Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 27, 2021
Decision Letter - Beryne Odeny, Editor

Dear Dr Hanum,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Trends in HIV incidence between 2013 – 2019 and baseline predictors among a prospective cohort of Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men attending sexual health clinics in England: the AURAH2 Study" for consideration by PLOS Medicine.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Medicine editorial staff and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by March 5, 2021.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosmedicine@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Beryne Odeny

Associate Editor

PLOS Medicine

Revision 1
Decision Letter - Beryne Odeny, Editor

Dear Dr. Hanum,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Trends in HIV incidence between 2013 – 2019 and baseline predictors among a prospective cohort of Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men attending sexual health clinics in England: the AURAH2 Study" (PMEDICINE-D-21-01009R1) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was evaluated by a senior editor and discussed among all the editors here. It was also discussed with an academic editor with relevant expertise, and sent to independent reviewers, including a statistical reviewer. The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

In light of these reviews, I am afraid that we will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to consider a revised version that addresses the reviewers' and editors' comments. Obviously we cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response, and we plan to seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript by Apr 30 2021 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Beryne Odeny,

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Requests from the editors:

- Please revise your title according to PLOS Medicine's style. Your title must be nondeclarative and not a question. It should begin with main concept if possible. Please place the study design ("A prospective cohort study,") in the subtitle (i.e., after a colon).

- The Data Availability Statement (DAS) requires revision. For each data source used in your study: If the data are not freely available, please describe briefly the ethical, legal, or contractual restriction that prevents you from sharing it. Please also include an appropriate contact (web or email address) for inquiries (again, this cannot be a study author/ co-author).

- Abstract summary - At this stage, we ask that you reformat your non-technical Author Summary. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract. The summary should be accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. Please see our author guidelines for more information: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript#loc-author-summary.

- Abstract:

1. Please structure your abstract using the PLOS Medicine headings (Background, Methods and Findings, Conclusions).

2. Please combine the Methods and Findings sections into one section, “Methods and findings”. Please ensure that all numbers presented in the abstract are present and identical to numbers presented in the main manuscript text.

3. Please include the actual amounts or percentages of relevant outcomes, not just hazard ratios or relative risks.

4. Please include the important dependent variables that are adjusted for in the analyses.

5. Please quantify the main results (with p values in addition to 95% CI).

6. Please include a summary of adverse events if these were assessed in the study.

7. In the last sentence of the Abstract Methods and Findings section, please describe the main limitation(s) of the study's methodology.

8. Abstract Conclusions: Please address the study implications without overreaching what can be concluded from the data; the phrase "In this study, we observed ..." may be useful. Please interpret the study based on the results presented in the abstract, emphasizing what is new.

- Please conclude the Introduction with a clear description of the study question or hypothesis.

- For this observational study, in the manuscript text, please indicate: (1) the analytical methods by which you planned to test your hypothesis, (2) the analyses you actually performed, and (3) when reported analyses differ from those that were planned, transparent explanations for differences that affect the reliability of the study's results. If a reported analysis was performed based on an interesting but unanticipated pattern in the data, please be clear that the analysis was data-driven.

- Did your study have a prospective protocol or analysis plan? Please state this (either way) early in the Methods section.

a) If a prospective analysis plan (from your funding proposal, IRB or other ethics committee submission, study protocol, or other planning document written before analyzing the data) was used in designing the study, please include the relevant prospectively written document with your revised manuscript as a Supporting Information file to be published alongside your study, and cite it in the Methods section. A legend for this file should be included at the end of your manuscript.

b) If no such document exists, please make sure that the Methods section transparently describes when analyses were planned, and when/why any data-driven changes to analyses took place.

c) In either case, changes in the analysis-- including those made in response to peer review comments-- should be identified as such in the Methods section of the paper, with rationale.

- Please ensure that the study is reported according to the STROBE guideline, and include the completed STROBE checklist as Supporting Information. Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline (S1 Checklist)." The STROBE guideline can be found here: http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe/

- Your study is observational and therefore causality cannot be inferred. Please remove language that implies causality, such as “predictive” or “due to”. Refer to associations instead.

- How was race/ethnicity defined and by whom? Why was race/ethnicity considered important in this study and what it is believed to represent [eg, are SES or genetic differences being attributed to race/ethnicity?]

- In your statistical analyses, please use hierarchical/ multilevel models given that nationwide data is likely clustered at various county/ regional levels. The potential clustering of data (e.g., among patients from the same locality or hospital) would result in spurious effect estimates and standard errors

- In statistical methods, please refer to any post-hoc corrections to correct for multiple comparisons during your statistical analyses. If these were not performed please justify the reasons. Please refer to our statistical reporting guidelines for assistance (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting)

- Please describe how you selected your adjustment variables.

- Please specify the statistical test used to derive a p value.

- Please define the abbreviations in tables and/or Figures e.g. PY, GBMSM, CLY, PHQ-9, GAD7

- Please include p-values in table 2

- Please change p <0.0001 to P < 0.001.

- Please provide titles and legends for all figures (including those in Supporting Information files).

- Please update the access or retrieval date for all website citations to ensure that websites are still available

- Please use the "Vancouver" style for reference formatting, and see our website for other reference guidelines https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references

- Please replace “injection drug users” with “people who inject drugs.”

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #1: This study reports trends in HIV incidence between 2013 and 2019 and the association of baseline and time-updated factors (demographic, socioeconomic, behavioural, lifestyle and health related) with HIV incidence, among a cohort of GBMSM in the AURAH2 prospective study.

Comments:

There are some typos in the text that need remedying.

"Supplementary material 1: Baseline socio-demographic, health and lifestyle characteristics, sexual behaviour, and PrEP and PEP use among participants who completed the baseline, four-monthly, and annual questionnaire in the AURAH2 study, 2013 - 2018"

Did the authors consider completing a comparison between groups, which may be insightful to gauge potential response bias?

It is noted that the groups in Supplementary material 1 are not independent groups, and so the authors may choose to separately amend the structure of the groups in order to draw comparisons (baseline only compared with baseline+four-monthly follow-up, for example).

Overall, the authors have applied technically appropriate statistical methods, and presented the study outcomes in a clear and concise way.

The study limitations have been suitably acknowledged in the discussion section.

Reviewer #2: This is a timely analysis of changes in HIV incidence, sexual risk behavior, and PrEP use in a cohort of initially seronegative GBMSM from 3 urban STD clinics in the UK. The results are encouraging and demonstrate declining incidence as well as a decrease in some high-risk sexual behaviors, with concomitant increase in PrEP use. While there are limitations of the work, it represents an important contribution to our knowledge of changing HIV risk among GBMSM globally. I have a few queries and suggestions for the authors to consider, in order to improve clarity of the manuscript.

Queries and suggestions:

1. Methods, study design and participants. What is the justification for combining years in two of the categories (2013/2014 and 2018/2019). One can guess, but this should be explicitly stated.

2. Methods, baseline measures. Were participants asked about sexual role taking, such as top/insertive, bottom/receptive, or versatile? If not, this should be mentioned as a limitation of the questionnaires used.

3. Methods, p. 6 lines 155-157. The cutpoints for PHQ-9 and GAD-7 need a justification. This should be easy, as both are "moderate or severe" categories, but an explanation is needed for readers not familiar with these scales and their scoring. Similarly, the selected cutpoint for AUDIT-C needs justification and a reference.

4. Methods, p. 6, lines 158-160. The handling of missing data needs more justification. Why considering missing responses as "no" responses for behavior, mental health, and alcohol consumption and other variables as missing = excluded? Were data likely to be missing at random? Was imputation considered as an option to reduce bias due to missingness?

5. Results, lines 233-235. It is said that 622 of 1162 completed at least one online follow-up questionnaire, of whom only 483 completed at least one online follow-up questionnaire. How is this possible? Please edit for clarity. It looks like 622 were included in the analysis of time-updated variables.

6. Discussion, PrEP use. How might an approach combining PrEP and CLS to develop an "unprotected sex" variable change results. Did PrEP use match risk in this study or was it underutilized by some groups?

7. Discussion, injection drug use. The degree to which risk is increased with injection drug use in this cohort is noteworthy. Do GBMSM who inject drug have access to needle exchange and opioid substitution therapy in the UK? Is there any information on the extent to which men in this cohort accessed such programs?

8. Discussion, limitations, lines 416-418. Please clarify the writing with respect to the 400 participants who are said to have competed "at least an online questionnaire" and were engaged in the study throughout. How does this relate to the earlier statements that 622 of 1162 completed at least one online follow-up questionnaire, of whom only 483 completed at least one online follow-up questionnaire.

9. Discussion, limitations. Could the authors be more specific about how the sociodemographics of the men participating in this cohort compare to those of new HIV cases among GBMSM in the UK? Which specific groups of men are underrepresented and warrant more targeted approaches? It would be nice to see some discussion on how this work relates to current known disparities in access to HIV services (for both positives and negatives) in the UK. Where might treatment as prevention and PrEP be falling short of their promise?

Minor suggested corrections or edits:

1. General. Consider whether condomless anal sex is best abbreviated "CLAS" or "CAS" rather than "CLS."

2. Methods, line 159. "missing responses were considered to indicate that the absence…" Remove "that."

3. Methods, line 189. "were include" should be "were included."

4. Results, line 227. "taken at least on chemsex-related drugs" needs editing.

5. Table 1, country of birth and ethnicity. Suggest changing "Born on the UK, other ethnicity" to "Born in the UK, other ethnicity.

6. Table 1 footnotes. Consider changing from "No group includes…" to "The no employment group includes…"

7. Supplementary Table 2. For consistency, CLS in the past 3 months should be bolded.

8. Figure 2 caption. It is said in the text that annual questionnaire data were excluded for bacterial STI due to a difference in recall periods. Please correct the Figure 2 caption to reflect this.

Reviewer #3: Linda Anne Selvey

Thanks for this manuscript, which has some useful information that confirms the findings of others. I have a number of comments/suggestions below:

1. Methods

More detail is required in the methods in relation to the analysis, particularly in terms of missing values. With missing values in the multivariable analysis, was the whole line (ie data about a single individual) excluded from the analysis, or were the missing values handled in a different way. This needs to be explicit in the methods. The total number of observations in the final model should also be included in the results section, not just in table 3.

Also in the methods there is a description of the categorisation of the CLS and new sexual partners variables. How were these classifications made and why were these categories chosen. This detail should also be included. Zero to 10 new sexual partners in the last 12 months seems like a wide category. Why not have a variable with just Zero or one new partners?

2. Editing

The paper needs a bit of an edit. For example line 189 (include vs included); line 227 (on vs one); line 236 (no full stop after 'study')

3. Discussion

There were very small numbers of HIV infections in each calendar year, therefore with wide confidence intervals. This should be included as a limitation in the discussion.

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Revision 2

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Responses_AURAH2_HIV Incidence 2013-2019_PlosMed_R1.docx
Decision Letter - Beryne Odeny, Editor

Dear Dr. Hanum,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "Trends in HIV incidence between 2013 – 2019 and baseline predictors among a prospective cohort of Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men attending sexual health clinics in England: A prospective cohort study" (PMEDICINE-D-21-01009R2) for review by PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with my colleagues and the academic editor and it was also seen again by one reviewer. I am pleased to say that provided the remaining editorial and production issues are dealt with we are planning to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

The remaining issues that need to be addressed are listed at the end of this email. Any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below. Please take these into account before resubmitting your manuscript:

[LINK]

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file.

Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. If you haven't already, we ask that you provide a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Please note, when your manuscript is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you've already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosmedicine@plos.org.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me or the journal staff on plosmedicine@plos.org.  

We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript by May 21 2021 11:59PM.   

Sincerely,

Beryne Odeny,

Associate Editor 

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

------------------------------------------------------------

Requests from Editors:

1. In the author summary, under the sub-heading, “what do these findings mean?”, please remove language that implies attribution or cause. Use phrases such as “may potentially be attributed to…” In the second bullet point replace the word “should” with “may potentially” or “could” or similar.

2. Please replace “injection drug users” with “people who inject drugs.” For example, line 272.

3. Please remove the “&” in reference # 11.

Comments from Reviewers:

Reviewer #2: The revision has addressed prior comments, and I believe the article is acceptable in its present form.

However, I would also suggest that the authors consider reducing the numeric results in the abstract, dropping either the numerators and denominators, the p values, or both, to make the abstract findings more readable and potentially include some of the other interesting findings, such as the increase in PrEP use, decrease in PEP and some risk behaviors, but lack of association of PrEP with the outcome.

I also note two very minor edits that are needed, below.

Minor edits:

1. Abstract: In the very long sentence on baseline associations, an extra "and" appears before "previous 12-month report of a bacterial STI diagnosis" and there is no HR with 95% CI provided for the finding on new sexual partners.

2. on p.14 under table 2, the sentence starting "90% men" needs an edit. Perhaps "The vast majority (27/30 or 90%) of men newly diagnosed with HIV were of White ethnicity."?

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Revision 3

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Responses_AURAH2_HIV Incidence 2013-2019_PlosMed_R2.docx
Decision Letter - Beryne Odeny, Editor

Dear Dr. Hanum,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "Trends in HIV incidence between 2013 – 2019 and baseline predictors among a prospective cohort of Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men attending sexual health clinics in England: A prospective cohort study" (PMEDICINE-D-21-01009R3) for review by PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with my colleagues and the academic editor and it was also seen again by three reviewers. I am pleased to say that provided the remaining editorial and production issues are dealt with we are planning to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

The remaining issues that need to be addressed are listed at the end of this email. Any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below. Please take these into account before resubmitting your manuscript:

[LINK]

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file.

Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. If you haven't already, we ask that you provide a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

Please note, when your manuscript is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you've already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosmedicine@plos.org.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me or the journal staff on plosmedicine@plos.org.  

We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript by Jun 01 2021 11:59PM.   

Sincerely,

Beryne Odeny,

Association Editor 

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

------------------------------------------------------------

Final requests from Editors:

Thank you for responding to previous comments. Before we proceed, please make the following changes:

1. Please remove the first mention of "prospective cohort" from the title. Kindly consider revising the title to, "Trends in HIV incidence between 2013 – 2019 and baseline predictors among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men attending sexual health clinics in England: A prospective cohort study"

2. For consistency, please replace the term "predictors" with "factors" in the title and throughout the manuscript and tables.

Comments from Reviewers:

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Revision 4

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_AURAH2Incidence_PlosMed_R3.docx
Decision Letter - Beryne Odeny, Editor

Dear Dr Hanum, 

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Dr. Susan Marie Graham, I am pleased to inform you that we have agreed to publish your manuscript "Trends in HIV incidence between 2013 – 2019 and association of baseline factors with subsequent incident HIV among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men attending sexual health clinics in England: A prospective cohort study" (PMEDICINE-D-21-01009R4) in PLOS Medicine.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Once you have received these formatting requests, please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process. 

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with medicinepress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for submitting to PLOS Medicine. We look forward to publishing your paper. 

Sincerely, 

Beryne Odeny 

Associate Editor 

PLOS Medicine

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .