1 Erratum to: Clin Drug Investig DOI 10.1007/s40261-013-0151-4

A Published-Ahead-of-Print version of this article was made available online at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40261-013-0151-4 on 09 November 2013. Errors were subsequently identified in that version of the article, and the following corrections should be noted:

Section 3.1, line 5, which previously read:

“As shown in Table 2, among US patients, 29 (56.9 %) in the paricalcitol group and 16 (34.0 %) in the cinacalcet group reached this endpoint (a difference of 23 %, p = 0.0235).”

Should read:

“As shown in Table 3, among US patients, 29 (56.9 %) in the paricalcitol group and 16 (34.0 %) in the cinacalcet group reached this endpoint (a difference of 23 %, p = 0.0235).”

Section 3.3, first paragraph, line 8, which previously read:

“Table 3 also shows the difference between the paricalcitol and cinacalcet groups in the proportions of patients who responded, based on each endpoint included (based on data in Table 2).”

Should read:

“Table 4 also shows the difference between the paricalcitol and cinacalcet groups in the proportions of patients who responded, based on each endpoint included (based on data in Table 3).”

Section 3.3, third paragraph, line 1, which previously read:

“Figure 1 is a scatterplot of all 1,000 bootstrap replicates, with the x-axis representing the incremental cost and the y-axis representing the incremental effectiveness of the paricalcitol-based regimen compared with the cinacalcet-based regimen, where effectiveness is the proportion of subjects reaching an iPTH level of 150–300 pg/mL.”

Should read:

“Figure 1 is a scatterplot of all 1,000 bootstrap replicates, with the x-axis representing the incremental effectiveness and the y-axis representing the incremental cost of the paricalcitol-based regimen compared with the cinacalcet-based regimen, where effectiveness is the proportion of subjects reaching an iPTH level of 150–300 pg/mL.”