Identifying medications underlying communication atypicalities in psychotic and affective disorders: A pharmacovigilance study within the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System

1.1. The confounding role of medications on communication-related biomarkers

Affective and psychotic disorders have long been associated with atypical communicative patterns - e.g., decreased emotional expression and flat prosody^1,2. This awareness is widely used during the assessment of the disorders, and is increasingly investigated through automated voice and content analysis^3–7. The combination of new powerful forms of machine learning, pervasive smartphone data collection, and other sources of big data will allegedly identify historically elusive markers for affective and psychotic disorders and therefore enable more reliable diagnoses, continuous evaluation of symptoms, and perhaps even personalized treatment^8–12. However, communication is a complex phenomenon and its relation to specific disorders is not straightforward, with many potential confounders and ethical considerations^6,13,14.

Medications, which can be disproportionately associated with neuropsychiatric diagnoses and their co-morbidities, can affect not only mental health but also speech (more related to voice and prosody) and language patterns (more related to content). For example, commonly used medications with anticholinergic effects (e.g., antihistamines and antidepressants) can cause reduced salivation flow (xerostomia) and sedation of the mouth, which could cause dysphonia and difficulty in articulation¹⁵. As another example, high D2R occupancy antipsychotics are administered to patients with psychotic disorders, but have also been shown to associate with slower speech and increased pauses¹⁶. Therefore, it is often not clear whether the communicative atypicalities identified as behavioral biomarkers of affective and psychotic disorders could be at least partially confounded by medications. Unfortunately, more general investigations of the associations between communicative atypicalities and medications are still sparse, and no comprehensive overview is available (see Supplementary Material 1 – Section A for an overview of studies assessing the effect of medication on speech patterns in schizophrenia).

Therefore, the objective of the current study was to identify a list of drugs that could be associated with atypicalities in speech and language, which should be evaluated in the future as potential confounders in communication-related biomarkers of affective and psychotic disorders. We first (Section 1.2) introduce our two key sources of information: clinical-trial-based information (SIDER¹⁷) and spontaneous reports (FAERS¹⁸). We then (Section 1.3) briefly discuss four common causal mechanisms underlying observed associations between drugs and adverse events. We present how the potential biases thus highlighted can be accounted for in our analyses (Section 1.4) before detailing our materials and methods (Section 2). Finally, we report and discuss the resulting list of drugs associated with communicative atypicalities (Sections 3 and 4).

1.2. Information sources

As medications are tested in clinical trials, adverse drug reactions are evaluated, and if the drug is approved for market distribution (marketing authorization) these adverse reactions are reported in the insert of the medication package¹⁹. However, as the drug is used outside of clinical trials (post-marketing phase) unexpected drug reactions are often detected. For example, an adverse drug reaction could arise in populations not investigated in clinical trials (e.g., older or younger cohorts, pregnant women, patients with additional comorbidities). In addition, multiple drugs are often administered together (polytherapy), and an adverse drug reaction could arise from their interaction. Such suspected adverse reactions to drugs can be spontaneously reported to the regulatory agencies by physicians, marketing authorization holders, and the general public. Disproportionality analyses are statistical techniques developed to detect patterns within spontaneous reporting systems’ databases in the attempt to provide a more comprehensive safety profile of medications²⁰.

Clinical trials and disproportionality analyses have complementary strengths. Clinical trials have obvious advantages, primarily that, by carefully selecting homogeneous samples and randomly distributing them across interventions, they remove many possible confounders and provide a strong causal assessment. However, the weaker evidence provided by spontaneous reports can cover a much broader variety of patients and drug uses, including adverse reactions that are commonly underreported during clinical trials. For instance, rashes are easy to observe, and arrhythmias could be fatal, and therefore, both are relatively prominent in clinical trial reports^21,22 as compared with symptoms such as raspy vocal quality, or mispronunciations of speech sounds. However, communication impairments can be disabling from the patients’ and their families’ point of view, and therefore be more likely to be spontaneously reported, as has been shown for stuttering^23–26.

Pharmacovigilance has long acknowledged that spontaneous reports provide very noisy information riddled with well-known biases. For example, reports may be incomplete or duplicated, lack quality control of the information provided (e.g., patients do not have the right language and knowledge to accurately label their symptoms), contain potential biases, and may ignore external factors such as the novelty of a drug and how media coverage of adverse reactions affects the number of reports^19,27,28. In other words, causal connections between drugs and adverse reactions should not be established based solely on spontaneous reports. Nevertheless, by taking these biases into account, disproportionality analyses can generate hypotheses for further investigation by analytical studies (cohort and case-control studies). Finally, with large enough sample sizes, there are methods for approximately estimating the causal effect of drugs in observational studies by adjusting for these newly considered confounders through confounding-adjustment methods²⁹ such as propensity score matching.

1.3. Causal models underlying drug adverse event associations

Disproportionality analyses identify adverse events that are more frequently present in reports about a given drug than in reports not containing that drug. However, the observed association could be generated through different causal mechanisms, with four common ones represented in Figure 1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1 common causal mechanisms underlying drug adverse event associations.

The four diagrams (A-D) represent four possible mechanisms which can all give rise to the observed association (in the center). The diagrams are direct acyclic graphs (DAGs), that is, graphs in which the nodes (ellipses) are the observable phenomena, and the arrows are the causal connections (which can only be acyclical, that is, go one direction and not form loops). DAG A represents the case in which the event is an actual Adverse Reaction caused by the administration of the drug of interest. DAG B represents a case of Reverse Causality, in which the drug is administered to treat the adverse event but is incorrectly reported. DAG C represents a case of Confounding by Indication, in which the underlying condition that justifies the use of the drug also more frequently present the adverse event. DAG D represents a case of Confounding by Concomitant, in which the adverse event is a reaction to a coadministered drug (administered for the same condition or a related comorbidity).

The first possible causal model is simply that the adverse event is indeed caused by the drug (an Adverse Reaction to it; DAG A). For example, administering anticholinergic drugs often results in reduced salivation flow (xerostomia) and sedation of the mouth, which can cause speech impairment¹⁵.

However, the association might also result from Reverse Causality (DAG B): the drug is taken because of the event (e.g., to treat it)¹. For example, botulinum toxin is approved to treat spasmodic dysphonia, and antipsychotics are administered off-label to reduce stuttering³⁰. These drugs can be reported as associated with a speech impairment because, for example, the lack of specific fields for symptoms of the underlying condition or for comorbidities often generates ambiguity in the reported information. Furthermore, when therapy does not reduce symptoms, reports might incorrectly record the indication for use (pre-existing stuttering) as an adverse reaction (after drug administration, stuttering is still there).

A third common possibility is the so-called “common cause” or fork³¹. Here the underlying condition is causing both the prescription of the drug and the adverse event, without there being any direct causation between the latter two (Confounding by Indication; DAG C). For example, psychotic disorders can involve some degree of communication impairment (e.g., alogia, i.e., reduced and vague speech, or disorganized speech), as well as the administration of antipsychotics. Therefore, when assessing all reports on FAERS, one might find an association between communication impairments and antipsychotics simply due to their co-presence, even if there were no direct causal association. Another example of the “common cause” problem is seen with gastroesophageal reflux, for which proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are administered. Acid reflux can also affect the larynx and vocal cords, resulting in dysphonia³², which would then appear to be associated with PPI even in the absence of a direct causal link.

A fourth common possibility is that the adverse event is indeed an adverse reaction, but to a different concomitant drug also prescribed due to the underlying condition (Confounding by Concomitant; DAG D). For example, diuretics are usually administered in conjunction with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), which are known to cause bradykinin-related cough and laryngeal irritation. Therefore, diuretics might appear to be associated with dysphonia, even if the latter were exclusively due to ACEIs.

Finally, the relationship between a drug and an event may also not be reducible to one DAG only. Botulinum toxin may indeed be used to treat spasmodic dysphonia (DAG B), but it was also subject to a warning by the FDA because the systemic spread of the toxin can lead to flaccid paralysis and related dysphonia (DAG A)³³.

1.4 From causal models to statistical analyses

When disproportionality analyses identify an association between a drug and an adverse event, how do we discriminate between the possible causal mechanisms? It turns out that there is no replacement for clinical and scientific knowledge: evidence from previous studies, clinical expertise, and informed mechanisms hypotheses. This knowledge must play a meta-statistical role in guiding the construction of statistical analyses. In other words, it is up to clinically and scientifically informed disproportionality analyses, not statistics alone, to identify plausible directions of causality and the necessary follow-up studies.

Specifically, reverse causality (DAG B in Figure 1) could be anticipated by carefully considering which drugs are used to treat the condition investigated. For instance, one could run analyses only on reports that do not include drugs used to treat communication disorders. Similarly, clinical expertise can identify whether underlying conditions are also likely to cause the adverse events of interest (Confounding by Indication, DAG C in Figure 1). This is the case of psychotic and affective disorders being associated with communicative impairment (e.g., flat prosody for both types of disorders, and semantic incoherence for psychotic disorders). A solution to this bias is to explicitly include the common cause in the model (“blocking the backdoor path”³¹), for instance, by analyzing the populations separately: in our case, this implied separately analyzing individuals with affective disorders, individuals with psychotic disorders, and individuals without any neurologic medication in order to test whether patients with, e.g., affective disorders on vs. off a specific drug display higher rates of the adverse event of interest. By looking at reports for individuals not assuming any neurologic medication, we exclude (and therefore can correct for) psychiatric patients as well as other communication-impairing conditions such as anxiety, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia. This analysis is, of course, a first approximation: affective and psychotic disorders are complex conditions with very heterogeneous clinical profiles, comorbidities, and therapies. To move one step further, one could identify other underlying comorbid conditions likely to cause communicative impairment and produce a control analysis where all these conditions are excluded. Similarly, in the Confounding by Concomitant case (DAG D in Figure 1), one could identify drugs known to produce communicative impairment and exclude reports containing these drugs from the analysis. This also deals with what is known as “competition bias”²⁷: known adverse drug reactions are easier to detect and therefore reported more frequently. Thus, established adverse drug reactions result in stronger associations, which mask the less reported unexpected ones. When known signals are removed, new associations may become visible.

While these techniques provide information about potential mechanisms, they do not guarantee accurate causal inference. Nevertheless, they contribute to the collective construction of more accurate knowledge on the relationship between drugs and communicative impairment by providing hypotheses to be explored and assessed in future investigations.

2.1. Overview of the analyses

The general pipeline of the analysis is represented in Figure 2, the details of which are explained in the following paragraphs.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2 Analysis pipeline.

Each step of the analysis is represented as a block and arrows indicate the flow of data from one step to the other. Descriptions of each step are provided in text.

2.2. Definition of search terms

We relied on two information sources: SIDER for clinical trial reports of adverse drug reactions and FAERS for spontaneous post-marketing reports. Both sources employ a standardized hierarchical lexicon to code for adverse events, the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities or MedDRA. In MedDRA, the highest organization level is the System Organ Class (SOC, e.g., nervous system vs. vascular disorders), followed by the High-Level Group Terms (HLGTs, e.g., neuromuscular vs. neurological disorders), followed by High-Level Terms (HLTs, e.g., muscle tone abnormal vs. motor neuron disease) and Preferred Terms (PTs, e.g., hypertonia vs. hypotonia). Both SIDER and FAERS code their adverse events as preferred terms.

The MedDRA lexicon has some limitations. First, it does not always include the most adequate preferred terms to report a given adverse event; therefore, some events are less likely to be reported or are reported relying on only partially relevant terms. At the same time, preferred terms are quite detailed, and reporters are not always aware of the differences between terms (e.g., dysarthria and dyslalia), leading to their indiscriminate use. Thus, good pharmacovigilance practices involve so-called Standardized MedDRA Queries (SMQs), which are validated search queries that aggregate many partially overlapping preferred terms to identify and retrieve cases of interest. In the absence of an SMQ for speech and language disorders, we selected the preferred terms concerning communicative impairment. To increase understanding of the results, we clustered strongly overlapping terms, which were then traced, when possible, to separate Speech and Language categories. The use of generic preferred terms (e.g., speech disorder) often implies low expertise in the reporter and could therefore indicate any speech or language impairment. Consequently, we chose to consider them separately, not to contaminate the other analyses. This clustering was performed independently by six clinical and domain experts (pharmacovigilance experts, speech-language pathologists, psychologists, and experts on voice markers; see the list of co-authors), and disagreements were discussed until resolved. The aggregated list consists of nine main categories (sub-queries) and 16 isolated terms. It is represented in Figure 3, and it is available in the Supplementary Material 1 – Section B – Table S1.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3 Diagrammatic representation of the query definition.

First, MedDRA preferred terms concerning communicative atypicalities were divided into Speech (green) and Language (yellow) clusters, with less specific terms that could not be classified on the side (white). Within each of these clusters, subclusters of more related terms were identified: three for Speech and six for Language.

2.3. The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) collects worldwide spontaneous reports of suspected adverse drug reactions and offers the highest accessibility to the public for customized analyzes. Specifically, its raw quarterly data include demographic, therapeutic, and outcome details for each individual report. The reaction (adverse event) and indication (why the drug was administered) fields are standardized using MedDRA preferred terms.

The entire FAERS - Quarterly Data¹⁸ (January 2004 to June 2021) was downloaded and pre-processed to remove duplicate reports and standardize preferred terms and drug names. For the standardization of preferred terms, we used MedDRA 24.0. For the standardization of drug names, we used the WHO drug dictionary accessed in March 2020 and iteratively integrated to include newly marketed active ingredients. Furthermore, drug names were linked to their specific code from the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) hierarchical classification (2022 version) to allow group visualization of similar drugs. Because individual substances can have multiple codes related to distinct indications of use or administration routes, we selected only one code for each active ingredient using a semi-automatic prioritizing algorithm³⁴.

2.4. Exposure of interest

In order to identify medications associated with communicative impairments and deal with possible “common cause” biases (DAG C in Figure 1), we separately investigated three clinical populations: patients with a) affective, b) psychotic conditions, and c) without any neurologic medications (i.e., likely without any neuropsychiatric conditions). To identify patients with psychotic and affective conditions we selected all reports that recorded, as a reason for using drugs, any preferred term (PT, for example, ‘schizophrenia’) belonging to the high-level group terms (HLGT) for psychotic disorders (“schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders”) and affective disorders (“manic and bipolar mood disorders and disturbances” and “depressed mood disorders and disturbances”). To identify patients without neuropsychiatric conditions, we selected all reports that did not include any neurologic drug (according to the ATC) nor any psychotic or affective preferred term. The results of the selection procedure are displayed in the Supplementary Material 1 – Section C – Figure S1.

Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize cases vs. non-cases separately in the three populations of interest, with a particular focus on demographics, concomitants, co-reported events, and comorbidities (Supplementary Material 1 Section C). Differences between cases and non-cases may point to susceptibilities and potential biases not a priori acknowledged. For example, if we find that older people are more represented in cases than non-cases, this may point to a potential bias related to a higher frequency of speech disorders in the elderly.

2.5. Disproportionality analyzes for drug-event association detection

Disproportionality analysis (the analysis of a reliably more frequent reporting of an adverse event in presence of a drug than in presence of any other drug, Figure 2 – Step 1) was performed following good signal detection guidelines²⁸. Using a contingency table 2×2, we calculated the Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR) whenever at least 10 cases of the event investigated (e.g., phonatory preferred terms) co-occurred with a drug (e.g., testosterone). The ROR was deemed significant when the lower limit of its 95% confidence interval was greater than 1. In other words, we report a potential association when the adverse event is more likely to be reported together with the drug of interest than with any other drug but the one analyzed.

We performed a disproportionality analysis evaluating associations between drugs (from the ATC 2022 classification, excluding mineral supplements and drugs included in the ‘Various’ class) and communication-related adverse events (sub-clusters of overlapping terms as identified in Figure 3). The analyses were run on all reports involving a) affective and b) psychotic disorders, and c) non-neuropsychiatric reports. To filter out likely spurious associations, results were subjected to Bonferroni correction.

2.6. The Side Effect Resource (SIDER)

The Side Effect Resource is a public database that grants free access to the information contained in the package inserts, that is, the official information on a drug and its uses, in particular its side effects, compiled and distributed by the drug manufacturers. Package inserts are text-mined, and the information retrieved is coded using the ATC classification for medications and the MedDRA classification for adverse events.

For each subquery of potential adverse reactions, we searched the specific preferred terms. We considered the identified medications as expected associations (Figure 2 – Step 2), which did not require further discussion of potential biases and causal mechanisms. The associations found in FAERS but not present in the SIDER were considered unexpected and further assessed for potential causal confounding (Figure 2 – Step 3).

2.7. Robustness Analyses

Drugs unexpectedly associated with the sub-queries investigated were stratified according to expected biases (Figure 2 – Step 4) through clinical reasoning and according to the causal inference framework discussed in the introduction (paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4). We accordingly separated the associations into uncontroversial ones (plausible adverse reactions, Figure 1, DAG A, for which no specific confounder was expected), potential reverse causality (Figure 1, DAG B), potential confounding by indication (Figure 1, DAG C), and by concomitant (Figure 1, DAG D). We performed robustness analyzes to adjust the estimates for possible confounders (Figure 2 – Step 5). In particular, we excluded reports with the specific communicative impairment among indications, or restricted the investigation to a specific indication, to account for reverse causality bias (DAG B; Robustness Analysis 1). We excluded reports with pathologies that may be responsible for indication bias (DAG C; Robustness Analysis 2), at least for drugs that are approved for multiple indications. Finally, we excluded reports with the drug responsible for the ambiguity to account for the concomitant bias (DAG D; Robustness Analysis 3). The procedure applied is documented in Supplementary Material 1 – Section D.

2.8. Aggregating Results

The expected adverse drug reactions from the SIDER and robust unexpected associations from the FAERS were aggregated in nine lists, one per each main subquery (e.g., phonatory issues or incoherence), Figure 2 – Step 6. To provide a detailed overview of the results, we visualized each list as a table showing expected and previously unexpected adverse reactions organized according to the ATC hierarchical classification (see Supplementary Material 1 – Section D).

To provide a more general overview of the drug classes that should be considered for the analysis of communication-related biomarkers, we built a heat map showing the associations at the third level of the ATC classification (e.g., antipsychotics, antihistamines, and antidepressants; see Figure 4, and the public repository³⁵ for a collated heatmap at the level of single active ingredients).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4 Summary of drug-related communicative atypicalities’ plausible mechanisms.

3.1 MedDRA query for case retrieval

We defined a MedDRA query with nine main categories: three concerning speech (phonatory, prosody, motor control or execution), six concerning language (aphasia, high/low productivity speech and thought, stereotypies, incoherence, abnormal reasoning) (see Figure 3). Note that some of the selected preferred terms could not be included in the larger clusters: seven more idiosyncratic language terms and nine more generic terms, which are not included in the subsequent analyses.

3.2 Populations of interest

We selected three populations of interest: 302,000 reports involving affective disorders, 11,631 psychotic disorders, and 7,703,183 non-neuropsychiatric disorders. A detailed presentation of the number of cases (reports with communication-related adverse events) and noncases is presented in the Supplementary Material 1 – Section C Figures S1-S5 and Table S2.

3.3 Expected and Unexpected Solid Associations

In the three populations, we performed disproportionality analyses for each category (see Supplementary Material 2). We detected both expected and unexpected drug associations and performed robustness analyses on the latter ones. The result was a list of 291 expected and 91 unexpected potential confounding medications. Emerging results were shown in Supplementary Material 1 - Section C (Tables S3-S9, Figure S6). No association was found for prosody or abnormal reasoning.

We detected 72 drug classes (ATC third level) associated with a disproportional reporting of phonatory impairment: 53 were already expected based on the SIDER, 10 classes included both drugs already reported in the SIDER and unexpected drugs (integrated classes) and 9 were entirely unexpected. Restricting to strong signals (i.e., disproportions significant after the Bonferroni correction) in the non-neuropsychiatric population, the highest number of cases involved inhalants – fluticasone (4669 cases, ROR = 10.48, 95% CIs = [10.14-10.81]), salmeterol (3099, 12.16 [11.71-12.63]), and salbutamol (2434, 5.52 [5.29-5.76]), while the highest lower limits of the 95%CI of the ROR concerned two VEGFR-inhibitors –regorafenib (530, 22.25 [20.29-24.35]) and axitinib (437, 14.27 [12.92-15.37]) and salmeterol. The many anticholinergic drugs already present in the SIDER were integrated with unexpected signals for umeclidinium (an inhaled bronchodilators), rupatadine and fexofenadine (antihistamines). Among the robustness analyses implemented, we accounted for reverse causality (DAG B: botulinum toxin excluding its use for spasmodic dysphonia¹), confounding by indications (DAG C: antihistamines restricted to urticaria, to exclude the confound due to asthma) and concomitants (DAG D: cardiovascular agents excluding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; beta agonists excluding inhalants).

We detected 37 drug classes associated with a disproportional reporting of motor control or execution impairment in speech (17 expected, 10 integrated, 10 unexpected). The most numerous cases concerned immunomodulators used in multiple sclerosis – natalizumab (770, 4.48 [4.16-4.82]) and interferon beta-1a (674, 3.62 [3.34-3.91]) – and a selective calcium channel blocker – amlodipine (376, 2.05 [1.84-2.27]). Drugs with the highest lower limit were anti-infectives: vidarabine (20, 71.42 [42.66-113.63]), valaciclovir (334, 12.14 [10.84-13.55]) and metronidazole (309, 9.48 [8.44-10.63]).

51 drug classes were associated with aphasia (19 expected, 10 integrated, 22 unexpected), with the most numerous being natalizumab (872, 5.54 [5.16-5.94]), interferon beta-1a (643, 3.71 [3.42-4.02]), and levothyroxine (327, 1.57 [1.4-1.75], and the highest disproportionalities being with antineoplastic such as CAR-T engineered cells used to treat hematologic neoplasia –axicabtagene ciloleucel (114, 43.68 [35.78-52.8]) and tisagenleceleucel-t (58, 24.5 [18.52-31.84])– and avapritinib (20, 18 [10.33-26.44]).

Concerning iatrogenic language stereotypies, we did not find any unexpected signal. 4 drug classes were associated with stereotypies (4 expected, 0 unexpected), the only strong signal being with interferon beta-1a (20, 6.12 [3.65-9.73]). We only found drugs already reported in the SIDER: ifosfamide (antineoplastic), topiramate (antiepileptic), phenelzine and bupropion (antidepressant), and iopamidol (contrast media).

12 drug classes were associated with high productivity speech or thought (4 unexpected, 2 integrated, 6 expected). We observed associations based on only few cases, the greatest being clarithromycin (49, 22.38 [16.43-29.8]), levothyroxine (47, 2.29 [1.67-3.07]) and ivermectin (40, 99.9 [70.83-137.18]), with the highest disproportionalities for ivermectin, clarithromycin and niraparib (11, 10.54 [5.24-18.94]).

10 drug classes were associated with low productivity speech or thought (2 unexpected, 2 integrated, 6 expected), the most common drugs being natalizumab (105, 4.65 [3.77-5.67]), levothyroxine (85, 2.97 [2.36-3.7]) and interferon beta-1a (65, 2.6 [2-3.34]), the strongest signals being with lorcaserin (17, 40.85 [23.67-65.71]), finasteride (33, 11.9 [8.16-16.79]) and natalizumab.

44 drug classes were associated with incoherence (34 expected, 4 integrated, 6 unexpected), the more numerous substances being levothyroxine (237, 1.9 [1.67-2.17]), interferon beta-1a (213, 1.98 [1.72-2.27]) and montelukast (200, 5.58 [4.82-6.43]), and the highest disproportionalities being those with anti-infectives – mefloquine (33, 36.26 [24.8-51.28]), zanamivir (14, 11.95 [6.51-20.13]) and oseltamivir (62, 6.47 [4.95-8.31]).

4.1 Overview

Given the increased focus on communication-related biomarkers of affective and psychotic disorders, we need a more careful overview of how medications could potentially act as confounders. We developed a rigorous pipeline combining evidence from drug package inserts with post-marketing disproportionality analyses and relied on causal inference techniques to account for potential biases. We identified a list of known (given the package insert) and unexpected medications that could affect communication-related biomarkers.

In the following subsections, we discuss how to interpret and use these findings and methods in the broader context of digital phenotyping trying to identify markers of neuropsychiatric conditions. First, we discuss expected and unexpected potential adverse reactions as they relate to the specific context of communication-related biomarkers of psychotic and affective disorders. Second, we present the limitations and possibilities of our approach. Finally, we discuss possible realistic uses of the list in future research.

4.2 Known and unexpected adverse reactions

The final list of potential confounding drugs for communication-related biomarkers encompasses both expected (i.e., described in the package insert) and unexpected associations. Some of the expected associations are already discussed in the literature on communication-related biomarkers. For example, the effects of antipsychotics and antidepressants have been directly investigated when evaluating communication-related biomarkers^1,16,36–38. However, even these expected associations are not routinely considered in the actual analysis of communication-related biomarkers of psychotic disorders², and when they are, the results are inconclusive^6,7.

In other cases, we found unexpected associations with drugs from already known classes (integrated findings, that is, drugs from the same class were already known to associate with the adverse reaction). For instance, we found evidence for haloperidol being related to adverse reactions concerning motor control or execution (e.g., impacting articulatory precision) that are not reported in its package insert. However, these reactions are reported in other antipsychotic package inserts and may be a more general class effect. This is also the case for the unexpected signal concerning clonazepam (an antiepileptic, also used to treat anxiety) being associated with aphasia and for antineoplastic agents (mainly VEGFR-inhibitors) with dysphonia.

Other associations are even more unexpected. Medications used to treat cancer, such as plant alkaloids, cytotoxic antibiotics, protein kinase inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies, emerge as potential causes of aphasia, which are not reported in the SIDER database. Crucially, since there is at least some evidence of increased cancer risk in schizophrenia³⁹, we could expect a more common use of these drugs in patients with schizophrenia than in controls. Therefore, the adverse reaction could influence how well a predictive model could detect psychotic disorders from speech or language patterns, at least in complex machine learning models. Nevertheless, these drugs have never been mentioned - to our knowledge - in previous studies of communication-related biomarkers as possible confounders.

4.3 Drug-induced communicative impairment mechanisms

We contextualized the drugs emerging as possible confounders for communication-related biomarkers according to their plausible mechanism of action (see Figure 4). Indeed, biological plausibility is one element of robustness for hypotheses emerging from disproportionality analyses. Furthermore, understanding the mechanism underlying drug-induced communication atypicalities may allow to identify other plausible involved drugs not detected in our study (e.g., because of unaccounted for biases, or because still not on the market). Finally, this knowledge may drive us to shape machine learning techniques using the knowledge of exactly how communication-related biomarkers are affected by each drug (e.g., change in pitch or in prosody).

4.4 Limitations and future directions

4.5 How should this list be used?

We advocate for the list of drug confounders (Figure 4 and Table 1)– whether as a cause of a speech or language atypicality or as a proxy of an underlying susceptibility – to be used in future studies of communication-related behavioral biomarkers by either including the presence of a medication as a covariate, removing participants who take medication, or interpreting results and study limitations as a function of which medications were taken. We know that, as observed by multiple reviews, most studies of such markers involve small sample sizes^2,46,47. Such studies would be at a loss trying to adjust for such a large number of medications and would lack reliable evidence related to all but the most commonly used ones. Although a single study can still check the list for the most likely confounders (e.g., much higher use of drug x in the target population than in the controls), the real potential lies in the cumulative aggregation of this information across studies. The key is to report medications used by participants in individual studies, which would allow future mega-analyses⁴⁸ (aggregating datasets across studies preserving individual-level data) to directly assess the impact of a large variety of relevant medications.

Accounting for confounders is also important in machine learning studies. Current reviews and perspectives on the study of communication-related behavioral biomarkers advocate the collection of larger and more diverse samples and the use of state-of-the-art machine learning techniques, such as deep learning^6,7,14. In these contexts, the algorithms can detect even the presence of weak confounding if it improves prediction. In other words, many machine learning models are likely to recognize small differences between groups they try to classify. If these differences are due to higher levels of medication being used and not due to the target disorder, the models may not generalize well to other samples of the disorder where the medication use is different, which is common when changing countries and sociodemographic settings. Accordingly, a deeper understanding of the confounders and mechanisms at work is a key component also for more data-driven machine learning approaches, for instance, to guide bias assessment or even to identify more rigorous pipelines (e.g., presenting medication-balanced validation sets).

Finally, this list may also help identify more general hypothesized mechanisms underlying adverse events beyond a specific drug. Pharmaco-surveillance can thus act not only as a guide for precautionary regulatory action, but also as a hypothesis generation tool for scientific research, which could lead to follow-up studies involving, e.g., electronic health records (to assess adverse events before and after drug administration), experimental setups, and clinical studies. For instance, a more thorough investigation of the association between domperidone and aphasia would be of particular interest, given the biological plausibility –i.e., its activity as a dopamine antagonist– and the existence of conditions that increase the blood-brain barrier permeability. This might lead to more generalizable predictions as regards confounding drugs and increased understanding of the communicative features of the disorders over time.

4.6 Applications of the methods to other neuropsychiatric conditions

In the current study, we have currently focused on affective and psychotic disorders since previous research explicitly called for better investigation of medication-related confounders in identifying communication markers for these populations^1,2,5. However, with proper consideration, the list could be easily extended when assessing communication-related behavioral biomarkers for other conditions. Neurodevelopmental conditions (e.g., autistic spectrum disorder), and neurological diseases (e.g., Parkinson’s disease) seem obvious follow-ups.