Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 15, 2020
Decision Letter - Aristeidis H. Katsanos, Editor

PONE-D-20-39440

Obesity and Mortality after the First Ischemic Stroke: Is Obesity Paradox Real?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zand,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 19 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aristeidis H. Katsanos, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2) We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3) Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[This study had no specific funding. VA had financial research support from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) grant No. HDTRA1-18-1-0008 sub-awarded to Geisinger and funds from the National Institute of Health (NIH) grant No. R56HL116832 sub-awarded to Geisinger during the study period. RZ had financial research support from Bucknell University Initiative Program, Roche – Genentech Biotechnology Company, the Geisinger Health Plan Quality fund, and receives institutional support from Geisinger Health System during the study period.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

 [The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.]

Additionally, because some of your funding information pertains to [commercial funding//patents], we ask you to provide an updated Competing Interests statement, declaring all sources of commercial funding.

In your Competing Interests statement, please confirm that your commercial funding does not alter your adherence to PLOS ONE Editorial policies and criteria by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” as detailed online in our guide for authors  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests.  If this statement is not true and your adherence to PLOS policies on sharing data and materials is altered, please explain how.

Please include the updated Competing Interests Statement and Funding Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4) PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5) Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a retrospective, cohort study of consecutive first-ever ischemic stroke patients with the aim to investigate the association between baseline BMI and all-cause mortality after stroke. This is a well-designed study, based on high quality data derived from GNSIS database, assessed with robust statistical analyses, producing well-presented results supporting the obesity paradox which has been questioned in previous studies. What is more, the authors have already adequately discussed all potential limitations.

For further discussion and due to the existence of data of such a high quality, it would be of interest if an association could be presented between the obesity and mortality among specific ischemic stroke subtypes.

Reviewer #2: The study by Chaudhary et al. provides evidence in support of the “obesity paradox” in ischemic stroke patients. In this retrospective cohort of 6,703 first-time ischemic stroke patients, overweight and obese patients were found to have statistically decreased hazard ratio for one-year mortality in comparison to non-overweight patients. The manuscript is very well written, the methods and statistical analyses are adequately presented. The authors could consider few suggestions that might further improve the results/discussion.

1. Are underlying stroke etiologies captured in the GNSIS database? Considering the noted differences in cardiovascular risk factors in obese/overweight vs. non-overweight patients (as shown in Table 1), it would be interesting to assess whether small vessel disease or other underlying stroke etiologies might differ between obese/overweight vs. non-overweight patients (i.e., with subsequent implications in the functional recovery after stroke).

2. Could the authors discuss on whether ischemic/hypoxic preconditioning might be associated with improved functional outcome in obese/overweight patients? Can the rates of concomitant Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) be retrieved for included patients?

Minor

- Line 256, p 12: “has” should be corrected to “have”.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Maria-Ioanna Stefanou

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

We would like to thank you for inviting us to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled “Obesity and mortality after the first ischemic stroke: Is obesity paradox real?” to PLOS ONE.

We would also like to thank you and the reviewers for your time and effort to provide us with your valuable feedback on this paper. We have made changes to the manuscript to reflect the suggestions that you have provided. We hope our edits and responses below are able to address your concerns.

Journal Requirements:

Response: The manuscript has been edited to meet PLOS ONE’s style requirements. A revised cover letter has been submitted to address data availability, funding statement and competing interests statement. ORCID iD is available for the corresponding author. Captions for Supporting Information files have been added at the end of the manuscript.

Reviewer 1 comments:

This is a retrospective, cohort study of consecutive first-ever ischemic stroke patients with the aim to investigate the association between baseline BMI and all-cause mortality after stroke. This is a well-designed study, based on high quality data derived from GNSIS database, assessed with robust statistical analyses, producing well-presented results supporting the obesity paradox which has been questioned in previous studies. What is more, the authors have already adequately discussed all potential limitations.

For further discussion and due to the existence of data of such a high quality, it would be of interest if an association could be presented between the obesity and mortality among specific ischemic stroke subtypes.

Response: Thank you for the comment. Specific ischemic stroke subtypes based on TOAST criteria are not part of the structured data of GNSIS database at the present. An association between obesity and mortality among different stroke subtypes is certainly interesting and we will strive to see if it can be done in the future.

Reviewer 2 comments:

The study by Chaudhary et al. provides evidence in support of the “obesity paradox” in ischemic stroke patients. In this retrospective cohort of 6,703 first-time ischemic stroke patients, overweight and obese patients were found to have statistically decreased hazard ratio for one-year mortality in comparison to non-overweight patients. The manuscript is very well written, the methods and statistical analyses are adequately presented. The authors could consider few suggestions that might further improve the results/discussion.

1. Are underlying stroke etiologies captured in the GNSIS database? Considering the noted differences in cardiovascular risk factors in obese/overweight vs. non-overweight patients (as shown in Table 1), it would be interesting to assess whether small vessel disease or other underlying stroke etiologies might differ between obese/overweight vs. non-overweight patients (i.e., with subsequent implications in the functional recovery after stroke).

Response: We appreciate the comment. Stroke etiology and subclassification based on TOAST criteria is not part of the GNSIS database at the moment. Differences in stroke etiology between obese/overweight vs. non-overweight patients is very interesting and may be pursued in the future if possible

2. Could the authors discuss on whether ischemic/hypoxic preconditioning might be associated with improved functional outcome in obese/overweight patients? Can the rates of concomitant Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) be retrieved for included patients?

Response: Thank you for much for bringing up “ischemic/hypoxic preconditioning” as a possible explanation for improved outcome in obese/overweight patients. A section on this phenomenon has been added to the discussion [Manuscript Line 266-274].

The investigators explored Obesity Hypoventilation Syndrome (OHS) in the GNSIS database. Only 15 obese patients out of 6,703 patients included in this study had this particular diagnosis. Of these 15 patients, 5 died within 1 year, 7 were alive at 1 year and 3 were censored before 1 year. Due to the small number of patients with this diagnosis and all of them being obese, further analysis could not be done. This is partly because diagnosis of OHS requires BMI of more than 30 kg/m2 and alveolar hypoventilation which cannot be attributed to other conditions and thus this diagnosis seems to be uncommon.

We also explored obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) rates in our study participants. OSA rate in non-overweight, overweight and obese patients was 1.4%, 3.1% and 11.5% respectively. OSA was not associated with one-year all-cause mortality and its inclusion in the stratified cox model did not change our results.

3. Minor – Line 256, p 12: “has” should be corrected to “have”.

Response: Thank you for the comment. It has been corrected in the manuscript.

We would like to thank you once again for the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript. We hope these revisions are adequate according to your requirements.

Sincerely,

Ramin Zand, MD, MPH

On behalf of co-authors

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Aristeidis H. Katsanos, Editor

Obesity and mortality after the first ischemic stroke: Is obesity paradox real?

PONE-D-20-39440R1

Dear Dr. Zand,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Aristeidis H. Katsanos, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Aristeidis H. Katsanos, Editor

PONE-D-20-39440R1

Obesity and mortality after the first ischemic stroke: Is obesity paradox real?

Dear Dr. Zand:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Aristeidis H. Katsanos

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .