Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 31, 2021
Decision Letter - Surasak Saokaew, Editor

PONE-D-21-34754Association between integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTIs) use with insulin resistance and incident diabetes mellitus in persons living with HIV; A systematic review and meta-analysis protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Frank Mulindwa,

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 24 2022 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,

Surasak Saokaew, PharmD, PhD, BPHCP, FACP

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. 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.

4. 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. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an important study and the manuscript reads well. Overall it is technically sound. I did have a number of queries and considerations which may be pertinent.

1. Could the authors explain how they will account for prior ART exposure, and previous ART regimens

2. The period of study is over a large time period January 2000 to May 2021. There have been several clinical management developments during this time which may have a bearing. Have the authors considered this and might a shorter time period of review be more advantageous in this respect.

3. It is difficult to define a priori sub group analysis but some ideas of potential areas may enhance the protocol. Amongst this geographical and ethnic subgroups might provide useful insights.

Reviewer #2: It's an interesting study. There are no studies evaluating the association between Integrase inhibitor and diabetes or insulin resistance.

The authors should use official abbreviation for drug group name.

**********

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: 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.

Revision 1

Reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer #1: This is an important study and the manuscript reads well. Overall, it is technically sound. I did have a number of queries and considerations which may be pertinent.

1. Could the authors explain how they will account for prior ART exposure, and previous ART regimens

>> Reply: We plan to perform a sub -group analysis to evaluate the effect on integrase inhibitors on incident diabetes and insulin resistance in ART naïve patients and ART exposed patients. This is highlighted on page 9 (data synthesis, lines; 196-201; Forest plots will be created to visually inspect and analyse the effect sizes and corresponding 95% CI. If possible, subgroup analysis or meta-regression (if more or equal to 10 studies) will be performed for crude and adjusted estimates, particular integrase inhibitor, study designs, sex, age, duration of follow-up, geographical origin of the study population, ART status on enrolment into the study (first- or second-line treatment), and other HIV-related factors to assess contribution to effect sizes.

However, we agree with the reviewer that certain types of ART (previous exposure) may confound the present risk to diabetes more than other types. We have included this in the summary page- page 2- limitations

2. The period of study is over a large time period January 2000 to May 2021. There have been several clinical management developments during this time which may have a bearing. Have the authors considered this and might a shorter time period of review be more advantageous in this respect.

>> Reply: We used that timeline so as to capture phase III trials comparing efficacy of integrase inhibitors as compared to protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. The first integrase inhibitor, Raltegravir was FDA approved in 2007 and how far backwards we searched was informed by a preliminary data search. We agree with the reviewer that over that time, various advances have been made with integrase inhibitors including the introduction of dolutegravir, elvitegravir, bictegravir and carbotegravir. We hope to account for this by performing sub group analysis according to the individual integrase inhibitor as highlighted on page 9 (data synthesis, lines; 196-201). This would help delineate whether newer generation drugs in that class are different from the older drugs in terms of glucose metabolism.

Additionally to capture new studies which would have been published, we have extended our search timeline from May 2021 to 31st – January – 2022 as highlighted on page 3, line 57-62 and page 5, lines 118-120.

3. It is difficult to define a priori sub group analysis but some ideas of potential areas may enhance the protocol. Amongst this geographical and ethnic subgroup might provide useful insights.

>> Reply: we added these to the protocol as follows (page 9, line 197-201); If possible, subgroup analysis or meta-regression (if more or equal to 10 studies) will be performed for crude and adjusted estimates, particular integrase inhibitor, study designs, sex, age, duration of follow-up, geographical origin of the study population, ART status on enrolment into the study (first- or second-line treatment), and other HIV-related factors to assess contribution to effect sizes.

Reviewer #2: It's an interesting study. There are no studies evaluating the association between Integrase inhibitor and diabetes or insulin resistance.

The authors should use official abbreviation for drug group name.

>> Reply: Thank you very much for the comment. We found the two acceptable abbreviations for HIV integrase inhibitors are: INI- integrase inhibitors and INSTI- integrase strand transfer inhibitors. In our manuscript we used ‘INSTI’.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Surasak Saokaew, Editor

Association between integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTIs) use with insulin resistance and incident diabetes mellitus in persons living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

PONE-D-21-34754R1

Dear Dr. Frank Mulindwa

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,

Surasak Saokaew, PharmD, RPh, PhD, BPHCP, FACP, FCPA

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Surasak Saokaew, Editor

PONE-D-21-34754R1

Association between integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTIs) use with insulin resistance and incident diabetes mellitus in persons living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Dear Dr. Mulindwa:

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. Surasak Saokaew

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 .