Correction to: Ophthalmol Ther https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-020-00280-8

The authors of the above mentioned article would like to highlight the following corrections, based upon recent changes to the FDA label and guidance on the use of belamaf.

  • Page 3: The second sentence under “Methods” should be “In brief, eligible patients with RRMM were randomized (1:1) to receive belamaf 2.5- or 3.4-mg/kg every 3 weeks by intravenous infusion over 30 min or longer on day 1 of each cycle.”

  • Page 5: Table 1, Grade 4, Recommended dose modification currently reads “Permanently discontinue treatment”. This should be “Consider treatment discontinuation for a Grade 4 event. Based on a benefit:risk assessment, if continuing treatment with belamaf is being considered, treatment may be resumed at a reduced dose after the event has improved to Grade 1 or better event.”

    Table 1 Recommended belamaf dose modifications based on eye examination findings per the KVA scale
    Full size table

  • Page 6: Table 2, BCVA change, event outcomes as of last follow-up reads “26/44 (48).” This should be “26/44 (59)”. Subjective dry eye, first event outcomes reads “2/14 (31).” This should be “2/14 (14)”. Blurred vision, event outcome as of last follow-up, not recovered reads “9/24 (37).” This should be “9/24 (38)”.

  • Page 8, 2nd column, 1st paragraph reads “28% (25/95) of patients” this should read “28% (25/88) of patients”.

  • Page 9, 2nd column, first paragraph reads “Cogan microscysts”. This should be “microcysts”.

  • Page 10: Fig. 4 legend, reads “In vivo confocal microscopic image from the same patient (d–f) demonstrating hyperreflective opacities within the corneal epithelium.” This should be “(c–f)”.

  • Page 10, 2nd column, first paragraph, first sentence reads: “Following the first dose of belamaf 2.5 mg/kg, he presented on day 27 with MECs characterized as mild/patchy in the periphery/mid-periphery on slit lamp microscopy (Fig. 5a, b). IVCM of the involved areas revealed hyperreflective opacities (Fig. 5c).” This should read as “(Fig. 4a, b)” and “(Fig. 4c–f)”, respectively.

  • Page 18: Under “Recommended Monitoring, Diagnosis, and Management Techniques” and “Diagnosis and Staging of MECs” the final sentence currently reads “The eye care professional should also determine if the decline in BCVA is related to belamaf-associated examination finding(s).” This should be “Determine the recommended dosage modification of belamaf based on the worst finding in the worst affected eye. Worst finding should be based on either a corneal examination finding or a change in visual acuity per the KVA scale.”

  • Page 18: Under “Recommended Monitoring, Diagnosis, and Management Techniques” and “Management” the sentence currently reads “Treatment should be permanently discontinued for a grade 4 event.” This should be “Consider treatment discontinuation for a grade 4 event. Based on a benefit:risk assessment, if continuing treatment with belamaf is being considered, treatment may be resumed at a reduced dose after the event has improved to grade 1 or better event.”

The original article has been corrected.