1.
In Gadde et al. 1, on page 981, in the section 2.6 Statistical Analysis, second paragraph in second column contained some missing text. The paragraph should have read:
The primary endpoint was assessed using a mixed‐effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with change in HbA1c as the dependent variable; treatment, week of visit, treatment‐by‐week interaction, screening HbA1c stratum and screening HbA1c stratum‐by‐week interaction as fixed effects; and patient as random effect. The continuous covariates included baseline HbA1c and baseline HbA1c‐by‐week interaction. Changes in most continuous endpoints were tested using MMRM analyses. A general linear model (GLM) evaluated change from baseline for parameters assessed only at baseline and 1 post‐baseline visit including PPG, insulin, triglycerides, and cardiovascular risk factors. Patient reported outcomes were also analyzed with GLM. Proportions of patients achieving HbA1c targets were summarized and compared between treatment groups using Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel tests, stratified by screening HbA1c stratum, using last observation‐carried‐forward data.
The authors apologize for any confusion this may cause.
REFERENCE
- 1. Gadde KM, Vetter ML, Iqbal N, Hardy E, Öhman P on behalf of the DURATION‐NEO‐2 study investigators . Efficacy and safety of autoinjected exenatide once‐weekly suspension versus sitagliptin or placebo with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: The DURATION‐NEO‐2 randomized clinical study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19:979‐988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
