Epidemiology of hepatitis B virus and/or hepatitis C virus infections among people living with human immunodeficiency virus in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Raoul Kenfack-Momo; Sebastien Kenmoe; Guy Roussel Takuissu; Jean Thierry Ebogo-Belobo; Cyprien Kengne-Ndé; Donatien Serge Mbaga; Serges Tchatchouang; Martin Gael Oyono; Josiane Kenfack-Zanguim; Robertine Lontuo Fogang; Chris Andre Mbongue Mikangue; Elisabeth Zeuko’o Menkem; Juliette Laure Ndzie Ondigui; Ginette Irma Kame-Ngasse; Jeannette Nina Magoudjou-Pekam; Jean Bosco Taya-Fokou; Arnol Bowo-Ngandji; Seraphine Nkie Esemu; Diane Kamdem Thiomo; Paul Moundipa Fewou; Lucy Ndip; Richard Njouom

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269250

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 19, 2022
20 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Isabelle Chemin, Editor PONE-D-22-08184Epidemiology of hepatitis B virus and/or hepatitis c virus infections among people living with human immunodeficiency virus in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kenmoe, 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 several points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by 8 weeks. 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, Isabelle Chemin, 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. 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: 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: Thank you for a very good manuscript. This is very thorough and all expected aspects for the systematic review and metanalysis have been presented. I find very tittle to comment on because the limitations have been identified and discussed too. So just few thoughts for consideration: 1. the period for the review, dies it end 2021? Or it was 2022 as stated in the manuscript? 2. Why did you limit the language to English and French? These are not the only languages spoken officially in Africa. This limitation is not mentioned at all in the manuscript. Kindly address this. 3. There are few typographical errors which needs to be corrected so kindly go through 4 In the discussion, I expected some recommendations concerning the quality of the publications. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It is well performed and the data is well presented. The finding are relevant and important. I have just a few comments to make: 1. The issue of epidemiology, notably HBV-HIV is addressed in the discussion. I may suggest to the authors that it makes somewhat more sense to introduce the issue of HBV being mostly acquired in childhood in sub Saharan Africa, with HIV later in adulthood. This is true for most with HIV-HBV co-infection and may well add to the burden of liver disease. The reasons as to why the HBV rate is somewhat higher in the co-infected population, perhaps warrants some more discussion, although understandably the reasons are not entirely clear. 2. The authors comments on HBV DNA presence in co-infection as a metric [Twelve studies reported the HBV infection prevalence based on the detection of HBV DNA; 17.1% [95% CI=11.4-23.7]. I assume these are ART naive patients in these studies - as most ART would likely contain if not lamivudine, but tenofovir ? 3. Would there be any value looking at HIV-HCV in sub-populations e.g. PWID in the manuscript? ****** 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.0269250.r001
Revision 1
27 Apr 2022 Author Response Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: Thank you for a very good manuscript. This is very thorough and all expected aspects for the systematic review and metanalysis have been presented. I find very tittle to comment on because the limitations have been identified and discussed too. Authors: We thank the reviewer for this appreciation. 1. the period for the review, dies it end 2021? Or it was 2022 as stated in the manuscript? Authors: As indicated in the manuscript, the study ends in 2022. Indeed, our search strategy was first applied in the databases in February 2021. Due to the delay in finalizing the review we had to reapply our search strategy in January 2022 as indicated in the methodology section. 2. Why did you limit the language to English and French? These are not the only languages spoken officially in Africa. This limitation is not mentioned at all in the manuscript. Kindly address this. Authors: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We added this limit in the discussion section. 3. There are few typographical errors which needs to be corrected so kindly go through Authors: Thank you, we have carefully revised it. 4. In the discussion, I expected some recommendations concerning the quality of the publications. Authors: Thank you for this suggestion. Half of the studies in our review were at moderate risk of bias. Our sensitivity analysis, that we added in the result section, showed that this risk of bias did not affect our overall results. “Although about half of the studies had a moderate risk of bias, sensitivity analyzes showed no difference between the overall results and the results including only the studies with a low risk of bias (Table 1).” Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It is well performed and the data is well presented. The finding are relevant and important. Authors: Thank you for this appreciation. 1. The issue of epidemiology, notably HBV-HIV is addressed in the discussion. I may suggest to the authors that it makes somewhat more sense to introduce the issue of HBV being mostly acquired in childhood in sub Saharan Africa, with HIV later in adulthood. This is true for most with HIV-HBV co-infection and may well add to the burden of liver disease. The reasons as to why the HBV rate is somewhat higher in the co-infected population, perhaps warrants some more discussion, although understandably the reasons are not entirely clear. Authors: Thank you for this comment which we fully agree. We have added the comment below in the discussion to support this aspect. “Although this specific transmission pattern in Africa of HBV and HIV in childhood and adulthood respectively is true for most cases, it is evident that many other reasons not fully described and/or clear exist and warrant more attention.” 2. The authors comments on HBV DNA presence in co-infection as a metric [Twelve studies reported the HBV infection prevalence based on the detection of HBV DNA; 17.1% [95% CI=11.4-23.7]. I assume these are ART naive patients in these studies - as most ART would likely contain if not lamivudine, but tenofovir ? Authors: Thank you for the comment for which we fully agree. After verification, 4 of the studies focus obviously on ART naive patients, 2 studies have a mixture of naive and on ART subjects, and for the remaining 6 studies the ART status of the patients is unclear and/or not reported. 3. Would there be any value looking at HIV-HCV in sub-populations e.g. PWID in the manuscript? Authors: thank you for this suggestion. We added a paragraph in the discussion section about this. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269250.r002
18 May 2022 Decision Letter - Isabelle Chemin, Editor Epidemiology of hepatitis B virus and/or hepatitis C virus infections among people living with human immunodeficiency virus in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PONE-D-22-08184R1 Dear Dr. KENMOE, 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, Isabelle Chemin, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269250.r003
Formally Accepted
20 May 2022 Acceptance Letter - Isabelle Chemin, Editor PONE-D-22-08184R1 Epidemiology of hepatitis B virus and/or hepatitis c virus infections among people living with human immunodeficiency virus in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dear Dr. Kenmoe: 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 Mrs Isabelle Chemin Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269250.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 .