Evidence Hub

Visualizing adverse events in clinical trials using correspondence analysis with R-package visae

Márcio A. Diniz, Gillian Gresham, Sungjin Kim, Michael Luu, N. Lynn Henry, Mourad Tighiouart, Greg Yothers, Patricia A. Ganz et al.

arXiv, 2021

3,009 participants

Abstract

We propose to apply stacked CA using contribution biplots as a tool to explore differences in AE data among treatments in clinical trials. We defined five levels of refinement for the analysis based on data derived from the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grades, domains, terms and their combinations. In addition, we developed a Shiny app built in an R-package, publicly available on Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN), to interactively investigate CA configurations. Data from two randomized controlled trials (RCT) were used to illustrate the proposed methods: NSABP R-04, a neoadjuvant rectal 2x2 factorial trial comparing radiation therapy with either capecitabine (Cape) or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) alone with or without oxaliplatin (Oxa), and NSABP B-35, a double-blind RCT comparing tamoxifen to anastrozole in postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ. In the R04 trial (n=1308), CA biplots displayed the discrepancies between single agent treatments and their combinations with Oxa at all levels of AE classes, such that these discrepancies were responsible for the largest portion of the explained variability among treatments. In addition, an interaction effect when adding Oxa to Cape/5-FU was identified when the distance between Cape+Oxa and 5-FU+Oxa was observed to be larger than the distance between 5-FU and Cape, with Cape+Oxa and 5-FU+Oxa in different quadrants of the CA biplots. In the B35 trial (n=3009), CA biplots showed…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 3,009 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free