SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

NSAID use is not associated with Parkinson's disease incidence: A Norwegian Prescription Database study.

PLoS One · 2021-09-07

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256602PMID: 34492069

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveWhether use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce the risk of incident Parkinson's disease (PD) remains unresolved. Here, we employed the Norwegian Prescription Database to examine whether NSAID use is associated with a lower incidence of PD.MethodsWe compared the incidence of PD among users of NSAIDs in a population-based retrospective study using the Norwegian Prescription Database from 2004 to 2017. In total 7580 PD patients were identified using dopaminergic therapy over time as proxy for PD diagnosis. Analyses were performed with minimum 90 and 365 defined daily dose (DDD) NSAID exposure, respectively. Time-dependent Cox regression model and a binary logistic regression analysis with a 5-year lag until PD diagnosis were performed for all NSAIDs.ResultsThere was overall no decrease in incidence of PD among NSAID users compared to controls. Using a minimum of 90 or 365 DDD threshold of exposure produced similar results. Analysis of individual NSAIDs did not show difference in PD incidence compared to controls Age-specific incidence rates of PD were comparable to reported age-specific incidence rates in previous studies.InterpretationOur findings provide no evidence that cumulative high exposure to NSAIDs affects the risk of developing PD.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.