The authors have noticed some minor discrepancies in the above manuscript about which they wish to notify readers. As part of a sensitivity analysis during the review process, the efficacy end-points were re-analysed, adjusting for baseline maintenance respiratory medication use. The re-analysis led to extremely minor difference in numbers, without in any way altering whether the results were nominally statistically significant or the interpretations of the findings. All relevant areas were updated accordingly prior to publication. However, parts of the abstract and of table 3⇓ were not adjusted.
Pre- and post-bronchodilator of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) according to smoking status in the tiotropium and control groups
In the abstract, the third paragraph should have appeared as follows:
“60%, 14% and 26% of patients were CE, CS and IS, respectively. The rate of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) decline for placebo patients was most rapid in CS (−52±4, −37±2 and −23±2 mL·yr−1 in CS, IS, and CE, respectively). Tiotropium did not alter FEV1 decline, but was associated with significant improvements in pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1 over placebo that persisted throughout the 4-yr trial for each smoking status (pre-bronchodilator: 127, 55 and 97 mL at 48 months in CS, IS and CE, respectively; p≤0.0003). Tiotropium reduced the exacerbation risk in CS (HR (95% CI) 0.80 (0.67–0.95)), in CE (0.85 (0.79–0.92)) and trended towards significance in IS (0.89 (0.79–1.00)). At 4 yrs, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for tiotropium patients improved the most in CS (−4.63 units, p = 0.0006) and the least in IS (−0.60 units, p = 0.51), compared with control.”
The treatment differences in table 3⇑ were rounded to the nearest mL. The table should have appeared as below, with appropriate adjustments to the last column of data.
The authors apologise for these errors and wish to emphasise that the changes are minor and do not alter the interpretation of the observations.
- © ERS Journals Ltd
