哮喘联盟

   摘要
   美泊利单抗对重度嗜酸性粒细胞哮喘患者的治疗。原文，N Engl J Med 2014;371:1198-1207. 分析接受美泊利单抗治疗的患者时遗漏了三个急性发作事件，这影响了文章的几个部分。文章研究结果部分的主要结果的第一段(1202页)，第一句中给出的急性发作的数字应当是449而不是446。这个错误也影响到图2A。文章中几处给出的95%置信区间是错误的：摘要中(1198页)研究结果的第一个句子括号中列出的置信区间应为28到60和36到65，而不是29到61和37到65；研究结果部分的主要结果中 (第一段最后一句，1202页)、表2中标题“不同于安慰剂”下面的第一行数据(1204页)、图2的图例说明的第二个句子中(1205页)也出现同样的错误置信区间。有临床意义的急性发作比率也受到影响：在结果部分的主要结果中(1202页)，第一段倒数第二句话给出的皮下注射-美泊利单抗组的比率应为0.83，而不是0.81，而安慰剂组的比率应为1.74，而不是1.75。这些急性发作比率的错误在表2中第一行的数据中也有发生(1204页)。在NEJM.org的这篇文章是正确的。
 

（苏欣 审校）
N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 10. [Epub ahead of print]
 

Mepolizumab Treatment in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma.
 

[No authors listed]
 

Abstract
Mepolizumab Treatment in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Original Article, N Engl J Med 2014;371:1198-1207. Three exacerbation events among patients receiving mepolizumab were omitted from the analyses; this affected several parts of the article. In the first paragraph of the Primary Outcomes subsection of Results (page 1202), the number of exacerbations given in the first sentence should have been 449, rather than 446. This error also affected Figure 2A. The 95% confidence intervals given in several places in the article were incorrect: In the Abstract (page 1198), the parentheticals in the first sentence of Results should have listed the confidence intervals as 28 to 60, rather than 29 to 61, and 36 to 65, rather than 37 to 65. The same incorrect confidence intervals also appeared in the Primary Outcomes subsection of Results (last sentence of the first paragraph, page 1202); in the first row of data under the "Difference from Placebo" heads in Table 2 (page 1204); and in the second sentence of the legend for Figure 2 (page 1205). The rates of clinically significant exacerbations were also affected: In the Primary Outcomes subsection of Results (page 1202), the rates given in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph should have been 0.83 for the subcutaneous-mepolizumab group, rather than 0.81, and 1.74 for the placebo group, rather than 1.75. These errors in exacerbation rates also occurred in the first row of data in Table 2 (page 1204). The article is correct at NEJM.org.
 

N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 10. [Epub ahead of print]