In the above-named article by Guo Z, Poglitsch M, McWhinney BC, Ungerer JPJ, Ahmed AH, Gordon RD, Wolley M, and Stowasser M (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103(11):3965–3973; doi: 10.1210/jc.2018-01041), an error appears in the text, in the précis, in Figure 1, and in the Supplemental Data and Supplemental Table 1.
The incorrect aldosterone immunoassay kit and description of the aldosterone immunoassay method were listed.
The correct aldosterone immunoassay kit used was the LIAISON® aldosterone chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) kit (DiaSorin, Italy) instead of the Diagnostic Products Corp (DPC) Coat-a-CountTM aldosterone radioimmunoassay (RIA).
The correct aldosterone immunoassay method used was the “chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA)” instead of the “radioimmunoassay (RIA).”
In addition, the précis has been revised:
Table of Contents, précis:
Précis: Measurement of aldosterone by LC-MS/MS gave lower values than RIA. Proposed LC-MS/MS cutoffs for PA screening and confirmatory testing performed as well as current RIA cutoffs.
should read:
Précis: Measurement of aldosterone by LC-MS/MS gave lower values than immunoassays. Proposed LC-MS/MS cut-offs for PA screening and confirmatory testing performed as well as current immunoassay cut-offs.
Additionally, the measurements in the following sentences have been revised:
Subjects and Methods, Routine clinical measurement of plasma PAC and DRC, paragraph 1, line 13:
“The functional sensitivities for the PACRIA and DRC assays reported by the manufacturer were 30 pmol/L and 2 mU/L, respectively. Among the total of 164 EDTA plasma samples collected from the 41 patients during FST (4 samples per FST), none was found to have PACRIA <30 pmol/L, whereas 76 (46.3%) samples were reported with DRC <2 mU/L.”
should read:
“The functional sensitivities for the PACCLIA and DRC assays reported by the manufacturer were 53 pmol/L and 2 mU/L, respectively. Among the total of 164 EDTA plasma samples collected from the 41 patients during FST (4 samples per FST), 4 samples (2.4%) were found to have PACCLIA <53 pmol/L, whereas 76 (46.3%) samples were reported with DRC <2 mU/L.”
Subjects and Methods, Statistical analysis, paragraph 1, line 13:
“For statistical analysis, DRC and PACLC-MS/MS below 2 mU/L and 14 pmol/L were rounded up to 2 mU/L and 14 pmol/L, respectively.”
should read:
“For statistical analysis, DRC, PACCLIA, and PACLC-MS/MS that were reported below 2 mU/L, 53 pmol/L, and 14 pmol/L were rounded up to 2 mU/L, 53 pmol/L, and 14 pmol/L, respectively.”
Results, Comparison of PACRIA and PACLC-MS/MS, heading and paragraph 1, line 1:
“Results, Comparison of PACRIA and PACLC-MS/MS”
“Our previous in-house comparison between the two aldosterone assays (PQ, n = 311) revealed an ∼28.0% higher estimation (P < 0.01) of median PAC by RIA (403.0 pmol/L, range, <30.0 to 2110.0) than by LC-MS/MS (290.0 pmol/L, range, <14.0 to 1873.0).”
should read:
“Results, Comparison of PACCLIA and PACLC-MS/MS”
“Our previous in-house comparison between the two aldosterone assays (PQ, n = 311) revealed an ∼28.0% higher estimation (P < 0.01) of median PAC by CLIA (403.0 pmol/L, range, <53.0 to 2110.0) than by LC-MS/MS (290.0 pmol/L, range, <14.0 to 1873.0).”
Results, Comparison of PACRIA and PACLC-MS/MS, paragraph 1, line 8:
“In the current study, aldosterone testing results from 164 pairs of plasma and serum samples collected during FST showed an ∼27.8% higher estimation (P < 0.01) of median PAC by RIA (300.0 pmol/L; range, 40.0 to 2170.0) than by LC-MS/MS assay (216.7 pmol/L; range, <14.0 to 1277.0).”
should read:
“In the current study, aldosterone testing results from 164 pairs of plasma and serum samples collected during FST showed an ∼27.8% higher estimation (P < 0.01) of median PAC by CLIA (300.0 pmol/L, range, <53.0 to 2170.0) than by LC-MS/MS assay (216.7 pmol/L, range, <14.0 to 1277.0).”
Discussion, paragraph 1, line 12:
“At present, PAC is most often measured by RIA (29) but can also be assayed by a faster and automated CLIA method (30, 31).”
should read:
“At present, PAC is most often measured by immunoassays, including radioimmunoassay (RIA) and CLIA methods (29–31).”
The corrected Figure 1 is shown here and the corrected Supplemental Data and Supplemental Table 1 are uploaded with this Corrigendum.
doi: 10.1210/jc.2019-00527
