For the article entitled “Efficacy of a combination of dutasteride, tadalafil, and solifenacin in the treatment of previously unsuccessful patients” [Asian J Urol 9 (2022)42–50, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2021.04.002], the authors would like to correct some imprecise descriptions. The authors would like to sincerely apologize for these mistakes. The corrections are as follows:
On page 42 [Title]
“Efficacy of a combination of dutasteride, tadalafil, and solifenacin in the treatment of previously unsuccessful patients”
Should have read as:
“Efficacy of a combination of dutasteride, tadalafil, and solifenacin in the treatment of previously unsuccessful patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia”
On page 43 [Introduction], the following sentence should be regarded as deleted:
“5-ARIs in the presence of estrogens significantly reduce the concentration of 5alpha-dihydrotestosterone, and inhibit the proliferation of glandular tissue.”
On page 43 [Introduction], the sentence:
“When selecting medications, we relied upon data of many investigations that dutasteride may have a faster and long-lasting effect of imaginative expansion of tissues of the prostatic gland compared to other representatives of the group of selective inhibitors of 5alpha, and alpha1-adrenergic blocking agents.”
Should have read as:
“When selecting medications, we relied upon data of many investigations that dutasteride may have a faster and long-lasting effect of imaginative expansion of tissue of reduction volume of the prostatic gland compared to other representatives of the group of selective inhibitors of 5alpha, and alpha1-adrenergic blocking agents.”
On page 44 [Patients and methods], the sentence:
“In total, 295 men with BPH and symptoms of obstruction and hyperactivity were taken to participate in this study.”
Should have read as:
“In total, 295 men with BPH and symptoms of obstruction and hyperactivity were taken to participate in this study. Men who were diagnosed with BPH during the last 3 years before the study and were prescribed dutasteride as monotherapy, who independently discontinued treatment because of the absence of a positive effect or the appearance or intensification of undesirable symptoms (decreased erectile function, difficulty urinating, or symptoms of overactive urinary bladder) were defined as previously unsuccessfully treated patients.”
On page 44 [Patients and methods], the sentence:
“The criteria for excluding patients from the group were the following reasons:”
Should have read as:
“The criteria for inclusion patients from the group were the following reasons:”
On page 44 [Patients and methods], the sentence:
“The criteria for the inclusion of patients in the group were the following reasons:”
Should have read as:
“The criteria for the excluding of patients in the group were the following reasons:”
On page 44 [Patients and methods], the sentence:
“The average sexual function score on the I-PSS scale in men included to the study was 21.6 points;”
Should have read as:
“The average symptoms of obstruction score on the I-PSS scale in men included to the study was 21.6 points;”
On page 45, the following information should be regarded as deleted:
The aspect of “Experience of taking” in Table 1.
On page 47 [Results], the sentence:
“The number of episodes of urgency and nighttime urination significantly decreased after treatment in both these groups, but the number of episodes of urination during the day decreased reliably only in Group C (5.4 vs. 9.2 episodes, p≤0.05).
Should have read as:
“The number of episodes of urgency and nighttime urination significantly decreased after treatment in both these groups. The number of episodes of urination during the day decreased reliably in Group B (8.8 vs. 6.8 episodes, p≤0.05) and Group C (9.2 vs. 5.4 episodes, p≤0.05). ”
On page 47 [Discussion], the sentence:
“The most frequent side effects were dry mouth (9.5%), headache, and dizziness (8.5%).”
Should have read as:
“The most frequently encountered patient complaints were dry mouth (9.5%), headache and dizziness (8.5%).”
On page 48 [Discussion], the sentence:
“However, we could not confirm a significant increase in sexual function in this group according to IIEF.”
Should have read as:
“We confirmed a significant increase in erectile function in this group according to IIEF too.”
In the full text, all p≤0.05 should have read as p<0.05.
We would like to thank Yazhini Rajendran, Vikas Katiyara, Alok Singh, and Nitin Rewaram Gaikwad who are from Department of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur-492,099, Chhattisgarh, India for their interest and effort in the correction of this article.
Footnotes
Peer review under responsibility of Tongji University.