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, in primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94: 504–508.

67.

Daniels SE, Talwalker S, Torri S, Snabes MC, Recker DP and Verburg KM. Valdecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitor, is effective in treating primary dysmenorrhea. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100: 350–358.

68.

Milsom I, Minic M, Dawood MY, Akin MD, Spann J, Niland NF and Squire RA. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of nonprescription doses of naproxen and naproxen sodium with ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and placebo in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: a pooled analysis of five studies. Clin Ther 2002; 24: 1384–1400.

69.

Malmstrom K, Kotey P, Cichanowitz N, Daniels S and Desjardins PJ. Analgesic efficacy of etoricoxib in primary dysmenorrhea: results of a randomized, controlled trial. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2003; 56: 65–69.

70.

Bitner M, Kattenhorn J, Hatfield C, Gao XJ and Kellstein D. Efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea. Int J Clin Pract 2004; 58: 340–345.

71.

De Mello NR, Baracat EC, Tomaz G, Bedone AJ, Camargos A, Barbosa IC, De Souza RN, Rumi DO, Martinez Alcala FO, Aldrete Velasco JA and Risco Cortes RJ. Double-blind study to evaluate efficacy and safety of meloxicam 7.5 mg and 15 mg versus mefenamic acid 1500 mg in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004; 83: 667–673.

72.

Daniels

Torri

and Desjardins

PJ.

Valdecoxib for treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. A randomized, double-blind comparison with placebo and naproxen. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20: 62–67.

73.

Letzel H, Mégard Y, Lamarca R, Raber A and Fortea J. The efficacy and safety of aceclofenac versus placebo and naproxen in women with primary dysmenorrhoea. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006; 129: 162–168.

74.

Dawood

and Khan-Dawood

FS.

Clinical efficacy and differential inhibition of menstrual fluid prostaglandin F2α in a randomized, double-blind, crossover treatment with placebo, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen in primary dysmenorrhea. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196: 35.e31–35.e35.

75.

Doubova SV, Morales HR, Hernández SF, Martínez-García MdC, Ortiz MGdC, Soto MAC, Arce ER and Lozoya X. Effect of a Psidii guajavae folium extract in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized clinical trial. J Ethnopharmacol 2007; 110: 305–310.

76.

Chantler

Mitchell

and Fuller

Diclofenac potassium attenuates dysmenorrhea and restores exercise performance in women with primary dysmenorrhea. J Pain 2009; 10: 191–200.

77.

Daniels S, Robbins J, West CR and Nemeth MA. Celecoxib in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: results from two randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, crossover studies. Clin Ther 2009; 31: 1192–1208.

78.

Iacovides S, Avidon I, Bentley A and Baker FC. Diclofenac potassium restores objective and subjective measures of sleep quality in women with primary dysmenorrhea. Sleep 2009; 32: 1019–1026.

79.

Nahid K, Fariborz M, Ataolah G and Solokian S. The effect of an Iranian herbal drug on primary dysmenorrhea: a clinical controlled trial. J Midwifery Womens Health 2009; 54: 401–404.

80.

Heidarifar R, Mehran N, Heidari A, Tehran HA, Koohbor M and Mansourabad MK. Effect of Dill (Anethum graveolens) on the severity of primary dysmenorrhea in compared with mefenamic acid: a randomized, double-blind trial. J Res Med Sci 2014; 19: 326–330.

81.

Salmalian H, Saghebi R, Moghadamnia AA, Bijani A, Faramarzi M, Amiri FN, Bakouei F, Behmanesh F and Bekhradi R. Comparative effect of thymus vulgaris and ibuprofen on primary dysmenorrhea: a triple-blind clinical study. Caspian J Intern Med 2014; 5: 82–88.

82.

Iacovides

Avidon

and Baker

FC.

What we know about primary dysmenorrhea today: a critical review. Hum Reprod Update 2015; 21: 762–778.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB