Erratum to: Efficacy and Safety of Atacicept in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results of a Twenty-Four–Week, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Arm, Phase II b Study (Arthritis & Rheumatology, (2018), 70, 2, (266-276), 10.1002/art.40360)

In the article by Merrill et al in the February 2018 issue of Arthritis & Rheumatology (Efficacy and Safety of Atacicept in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results of a Twenty-Four–Week, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Arm, Phase IIb Study [pages 266–276]), incorrect versions of Supplementary Table 4 and Supplementary Table 5 were inadvertently published online. The supplementary materials have been updated with the correct tables. There were also minor errors in the safety data reported. The first paragraph of the Safety section on page 273 should have read as follows: “Rates of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were higher with atacicept 75 mg and 150 mg versus placebo (80.4%, 79.8%, and 70.0%, respectively). The most commonly reported AEs across treatment arms were injection site reactions, headache, injection site pain, urinary tract infections, upper respiratory tract infections, and diarrhea (Supplementary Table 5, available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.40360/abstract). Incidence rates of TEAEs were similar with atacicept 75 and 150 mg and placebo, except for upper respiratory tract infections (9.8%, 11.5%, and 3.0%, respectively) and diarrhea (6.9%, 11.5%, and 5.0%), which were more common with atacicept, and urinary tract infections (10.8%, 11.5%, and 17.0%), which were more common with placebo. Other commonly reported infections with atacicept 75 and 150 mg included nasopharyngitis (4.9% and 6.7%), bronchitis (1.0% and 3.8%), and influenza (2.9% and 2.9%). Pneumonia occurred in 1 patient (1%) in the atacicept 150 mg group during the treatment period. There were fewer serious TEAEs with atacicept 75 and 150 mg than with placebo (6.9%, 5.8%, and 10.0%, respectively). One patient treated with atacicept 150 mg (1%) reported a serious infection, compared with 5.9% treated with atacicept 75 mg and 5.0% treated with placebo.” Finally, in Table 1, the number (percent) of patients in the atacicept 75 mg group who were receiving mycophenolate mofetil at screening should have read “17 (16.7).” None of these corrections affect the overall findings reported or the interpretation of the safety profile of atacicept. We regret the errors.