Errors in Reported Data | JAMA Dermatology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
September 2017

Errors in Reported Data

JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153(9):950. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.3295

In the Original Investigation titled “Safety and Efficacy of Anakinra in Severe Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Randomized Clinical Trial,”1 published online on November 18, 2015, and in the January 2016 issue of JAMA Dermatology, some data were reported in error. The originally reported decreased disease activity in 6 (67%) of 9 patients allocated to treatment with anakinra (P = .04) was incorrect. The correct number is 7 (78%) of 9. Thus, in the Abstract and Results section of the main text, as detailed in our accompanying letter, the correct statement should read “The disease activity score was decreased at the end of treatment (week 12) in 20% (2 of 10) of the placebo arm compared with 78% (7 of 9) of the anakinra arm (P = .02).”2 These 7 patients are those who had also met the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) score efficacy treatment end point reported in Figure 2 of the original article. Based on this clarification, it is now evident that the Fisher 2-sided test provides a P value of significance. Also, it should be noted that HiSCR was assessed retrospectively, and it was not included in the original protocol design because it had not yet been introduced when the study was designed. The statistical analysis for the HiSCR score was performed by the χ2 test. This article has been corrected online.

Tzanetakou  V, Kanni  T, Giatrakou  S,  et al.  Safety and efficacy of anakinra in severe hidradenitis suppurativa: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(1):52-59.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Giamarellos-Bourboulis  EJ.  The statistical significance of the efficacy results in a randomized clinical trial—reply (published online August 9, 2017).  JAMA Dermatol. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.3244Google Scholar