94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
Roger H. Kobayashi1*
Sudhir Gupta2
Isaac Melamed3
J. Fernando Mandujano4Ai Lan Kobayashi5
Bruce Ritchie6Bob Geng7Thomas Prescott Atkinson8
Syed Rehman9
Eva Turpel-Kantor10
Jiří Litzman11- 1UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, United States
- 2Division of Basic and Clinical Immunology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States
- 3IMMUNOe Research Center, Centennial, CO, United States
- 4Pediatric Pulmonary Associates of North Texas, Frisco, TX, United States
- 5Midlands Pediatrics, Papillion, NE, United States
- 6Divisionof Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada
- 7Divisions of Adult and Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States
- 8Department of Pediatric Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, United States
- 9Allergy and Asthma Center Inc., Toledo, OH, United States
- 10Octapharma Pharmazeutika Produktionsges.m.b.H., Vienna, Austria
- 11Department of Clinical Immunology and Allergology, St Anne’s University Hospital in Brno, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia
by Kobayashi RH, Gupta S, Melamed I, Mandujano JF, Kobayashi AL, Ritchie B, Geng B, Atkinson TP, Rehman S, Turpel-Kantor E and Litzman J (2019). Front. Immunol. 10:40. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00040
In the published article, there was an error in Table 4 as published. The table shows the rate of treatment days per person-year in adults (≥16 years and ≤75 years) as 148.82. The correct number is 48.82. The corrected Table 4 and its caption “Systemic and topical antibiotic use, overall and by region” appear below.
TABLE 4
Table 4 Systemic and topical antibiotic use, overall and by region.
In the published article, there was an error in Figure 5 as published. The image shows the number of infusions administered at the rate of 20–30 mL/h with no ISRs to be 238. The correct number is 228. The corrected Figure 5 and its caption “Infusion flow rate and infusion site reactions. ISR, infusion site reaction” appear below.
FIGURE 5
Figure 5 Infusion flow rate and infusion site reactions.
A correction has been made to the Results section, SCIG Administration Characteristics, Paragraph 1. These sentences previously stated:
“The mean infusion flow rate was 23.86 mL/h/site and was likewise lower in children and adolescents (4.19–16.25 mL/h/site). As a general trend, the dose of octanorm per kg, duration of infusions, infusion volume, and infusion flow rate increased with age (Table 2).”
The corrected sentences appear below:
“The mean infusion flow rate was 22.86 mL/h/site and was likewise lower in children and adolescents (14.19–16.85 mL/h/site). As a general trend, the dose of octanorm per kg, duration of infusions, infusion volume, and infusion flow rate increased with age (Table 2).”
A correction has been made to the Results section, Infusion Site Reactions, Paragraph 1. This sentences previously stated:
“No localized site reactions were observed for three-quarters (76.7%; 814/3497) of analyzed infusions.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“No localized site reactions were observed for three-quarters (76.7%; 2683/3497) of analyzed infusions.”
A correction has been made to the Discussion section, Paragraph 8. This sentence previously stated:
“In the current study, 0.23% of infusions were associated with an infusion site reaction.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“In the current study, 23% of infusions were associated with an infusion site reaction.”
A correction has been made to the Disclosure section, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:
“RK reports… …grants from Vietnam National Children and Hospital Hanoi, Vietnam…”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“RK reports… …grants from Vietnam National Children’s Hospital Hanoi, Vietnam…”
The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Keywords: primary immunodeficiencies, immunoglobulins, antibodies, SCIG, infections, infusion site reactions
Citation: Kobayashi RH, Gupta S, Melamed I, Mandujano JF, Kobayashi AL, Ritchie B, Geng B, Atkinson TP, Rehman S, Turpel-Kantor E and Litzman J (2022) Corrigendum: Clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of a new subcutaneous immunoglobulin 16.5% (Octanorm [Cutaquig®]) in the treatment of patients with primary immunodeficiencies. Front. Immunol. 13:1110388. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1110388
Received: 28 November 2022; Accepted: 05 December 2022;
Published: 20 December 2022.
Edited and Reviewed by:
Megan Anne Cooper, Washington University in St. Louis, United StatesCopyright © 2022 Kobayashi, Gupta, Melamed, Mandujano, Kobayashi, Ritchie, Geng, Atkinson, Rehman, Turpel-Kantor and Litzman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Roger H. Kobayashi, cmhrLmltbXVub2xvZ3lAZ21haWwuY29t