Abstract
Purpose Communication atypicalities are considered promising markers of a broad range of clinical conditions. However, little is known about the mechanisms and confounders underlying them. Medications might have a crucial, relatively unknown role both as potential confounders and offering an insight on the mechanisms at work. The integration of regulatory documents with disproportionality analyses provides a more comprehensive picture to account for in future investigations of communication-related markers. The aim of the current study was to identify a list of drugs potentially associated with communicative atypicalities within psychotic and affective disorders.
Method We developed a query using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) to search for communicative atypicalities within the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS, updated June 2021). A Bonferroni corrected disproportionality analysis (Reporting Odds Ratio) was separately performed on spontaneous reports involving psychotic, affective, and non-neuropsychiatric disorders, to account for the confounding role of different underlying conditions. Drug adverse event associations not already reported in the SIDER database of labeled adverse drug reactions (unexpected) were subjected to further robustness analyses to account for expected biases.
Results A list of 291 expected and 91 unexpected potential confounding medications was identified, including drugs that may irritate (inhalants) or desiccate (anticholinergics) the larynx, impair speech motor control (antipsychotics), induce nodules (acitretin) or necrosis (VEGFR-inhibitors) on vocal cords, sedatives and stimulants, neurotoxic agents (antiinfectives), and agents acting on neurotransmitter pathways (dopamine agonists).
Conclusions We provide a list of medications to account for in future studies of communication-related markers in affective and psychotic disorders. The current test case illustrates rigorous procedures for digital phenotyping, and the methodological tools implemented for large scale disproportionality analyses can be considered a roadmap for investigations of communication-related markers in other clinical populations.
Competing Interest Statement
RF has been a paid consultant for F. Hoffmann - La Roche.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used ONLY openly available anonymous human data collected by the FDA and made freely available at https://fis.fda.gov/extensions/FPD-QDE-FAERS/FPD-QDE-FAERS.html
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
●We better defined and motivated our choice of relevant terms and clustering (which needed to overcome the inconsistencies between the regulatory MedDRA dictionary - which we need to use to analyze spontaneous reports -, the terminology used in the study of communicative atypicalities in affective and psychotic disorders, and the nosological framework more conventionally used by the SLP community. More concretely, we detailed the different approaches embodied in the different terminologies (see details below), and thoroughly revised the naming and discussion of our clusters of communicative impairment terms. ●We clarified that the use of package inserts to identify known associations should be further complemented by other information sources, such as published literature and clinical expertise. ●We further motivated our methodological choices (e.g. using higher thresholds for cases, instead of Bayesian information component methods). ●We generally thoroughly revised the text and supplementary materials to increase clarity and better motivate all our choices.
Data Availability
All data used in the present study are available online at https://fis.fda.gov/extensions/FPD-QDE-FAERS/FPD-QDE-FAERS.html. The data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.