Notice of correction

This article refers to:

Recognition and management of severe asthma: A Canadian Thoracic Society position statement

Article title: Recognition and management of severe asthma: A Canadian Thoracic Society position statement

Authors: J. Mark FitzGerald, Catherine Lemiere, M. Diane Lougheed, Francine M. Ducharme, Sharon D. Dell, Clare Ramsey, M. Connie L. Yang, Andréanne Côté, Wade Watson, Ron Olivenstein, Anne Van Dam, Cristina Villa-Roel, and Roland Grad

Journal: Canadian Journal of Respiratory, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine

Bibliometrics: Volume 1, Issue 4, pages 199–221

DOI: 10.1080/24745332.2017.1395250

On page 205, in the right column, paragraph 3, references 33, 34, and 35 were incorrectly cited. The correct sentence is as follows:

Sputum eosinophil counts have also been used to select individuals for trials of mepolizumab^40,111,137 and reslizumab.⁴⁶

Reference 137 was missing from the reference list and is as follows:

137. Nair P, Pizzichini MM, Kjarsgaard M, et al. Mepolizumab for prednisone-dependent asthma with sputum eosinophilia. The New Engl J Med. 2009;360(10):985–993.

On page 205, in the right column, paragraph 3, citations were missing. The correct sentence is as follows:

These trials reported clear benefits on exacerbations^40,111,137 and quality of life (QoL)¹¹¹ in subjects with eosinophils >3%.

On page 206, in the left column, paragraph 4, a citation was missing. The correct sentence is as follows:

Finally, a post hoc sub-analysis¹³⁸ of the benralizumab trials SIROCCO⁵³ and CALIMA⁵² trials re-analyzed the results stratifying individuals by serum eosinophils and reported similar results for those with eosinophils ≥ 150 cells/ µL.

Reference 138 was missing from the reference list and is as follows:

138. Goldman M, Hirsch I, Zangrilli JG, Newbold P, Xu X. The association between blood eosinophil count and benralizumab efficacy for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma: subanalyses of the Phase III SIROCCO and CALIMA studies Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2017. DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2017.1347091.

On page 210, in the left column, in the subsection titled “Lung function,” the (2) appears incorrectly and should instead be a citation to reference 84. The correct sentence is as follows:

In severe asthma, several studies showed no significant improvement in FEV₁,⁸⁴ whereas others showed small but significant improvements in lung function.^56,86

On page 211, in the left column, in the second paragraph of the subsection titled “Predicting response to therapy,” reference 38 is incorrectly cited and should instead be a citation to reference 139. The correct sentence is as follows:

In a pooled analysis of 1,070 allergic asthma patients from two RCTS with symptoms despite moderate to high dose ICS, individuals with at least one of the following characteristics: budesonide dose > 800 mcg/day, frequent ED visits for asthma treatment and poor lung function (FEV1<65%) had a more than two-fold higher chance of being a responder to omalizumab compared to placebo (OR: 2.25, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.01) with the odds increasing with each additional factor present.¹³⁹

Reference 139 was missing from the reference list and is as follows:

139. Bousquet J, Wenzel S, Holgate S, Lumry W, Freeman P, Fox H. Predicting response to omalizumab, an anti-IgE antibody, in patients with allergic asthma. Chest. 2004;125:1378–1386.

References 82 and 104 are duplicates.