Cumulative burden of non-communicable diseases predicts COVID hospitalization among people with HIV: A one-year retrospective cohort study

Michael D. Virata; Sheela V. Shenoi; Joseph Ladines-Lim; Merceditas S. Villanueva; Lydia A. Barakat

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260251

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 27, 2021
13 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Manish Sagar, Editor PONE-D-21-24226Increasing Numbers of Non-communicable Disease Co-morbidities: Major Risk Factors for Hospitalization among a Cohort of People with HIV and COVID-19 CoinfectionPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Virata, 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 minor points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 28 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: https://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, Manish Sagar, MD 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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. 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. [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: 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: The work describes Increasing Numbers of Non-communicable Disease Co-morbidities: ‎Major Risk Factors for Hospitalization among a Cohort of People with HIV and COVID-19 ‎Coinfection. The manuscript is well organized and addresses the topic sufficiently. Tables ‎are suitable for description. The authors are suggested to apply the following comments in ‎the manuscript:‎ ‎1.‎ Importantly, the authors need to significantly improve the writing.‎ ‎2.‎ Keywords are not standard. Please match the keywords with the mesh.‎ ‎3.‎ The addressed problem is not clear. Give more emphasis on the problems and the gap ‎you intend to fill. ‎ ‎4.‎ Refer to the following articles in the introduction:‎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32556781/‎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33101547/‎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33363000/‎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33357637/‎ ‎5.‎ The journal framework is not followed. ‎ ‎6.‎ The limitations of the research are not mentioned.‎ ‎7.‎ In the discussion section, you should fully discuss the study findings with the findings ‎of other related studies. In this section, you can use the following resources to enrich ‎the content of the discussion.‎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103090/‎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34016183/‎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34217366/‎ Reviewer #2: I think this work adds to the growing body of literature supporting that HIV in of itself is not a driver of poor Covid-19 outcomes among people with HIV. 2 things I would suggest: - can you specifically comment on the renal status of this cohort? Renal disease is more common among PWH and has been associated with poor Covid-19 outcomes. - I recommend changing the title, it's a bit confusing ****** 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:** Richard Jason Silvera [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.0260251.r001
Revision 1
3 Nov 2021 Author Response November 1, 2021 Manish Sagar MD Academic Editor Plos One Dear Dr. Sagar, On behalf of all the authors, we are thankful for the careful review of our manuscript “Increasing Numbers of Non-communicable Disease Comorbidities Increases Risk for Hospitalization among People with HIV and COVID-19.” We have now revised the manuscript incorporating all the reviewers’ feedback and below include a point by point response to the reviewers’ comments. We believe the manuscript has been strengthened as a result of this review and hope that you now find it suitable for publication. Please do not hesitate to let us know if there are any questions. We look forward to your final decision. Sincerely Michael D. Virata, MD We thank the reviewers for their thorough and constructive critique. 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 Response: We thank the reviewers for the positive feedback 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s acceptance of our statistical analysis 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 Response: We thank the reviewer for their finding our data are appropriately displayed, available and accurate 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 Response: We appreciate the constructive feedback provided by the reviewers. We have made significant changes in the writing of the manuscript to make it more suitable for publication as highlighted in the attached revision. In addition, please refer to our detailed and point by point response below. Reviewer #1: The work describes Increasing Numbers of Non-communicable Disease Co-morbidities: ‎Major Risk Factors for Hospitalization among a Cohort of People with HIV and COVID-19 ‎Coinfection. The manuscript is well organized and addresses the topic sufficiently. Tables ‎are suitable for description. The authors are suggested to apply the following comments in ‎the manuscript:‎ ‎ 1.‎ Importantly, the authors need to significantly improve the writing.‎ : Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have substantially revised the manuscript to improve the writing and enhance the readability as highlighted in the attached manuscript. 2.‎ Keywords are not standard. Please match the keywords with the mesh. Response: Thank you for this comment. We have clarified the keywords in accordance with the journal instructions and hope these are appropriate. We will seek additional guidance from the editorial team. 3.‎ The addressed problem is not clear. Give more emphasis on the problems and the gap ‎you intend to fill. ‎ ‎ Response: Thank you for this feedback. We have revised the introduction to directly state the gap that we are addressing in this manuscript as reflected in the attached updated version. 4.‎ Refer to the following articles in the introduction https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32556781/‎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33101547/‎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33363000/‎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33357637/‎ ‎Response: Thank you for these suggested references. We have selected and incorporated the reference on the predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19---a systematic review into the introduction . Although we learned from reviewing the other references, we did not include all of them since they were not directly related to our study. We look forward to optimizing the manuscript with further clarification from the reviewer. 5.‎ The journal framework is not followed. ‎ Response: We appreciate this feedback. We have reviewed and revised the font of the headings, in line with journal instructions. ‎6.‎ The limitations of the research are not mentioned.‎ Response: Thank you for this feedback. We have emphasized the limitations in the discussion section of the study. ‎7.‎ In the discussion section, you should fully discuss the study findings with the findings ‎of other related studies. In this section, you can use the following resources to enrich ‎the content of the discussion.‎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103090/‎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34016183/‎ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34217366/‎ Response: Thank you for these suggested references. We have incorporated the article reviewing COVID-19 variants. However, the articles discussing genetic susceptibility and impact of COVID-19 prevention measures on other infections are both beyond the scope of our study. Reviewer #2: I think this work adds to the growing body of literature supporting that HIV in of itself is not a driver of poor Covid-19 outcomes among people with HIV. 2 things I would suggest:  1. can you specifically comment on the renal status of this cohort? Renal disease is more common among PWH and has been associated with poor Covid-19 outcomes.  Response: Thank you for this important question. Chronic kidney disease was prevalent in our patient sample and significantly associated with hospitalization for COVID-19, though was not an independent correlate. We have now stated this in the discussion to address this comment. 2. I recommend changing the title, it's a bit confusing Response: Thank you for this feedback. We agree that the title could be improved, and we have changed the title to make it more concise. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: ResponseLetter1Nov2021PLoSONEHIVandCOVID.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260251.r002
8 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Manish Sagar, Editor Cumulative burden of non-communicable diseases predicts COVID hospitalization among people with HIV: A one-year retrospective cohort study PONE-D-21-24226R1 Dear Dr. Virata, 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, Manish Sagar, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260251.r003
Formally Accepted
18 Nov 2021 Acceptance Letter - Manish Sagar, Editor PONE-D-21-24226R1 Cumulative burden of non-communicable diseases predicts COVID hospitalization among people with HIV: A one-year retrospective cohort study Dear Dr. Virata: 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. Manish Sagar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260251.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 .