PONE-D-21-12442

COVID-19 severity and mortality in multiple sclerosis do not depend on immunotherapy: insights from a nation-wide Austrian registry

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bsteh,

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 refer to minor issues raised by referee #1. For referee #2, please address formal issues as outlined below..

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 04 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Orhan Aktas, M.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. 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. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. 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

4. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium [AUT-MuSC investigators]. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:

Gabriel Bsteh: has participated in meetings sponsored by, received speaker honoraria or travel funding from Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva, and received honoraria for consulting Biogen, Roche and Teva.

Hamid Assar: has participated in meetings sponsored by, received honoraria (advisory boards, consultations) or travel funding from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Teva.

Harald Hegen: has participated in meetings sponsored by, received speaker honoraria or travel funding from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Siemens and Teva, and received honoraria for consulting Biogen, Novartis and Teva.

Bettina Heschl: has nothing to disclose.

Fritz Leutmezer: has participated in meetings sponsored by or received honoraria for acting as an advisor/speaker for Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, MedDay, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva.

Franziska Di Pauli: has participated in meetings sponsored by, received honoraria (lectures, advisory boards, consultations) or travel funding from Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche and Teva.

Christiane Gradl: has participated in meetings sponsored by, received honoraria (lectures, consultations) and/or travel funding from Biogen, D-Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Teva.

Gerhard Traxler: has participated in meetings sponsored by, received honoraria (lectures, advisory boards, consultations) or travel funding from Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva.

Gudrun Zulehner: has participated in meetings sponsored by or received travel funding from Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva.

Paulus Rommer: has received honoraria for consultancy/speaking from AbbVie, Allmiral, Alexion, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, has received research grants from Amicus, Biogen, Merck, Roche.

Peter Wipfler: has received funding for travel and honoraria (lectures, advisory boards) from Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Teva.

Michael Guger: has received support and honoraria for research, consultation, lectures and education from Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Genzyme, MedDay, Merck, Novartis, Octapharma, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Shire and Teva.

Christian Enzinger: has received funding for travel and speaker honoraria from Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Shire and Teva. has received research support from Biogen, Celgene, Merck, and Teva; is serving on scientific advisory boards for Bayer, Biogen, Celgene, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Teva.

Thomas Berger: has participated in meetings sponsored by and received honoraria (lectures, advisory boards, consultations) from pharmaceutical companies marketing treatments for MS: Allergan, Bayer, Biogen, Bionorica, Celgene, MedDay, Merck, Novartis, Octapharma, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva. His institution has received financial support in the past 12 months by unrestricted research grants (Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, Teva) and for participation in clinical trials in multiple sclerosis sponsored by Alexion, Bayer, Biogen, Merck, Novartis, Octapharma, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, 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 there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[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: 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: 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: 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: Bsteh et al present a timely, population-based study regarding COVID-19 severity and mortality in multiple sclerosis patients in Austria. The authors included 129 multiple sclerosis patients with COVID-19, 86.5% had a mild course, 9.5% a severe course and 3.2% died. According to the authors, COVID-19 prevalence of the study cohort lies well within the general population. Neither exposure to any diseases-modifying treatment nor exposure to specific immunosuppressive DMT were significantly associated with COVID-19 severity. The mansucript is well-written and the results are of interest. However, the manuscript would improve when addressing a few minor issues.

1. Methods/results and abstract/conclusions are slightly imbalanced. Correlation does not imply causation, and both the manuscript title and the conclusion "treatment decisions should be focused on treating MS rather than the pandemic" are rather strong for a population-based study (with power issues) including 'only' 129 multiple sclerosis patients. Furthermore, the authors should clearly state that (asymptomatic) COVID-19 patients with multiple sclerosis may have been systematically missed due to the study design. Please adapt accordingly.

2. In the methods section, the authors wrote that the reference category is "multiple sclerosis patients without disease-modifying treatment exposure". In order to increase readability, please mention the reference category also in the abstract, results and discussion when appropriate.

3. The authors state that any disease-modifying treatment exposure was not associated with COVID-19 severity. However, a recently published study suggests that interferon antibodies are present in COVID-19 patients with a life-threatening course, especially in men and older patients (DOI: 10.1126/science.abd4585). Therefore, substituting interferon(-beta) may be beneficial regarding COVID-19 severitiy. If feasible, the authors could carefully comment on the 6 (4.8%) multiple sclerosis patients receiving interferon-beta having mild (and not life-threatening) COVID-19 (according to Suppl Table 1).

I thank the authors for their relevant scientific work.

Reviewer #2: The authors report the findings on COVID-19 severity and mortality in MS patients investigated in a nation-wide Austrian registry. According to their results, outcome of COVID-19 is not modified by disease-modifying immunotherapy for MS.

The methods are sound, the results are clearly presented, and the conclusions are justified. I have only a few suggestions:

1) Methods. Please explain how diagnosis of COVID-19 was performed for the Austrian MS-COVID-19 registry.

2) Methods. Please insert a table outlining the MS-COV-risk score recently developed by the authors. This would help a lot to better understand the findings.

3) Table 1. please also show range for age

4) Page 6, punctuation after reference [12]

**********

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.

COVID-19 severity and mortality in multiple sclerosis are not associated with immunotherapy: insights from a nation-wide Austrian registry

PONE-D-21-12442R1

Dear Dr. Bsteh,

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,

Orhan Aktas, M.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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

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

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 #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 #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 #2: All my comments have been addressed. The study adds important aspects to our understanding of the possible impact of immunotherapies on the outcome of MS patients in the pandemic era.

**********

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 #2: No