Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Attributed to Medication Use: A Pharmacovigilance Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a prevalent compression neuropathy with multiple well-documented mechanical and systemic risk factors. However, the role of pharmacological agents in the development of CTS remains underexplored. This study aims to identify drugs disproportionately associated with CTS reports using data from the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). METHODS: A retrospective pharmacovigilance analysis was conducted using OpenVigil 2.1 to evaluate adverse event (AE) reports of CTS from the FAERS database from October 2003 to September 2024. Only drugs identified as the primary suspect in at least 10 AE reports were included. Disproportionality analysis, including reporting odds ratios (RORs), was used to assess associations between CTS and specific drugs. Positive signals were validated using Bayesian confidence propagation neural network algorithms, with drugs having ROR ≥10 and significant Bayesian confidence intervals (IC025 > 0) considered strongly associated with CTS. RESULTS: Of 12,929,504 AEs reported during the study period, 6,837 (0.05%) involved CTS. Female patients comprised 69.5% of CTS cases, with a mean age of 57.0±14.9 years. Ten drugs were found to have significant overreporting of CTS, including idursulfase (ROR=51.2, 95% CI=39.0-67.2), galsulfase (ROR=26.8, 95% CI=17.2-41.7), laronidase (ROR=20.9, 95% CI=14.4-30.3), tesamorelin (ROR=20.7, 95% CI=13.7-31.3), anastrozole (ROR=20.6, 95% CI=17.0-24.9), alendronic acid (ROR=17.1, 95% CI=14.5-20.1), gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) (ROR=16.3, 95% CI=9.6-27.6), rofecoxib (ROR=16.1, 95% CI=14.3-18.2), alendronate (ROR=12.9, 95% CI=11.0-15.2), and tafamidis (ROR=12.0, 95% CI=9.2-15.7). CONCLUSIONS: Several drugs were disproportionately associated with CTS in the FAERS database, including enzyme replacement therapies (ERTs), aromatase inhibitors, bisphosphonates, growth hormone (GH)-releasing factor analogs, GHB, rofecoxib, and tafamidis. These findings highlight the critical need for increased vigilance and monitoring of new-onset or worsening CTS in high-risk populations prescribed the aforementioned medications. Clinicians should carefully scrutinize pharmacological history when evaluating patients in this context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".