Booster immunization of meningococcal meningitis vaccine among children in Hangzhou, China, 2014-2019

Xinren Che; Yan Liu; Jun Wang; Yuyang Xu; Xuechao Zhang; Wenwen Gu; Wei Jiang; Jian Du; Xiaoping Zhang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251567

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 26, 2021
24 Feb 2021 Decision Letter - Ashlesh K Murthy, Editor PONE-D-21-02890 Booster immunization of meningococcal meningitis vaccine among children in Hangzhou, China, 2014-2019 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liu, 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. The expert reviewers appreciate that this is a relevant topic of study. However, the interpretation made and the basis of recommending one vaccine versus another is unclear based on the data and statistics presented. It is also unclear whether these findings have a broader relevance beyond the region in which this study was conducted. I urge you to address these important aspects should you decide to submit a revised version of this manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 10 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, Ashlesh K Murthy, M.D., Ph.D. 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. Thank you for providing the date(s) when patient medical information was initially recorded. Please also include the date(s) on which your research team accessed the databases/records to obtain the retrospective data used in your study. 3. In your ethics statement in the Methods section and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the data used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please confirm whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them. 4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 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: Yes ****** 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: No 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: Here are my comments: Typo: line 33 China Information Management System For Immunization Programming (CIMSFIP) Line 66 A large serogroup A and Serogroup C??? Line 74 and 79 two dots P value should be lower case in line 116 Typo in Table1) title is 2014-2018, should be 2014-2019 Line 123 the number should be 1,376,919 and not 1376,919 Use correct verb for the vaccine (not vaccined/ vaccinated is correct) Line 158 fourth dose is correct Line 200 We believe In lines 105-107 authors mentioned about household registration. Why not having more info about rural and urban vaccination distribution in the study? Which location have received more MPV-ACYW135 and why? Any idea about “more populous municipalities had lower AEFI reporting rate than less populous ones”? Please describe why the MPV-ACYW135 is self-paid? What are the reasons that government does not support its free or subsidized use of MPV-ACYW135 vaccination? Any information about duplicate records and how did you handle it? Wu et al. (2019) found that “ an average of 3% duplicate records within provinces[China], and that duplicated record rates were higher in the eastern region than the western region” Please check https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.08.070 Reviewer #2: In this study, the authors investigated the coverage rates of booster immunization of meningococcal meningitis vaccines, and the proportion of use of MPV-AC and the change in the number of MPV-ACYW135 used, in Hangzhou between 2014 and 2019. They concluded that the reported immunization coverage rates of booster immunization of MenV were all above 95%, and children in Hangzhou had a high coverage of MenV booster vaccination. The proportion of children using MPV-ACYW135 increased from 12.63% in 2014 to 29.45 in 2019. The incidence rate of AEFI of MPV-AC and MPVACYW135 was 49.75 per 100,000 and 45.44 per 100,000, respectively. However, some conclusions cause concern, which must be addressed. 1. Line 198 The authors claimed, “we believe that MPV-ACYW135 has advantages of simultaneously preventing a variety of diseases, reducing the number of injections and simplifying immunization procedures,” however, the authors did not provide any data such as serum antibody concentration in Hangzhou, cost-effective to demonstrate the MPV-ACYW135 better than MPV-AC. Statistical analysis also show there is no difference in the incidence of AEFI between MPV-AC and MPV-ACYW135. All data only show children in Hangzhou had a high coverage of MenV booster vaccination, the number of MPV-ACYW135 was used more frequently for children from 2014 to 2019. Why authors recommended to use MPV-ACYW135 instead of MPV-AC for free in Chinese children aged 3-6 years? 2. Discussion: line 186-195 cause controversy. For an example, “The AEFI data used in this paper was passively monitoring data, which may not truly reflect the occurrence of AEFI of MPV-AC or MPV195-ACYW135 to some extent.” Need to rewrite this paragraph. 3. Minor error: line 127 from 2014 to 2018 in Hangzhou should be from 2014 to 2019 in Hangzhou. Line 312 S3 Nma antibody levels May be S2 Nma antibody levels. (there no S3 table). ****** 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: No [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251567.r001
Revision 1
31 Mar 2021 Author Response Response to the “Journal 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…… Authors’ response: According to the requirements, we have checked the manuscript and ensure that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements. If there are any formatting errors that we do not recognize, please specify them. 2. Thank you for providing the date(s) when patient medical information was initially recorded. Please also include the date(s) on which your research team accessed the databases/records to obtain the retrospective data used in your study. Authors’ response: As suggested, we have added the date(s) on which our research team accessed the databases/records used in our study in lines 102-103 as follows:” Our research team derived and analyzed the data from NIP in October 2020.” 3. In your ethics statement in the Methods section and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the data used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please confirm whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them. Authors’ response: As suggested, we have added ethics statement in the Methods section and in lines 134-137 as follows:” Ethical considerations This study was determined to be exempt from ethical review by the Hangzhou CDC institutional review board. The extraction of data from NIP and CNAEFIIS was safe, which was not linked to individual identiﬁers.” 4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Authors’ response: As suggested, we have linked the reader to the Table in line 143. Response to the reviewer's comments: Response to the reviewer #1 1. Typo: line 33 China Information Management System For Immunization Programming (CIMSFIP) Authors’ response: As suggested, we have corrected the word ”programming” in line 33. Line 66 A large serogroup A and Serogroup C??? Authors’ response: As suggested, we have rephrased sentence in line 66 as follows:” serogroup A or serogroup C.” Line 74 and 79 two dots Authors’ response: As suggested, we have deleted one dot in line 74. P value should be lower case in line 116 Authors’ response: As suggested, we have changed “P value” into “P value” in line 128. Typo in Table1) title is 2014-2018, should be 2014-2019 Authors’ response: As suggested, we have changed “2014-2018” into “2014-2019” in line144. Line 123 the number should be 1,376,919 and not 1376,919 Authors’ response: As suggested, we have changed “1376,919” into “1,376,919” in line 140. Use correct verb for the vaccine (not vaccined/ vaccinated is correct) Authors’ response: As suggested, we have checked all verb for the vaccine in lines 114,117,126,153,157,169,205. Line 158 fourth dose is correct Authors’ response: As suggested, we have used the right “fourth” in line 178. Line 200 We believe Authors’ response: We reedited the entire text of the paragraph where "we believed" is. In lines 105-107 authors mentioned about household registration. Why not having more info about rural and urban vaccination distribution in the study? Which location have received more MPV-ACYW135 and why? Any idea about “more populous municipalities had lower AEFI reporting rate than less populous ones”? Authors’ response: As suggested, we have added analysis about rural and urban vaccination distribution in the study in lines 154-157,204-209. AEFI data cannot be summarized by region due to system upgrade, so this study did not analyze and discuss it. Please describe why the MPV-ACYW135 is self-paid? What are the reasons that government does not support its free or subsidized use of MPV-ACYW135 vaccination? Authors’ response: As suggested, we have explained the reason “why the MPV-ACYW135 is self-paid” in line 81-85. Any information about duplicate records and how did you handle it? Wu et al. (2019) found that “ an average of 3% duplicate records within provinces[China], and that duplicated record rates were higher in the eastern region than the western region” Please check https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.08.070 Authors’ response: As suggested, we have checked “https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.08.070” and explain how did we handle duplicate records in 119-122. Response to the reviewer #2 1. Line 198 The authors claimed, “we believe that MPV-ACYW135 has advantages of simultaneously preventing a variety of diseases, reducing the number of injections and simplifying immunization procedures,” however, the authors did not provide any data such as serum antibody concentration in Hangzhou, cost-effective to demonstrate the MPV-ACYW135 better than MPV-AC. Statistical analysis also show there is no difference in the incidence of AEFI between MPV-AC and MPV-ACYW135. All data only show children in Hangzhou had a high coverage of MenV booster vaccination, the number of MPV-ACYW135 was used more frequently for children from 2014 to 2019. Why authors recommended to use MPV-ACYW135 instead of MPV-AC for free in Chinese children aged 3-6 years? Authors’ response: As suggested, we agree with Reviewer 2. We have revised our conclusions in lines 224-228 and made changes to the discussion section. 2. Discussion: line 186-195 cause controversy. For an example, “The AEFI data used in this paper was passively monitoring data, which may not truly reflect the occurrence of AEFI of MPV-AC or MPV195-ACYW135 to some extent.” Need to rewrite this paragraph. Authors’ response: As suggested, we have rephrased this paragraph in lines 216-223. 3. Minor error: line 127 from 2014 to 2018 in Hangzhou should be from 2014 to 2019 in Hangzhou. Line 312 S3 Nma antibody levels May be S2 Nma antibody levels. (there no S3 table). Authors’ response: As suggested, we have changed “2014-2018” into “2014-2019” in line144 and “S2 Nma antibody levels”in line 326. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251567.r002
29 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Ashlesh K Murthy, Editor Booster immunization of meningococcal meningitis vaccine among children in Hangzhou, China, 2014-2019 PONE-D-21-02890R1 Dear Dr. Liu, 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, Ashlesh K Murthy, M.D., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. 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: Yes ****** 5. 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 ****** 6. 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: In order to demonstrate the MPV-ACYW135 better than MPV-AC ( immunological effects), the authors should compare the serum antibody titer or T cells response after booster immunization of MPV-ACYW135 or MPV-AC. ****** 7. 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: Yes:** ABOLFAZL GHASEMI Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251567.r003
Formally Accepted
14 May 2021 Acceptance Letter - Ashlesh K Murthy, Editor PONE-D-21-02890R1 Booster immunization of meningococcal meningitis vaccine among children in Hangzhou, China, 2014-2019 Dear Dr. Liu: 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 Ashlesh K Murthy Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251567.r004

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 .