The authors of the above-mentioned paper noticed a small error in one of the results that was reported. In the Abstract (page 195) and in the Discussion (page 200) section of the manuscript, it states that “the proportion of RSVH in the first year of life was lowest among infants aged <1 month (0.9%).” The correct percent is 9%. This percentage is correctly reported in the Results section and Figure 3 of the manuscript. This error does not impact any of the other results reported in the paper nor does it change the conclusions. The authors regret this error, and thank Springer Healthcare for publishing the correction.

Introduction: Disturbed sleep is a key symptom in major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Firstline antidepressants, including the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), may have different effects on sleep. Methods: Data from 22 randomized, controlled trials comparing escitalopram with SSRIs, SNRIs, or placebo in the treatment of adult MDD or GAD were included. Both last observation carried forward (LOCF) and repeated measurements (MMRM) were used to analyze the sleep item of the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) or Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) after 8 weeks of treatment. Sleep-related treatment-emergent adverse events were also compared across groups. Results: For patients with MDD (n=5133), the treatment difference on MADRS item 4 (“reduced sleep”) was significantly in favor of escitalopram versus placebo (LOCF [P=0.0017] and MMRM [P=0.0002]), versus SSRIs (LOCF [P=0.0020] and MMRM [P<0.0031]), and versus SNRIs (LOCF [P=0.0002] and MMRM [P=0.0352]). For the 53% of patients with MDD who suffered from sleep problems at baseline (baseline MADRS item 4 score ≥4), the improvement in sleep symptoms was significantly in favor of escitalopram versus placebo (LOCF [P=0.0022] and MMRM [P<0.0005]), versus SSRIs (LOCF [P=0.0001] and MMRM [P=0.0002]), and versus SNRIs (LOCF [P<0.0067] but not MMRM [P>0.0787]). For patients with GAD (n=2052) the treatment difference in sleep symptoms measured by HAM-A item 4 (“insomnia”) was significantly in favor of escitalopram versus placebo (LOCF [P=0.0005] and MMRM [P<0.0001]), but not different to paroxetine or venlafaxine. The same pattern was seen for the large proportion (67%-82%) of GAD patients reporting sleep problems at baseline (baseline HAM-A item 4 score ≥2). In MDD, the rate of insomnia as an adverse event after escitalopram was higher than placebo, similar to SSRIs, and lower than SNRIs. Conclusions: Additional research assessing the comparative effects of antidepressants with polysomnography is needed. In the interim, from a clinical perspective, escitalopram appears to be beneficial for the treatment of sleep problems in MDD and GAD.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the OptiVis™ Multifocal Intraocular Lens (IOL) in patients undergoing bilateral crystalline lens replacement following extracapsular extraction by phacoemulsification. Methods: This was a prospective 6-month, open-label, nonrandomized clinical trial of subjects undergoing bilateral implantation with the OptiVis Multifocal IOL. Of the 121 eyes enrolled, 88 eyes of 44 subjects completed the entire 6-month trial. Results: After 6 months, the majority of eyes had a distance best-corrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better, with 89.8% achieving that outcome, and 100% with 20/32 or better. At an intermediate distance, most eyes (90.9%) had a distance corrected intermediate visual acuity of 20/40 or better, and 53.4% had an acuity of 20/32 or better. At a near distance, most eyes (95.5%) had a distance corrected near visual acuity of 20/40 or better by month 6. The most commonly reported adverse event was mild-to-moderate halos (n=30, 36%) and mild-to-moderate glare (n=15, 18%). In addition, there was one case of cystoid macular edema, one posterior capsular opacification, and one case of severe corneal edema. Postoperative contrast sensitivity was comparable with normal phakic subjects ≥60 years of age. Conclusion: The OptiVis Multifocal IOL provided satisfactory visual acuity at distance, near, and intermediate with no apparent reduction in contrast sensitivity. Additional, longer-term follow-up studies are planned.