Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Mar 16;18(3):e0277588. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277588

COVID-19 and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: A common susceptibility pattern?

De Matteis Sara 1,2, Cosetta Minelli 2, Giorgio Broccia 3, Paolo Vineis 4, Pierluigi Cocco 5,*
Editor: M Kariuki Njenga6
PMCID: PMC10019614  PMID: 36928185

Abstract

Objective

To explore the link between COVID-19 incidence, socio-economic covariates, and NHL incidence.

Design

Ecological study design.

Setting

Sardinia, Italy.

Participants

We used official reports on the total cases of COVID-19 in 2020, published data on NHL incidence, and socio-economic indicators by administrative unit, covering the whole regional population.

Main outcomes and measures

We used multivariable regression analysis to explore the association between the natural logarithm (ln) of the 2020 cumulative incidence of COVID-19 and the ln-transformed NHL incidence in 1974–2003, weighing by population size and adjusting by socioeconomic deprivation and other covariates.

Results

The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 increased in relation to past incidence of NHL (p < 0.001), socioeconomic deprivation (p = 0.006), and proportion of elderly residents (p < 0.001) and decreased with urban residency (p = 0.001). Several sensitivity analyses confirmed the finding of an association between COVID-19 and NHL.

Conclusion

This ecological study found an ecological association between NHL and COVID-19. If further investigation would confirm our findings, shared susceptibility factors should be investigated among the plausible underlying mechanisms.

Introduction

The worldwide geographical variation in the incidence of and mortality from the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the inter-individual susceptibility to its more severe forms suggests a potential interplay of genetic susceptibility and environmental factors [1]. Ecological research has suggested possible contributions from population density and vehicular traffic [2], temperature and humidity [3], and air pollution [1, 4], and an inverse association with the vaccination against seasonal influenza during the first epidemic wave but not afterward [2, 5]. Among the genetic variants conferring increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, those expressing the Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE) receptors [6] are key-factors in the SARS-CoV-2 cell membranes’ crossing, and HLA-DRB1 alleles were more frequently observed in symptomatic COVID-19 patients [7]. Also, the cytokine storm, a feature of the more severe forms of COVID-19, is reflected in a sharp increase in interleukin 10 (IL-10) [8] and TNF-α [9] serum levels, which would depend on the expression of the respective genes. Furthermore, specific TNF-α and TNF-β gene polymorphisms increase the risk of COVID-19 occurrence and severity [10]. A few IL-10, IL17A, and IL17F single gene polymorphisms (SNP), but not the other IL-10 SNPs, have also been shown to affect the prevalence and clinical outcome of the disease [11, 12]. Besides, the Janus kinase (JAK/STAT) gene expression would modulate the SARS-CoV-2 induction of the complement activation [13], and. the decrease in the 2’-5’-oligoadenylate synthase (OAS1) gene expression would contribute to COVID-19 severity [14].

Interestingly, the genetic factors associated with the appearance of symptoms and the unfavourable evolution of COVID-19 are also implicated in the aetiopathogenesis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). For instance, the risk of various lymphoma subtypes increases in association with HLA class I and class II variants [1517] and polymorphisms in genes expressing IL-10 and TNF [18] and others related to the JAK-STAT signalling pathway [19]. The apparent resemblance between the genetic features characteristics of the more severe forms of COVID-19 and those implicated in the NHL pathogenesis matches the link between previous viral and microbial infections, including HIV infection, and NHL risk, whether through immunosuppression or other mechanisms [20, 21]. In agreement with the hypothesis of shared pathways, a few reports have described an increase in COVID-19 incidence and severity among patients with a diagnosis of primary cutaneous lymphoma (PCL) [22, 23] and haematological disease in general [24, 25] but not among cancer patients, including lymphoma patients [26]. However, patients with specific NHL subtypes may differ in terms of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection; it is unclear whether treatment-induced immunosuppression [27, 28] and the generic low-rate seroconversion in onco-haematological patients [29] would be exhaustive explanations for such differences.

A recently published Bayesian analysis showed that, over the three decades between 1974 and 2003, the NHL incidence tended to cluster in the north-eastern part of the Italian region of Sardinia and its major urban centre, with the low incidence areas located in the south [30]. The ecological analysis did not identify plausible explanatory factors among the conditions known to increase NHL risk. If common susceptibility factors contributed to both COVID-19 and NHL, one would expect the two diseases to show consistent geographic patterns. We used the 2020 cumulative incidence data for COVID-19 by administrative units to explore the correlation between the past incidence of NHL and the incidence of COVID-19 within Sardinia.

Methods

The age- and gender-standardized incidence rates of NHL between 1974–2003 were available for all the 356 autonomous administrative units (communes) in Sardinia as of 1974 [30]. Briefly, due to the lack of a regional Cancer Registry, the chief haematologist of the Cagliari Oncology Hospital, with the support of the health authorities and the clinical departments of the whole region, created and regularly updated a database by prospectively registering all incident haematological cancers diagnosed among the Sardinian population of both genders and any age from 1974–2003 [31]. We validated the completeness of the database records by comparing the resulting incidence rates with region-wide mortality and hospitalization data [32]. Cancer Registry data became available limited to the last decade and the northern part of the region; the comparison with these data also confirmed the completeness of the database we used [33]. For each commune, we abstracted data on the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 from the first diagnosis to 31 December 2020, before the start of the vaccination campaign, from a publicly available report [34]. Only the crude cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was locally available. Also, we could not analyse COVID-19 mortality nor the rate of positives over the total tests performed or the disaggregated figures by symptomatic or asymptomatic positive cases, as such information was unavailable at the commune level. The communes’ population varied from 77 to 195,500, with 196 (55%) inhabited by less than 2,000 people and 26 (7%) comprising 56% of the resident population. Despite being the most prevalent group of onco-haematological neoplasms, NHL is relatively rare, with a global incidence of 7.8 per 100,000 per year (all ages) [35]. Therefore, the precision of the estimate of the local NHL incidence rate was very low for many little communes. For instance, 25 communes (all with less than 2,000 inhabitants) had no incident NHL cases in 1974–2003, while the incidence varied from 1.2 to 17.4 per 100,000 in the 74 communes where the cases were only 1 or 2. The 2020 incidence of COVID-19 manifested the same zero-case occurrence in four communes with less than 500 inhabitants. We graphically addressed this problem using bubble plots, with the bubble radius proportional to the commune’s population size, and analytically by conducting a weighted regression using the ratio between the local and the regional population as the weight.

We repeated the analysis with natural log-transformed (ln) age- and sex-standardised NHL incidence rates (independent variable) and the COVID-19 incidence rates (outcome), as the residuals of the regression model using the raw data violated normality at the lower and upper tails. In this analysis, we added a small constant to each value of both variables to allow the ln transformation even for zero values. In a further analysis, we used conventional (instead of a weighted) regression analysis after grouping the communes with less than 10,000 residents into 36 larger units corresponding to historical sub-regional areas and the NHL incidence in these and the remaining 26 larger communes as the independent variable. This analysis comprised 61 units instead of 62 because one of the 26 larger communes was part of an area consisting solely of two communes. We also set multiple regression models to explore socio-economic covariates possibly confounding the association, including the proportion of inhabitants aged ≥75 years, the male/female ratio among the residents, the Italian Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) deprivation index (http://istat.it), the distance from the nearest hospital, and the urban/rural type of commune. The urban or rural type covariate for each commune was defined based on the presence/absence of five community services (administrative, educational, health, judicial, and religious) that would attract daily commuters from the surrounding area. For each aggregated area, the deprivation index, the proportion of elderly, and the male/female ratio were calculated as weighted averages. Further analyses included 1) considering only the communes with more than 2,000 residents and 2) conducting the regression analysis within each approximate quartile of the distribution of the communes’ resident population.

The best-fitting model was selected using a stepwise backward approach, with the goodness-of-fit of the models assessed using the R2 value, which indicates the proportion of the variability in the COVID-19 incidence rate explained by the covariates in the model. The analysis was conducted using SPSS® version 20.0.

A STROBE statement on ecological studies, such as the present study, is still missing. However, we acknowledged the limitations of such a study design and complied with the requirements for ecological studies. In our analysis, we only accessed publicly available data and aggregated data, which use for scientific publications was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of Cagliari (protocol N. PG 2019/18070, 18 December 2019).

Results

The 1974–2003 NHL age- and gender-adjusted incidence rate among the Sardinian adult population (aged 25 years or more) was 13.4 per 100,000 (95% CI 13.0–13.8) [30], ranging from 0 to 44.4 across the 356 communes. The 2020 cumulative incidence of COVID-19 amongst the regional population was 2,117 per 100,000 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2,095–2.137), ranging from 0 in four communes with 77, 148, 224, and 506 residents, respectively, to 11,935 in a commune with 1,240 residents, based on 148 incident cases (12% of the total residents). Fig 1 shows the bubble plots of the COVID-19 incidence against NHL incidence. The regression line in Fig 1A describes the weighted regression equation in all the communes, and that in Fig 1B describes the unweighted regression equation in the 61 units (25 large communes and 36 aggregated areas); both show an upward trend of increasing 2020 COVID-19 incidence with increasing past NHL incidence. The analysis of ln-transformed data yielded similar results (data not shown). Using the incidence rate among subjects aged 45 or more, an age range closer to that of the vast majority of COVID-19 cases during the 2020 epidemic, did not substantially change the correlation coefficient (NHL incidence rate among 25+ years old: r = 0.642, p <0.001; among 45+ years old: r = 0.647, p <0.001).

Fig 1. Bubble graph of 2020 cumulative incidence of COVID-19 in relation to 1974–2003 incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Sardinia, Italy.

Fig 1

A. all communes (N = 356), weighed (weigh = resident population); B. 61 residential units, including 25 communes with 10000 residents or more and 36 sub-regional areas incorporating the remaining 331 communes. Each commune is represented by a bubble of diameter proportional to its population size relative to the total regional population.

The best-fitted multiple regression model (adjusted R2 = 0.31) included the ln-transformed NHL incidence rate (β = 1.021, p < 0.001), the proportion of elderly among the resident population (β = 0.427, p < 0.001), the type of residence (β = -0.331 for urban vs rural residence, p = 0.008), and the deprivation index (β = 0.134, p = 0.035) as the covariates (Table 1, Model 1). The distance to the nearest hospital and the male/female ratio were not associated with COVID-19 incidence, nor did their inclusion in the model result in a better fit. The analyses of the 61 administrative units (Table 1, Model 2) and by gender (data not shown) confirmed the results.

Table 1. Parameters of the multiple regression analysis with cumulative incidence of COVID-19 as the outcome: Model 1: Weighted regression, all communes; outcome: ln-transformed COVID-19 incidence; covariates: ln-transformed standardized NHL incidence, deprivation index, proportion of elderly residents, and urban vs rural residence.

The last three are not ln-transformed; model 2: conventional regression, 61 administrative units: outcome: cumulative incidence of COVID-19; covariates: standardized NHL incidence, deprivation index, proportion of elderly residents.

Independent covariates Model 1 Model 2
β se p β se p
Ln-transformed NHL incidence 1.021 0.196 < 0.001 244.6 69.2 < 0.001
Deprivation index 0.134 0.063 0.035 93.8 116.4 0.424
Proportion of elderly residents 0.427 0.101 < 0.001 288.0 120.5 0.020
Urban vs rural residence -0.331 0.124 0.008 -
Adjusted R2 0.30 0.25

Further sensitivity analyses, by dropping the small size communes (<2,000) and by quartile of population size, consistently showed an increase in COVID-19 cumulative incidence in relation to past NHL incidence (data not shown).

Discussion

Our results suggest a significant geographic correlation between the 2020 cumulative incidence of COVID-19 and the 1974–2003 NHL incidence within the region of Sardinia. We limited the analysis to the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, before vaccines became available, to avoid the effect of the geographical and age-related variation in compliance with the vaccination. The analysis restricted to the NHL incidence rate in subjects aged 45 years or older confirmed the result. To overcome the analytical problem created by the sparse data in the numerous small-size communes, we conducted additional analyses by aggregating the smaller communes, by stratifying the analysis by commune size, and on ln transformed data: all the regression analyses confirmed the strong correlation between the past incidence of NHL and the 2020 cumulative incidence of COVID-19. Based on the weighted regression analysis, a 1% increase in the past NHL incidence would have yielded a 1.02% increase in the incident cases of COVID-19 per 100,000 residents in 2020, corresponding to 22 additional cases. Amongst the other variables included in our model, consistently with previous reports, the proportion of elderly residents and socio-economic deprivation also showed an association with an increasing cumulative incidence of COVID-19 [1, 36]. On the other hand, sex and distance from the nearest hospital did not show an association, and urban residency was inversely related to COVID-19 incidence.

Only the total number of incident COVID-19 cases was publicly accessible at the local level, which did not allow a proper age and gender standardization of the rates. This drawback limits the interpretation of our results; to mitigate the resulting bias, we tested the correlation with the NHL incidence at age 45 years or older, an age range closer to that most frequently represented among the COVID-19 cases: the correlation coefficient was similar. In the multiple regression models, we used the proportion of elderly and the male/female ratio among the residents as adjusting covariates. While the male/female ratio did not show an association with COVID-19 incidence nor contributed to reducing the model variance, the proportion of elderly did. As incidence increased nationwide among the elderly but varied little by gender (4.7% of the male population vs 4.6% of the female population) [37], we presumed to have at least partially rectified the drawback. A further limitation results from the unavailability of the number of swab tests at the regional and commune level, which would have allowed using a perhaps more reliable measure of incidence. Nationwide, molecular testing was widely accessible to the general public as soon as it became available. It was initially used as a diagnostic tool among symptomatic subjects and in the health surveillance of the healthcare staff and was lately required for traveling and accessing public offices. In Sardinia, the Regional Administration also funded a COVID-19 testing program open to the general public on a voluntary basis. At the national level, the nasopharyngeal swab rate increased steadily during the first epidemic wave from 1 March to 13 May (conventionally set as the end of the first epidemic wave based on the nadir of the epidemic curve), and, during the second epidemic wave (conventionally set between 13 September and 28 December) remained stable up to the middle of December when it started to decline [5]. Mortality data and disaggregated figures of COVID-19 incident cases by the presence or absence of symptoms were also unavailable; therefore, we could not investigate the most severe forms of COVID-19.

The suspicion of bias due to the “ecological fallacy” has repeatedly been raised for findings in ecological studies, as associations at the population level might not translate into associations at the individual level [38]. However, ecological studies are helpful in the preliminary exploration of the link between new health emergencies, such as the global COVID-19 pandemic, and possible pre-existing conditions and risk factors in a population. Such studies can provide aetiological clues to direct further research aimed at informing public health preventive strategies [39]. Therefore, while recommending further epidemiological investigations into the association between NHL and COVID-19, we caution against over-interpreting our findings.

If further research confirmed our findings, a shared susceptibility between NHL and COVID-19 might be postulated, including genetic susceptibility. If so, polymorphisms in genes implicated in the synthesis of cytokines, HLA cell surface antigens, and others facilitating the virus entry into human cells or impairing the immune response might play a role in the pathogenesis of both diseases. Consequently, the greater susceptibility of lymphoma patients to SARS-CoV-2 infection and the most severe forms of COVID-19 might be due not only to the immunosuppressive effects of the therapy protocols but also to a common susceptible background for NHL and COVID-19.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Mr Maurizio Addis and Mr Franco Porcu for local advice and support in accessing the official COVID-19 incidence data.

Data Availability

Data are stored on the figshare repository and are publicly available (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.22210675

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Murgia N, Corsico AG, D’Amato G, Maesano CN, Tozzi A, Annesi-Maesano I. Do gene-environment interactions play a role in COVID-19 distribution? The case of Alpha-1-Antitripsin, air pollution and COVID-19. Multidiscip Respir Med 2021;16:741. doi: 10.4081/mrm.2021.741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cocco P, Meloni F, Coratza A, Schirru D, Campagna M, De Matteis S. Vaccination against seasonal influenza and socio-economic and environmental factors as determinants of the geographic variation of COVID-19 incidence and mortality in the Italian elderly. Prev Med 2020;143:106351. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106351 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ma Y, Zhao Y, Liu J, et al. Effects of Temperature Variation and Humidity on the Death of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. Sci Total Environ 2020;724:138226. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138226. 138226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Veronesi G, De Matteis S, Calori G, Pepe N, Ferrario MM. Long-term exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 incidence: a prospective study of residents in the city of Varese, Northern Italy. Occup Environ Med 2022;79:192–9. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2021-107833 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cocco P, De Matteis S. The determinants of the changing speed of spread of COVID-19 acrossItaly. Epidemiol Infect 2022:1–26. doi: 10.1017/S095026882200084X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cafiero C, Rosapepe F, Palmirotta R, et al. Angiotensin System Polymorphisms in SARS-CoV-2 Positive Patients: Assessment Between Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Patients: A Pilot Study. Pharmgenomics Pers Med 2021;14:621–9. doi: 10.2147/PGPM.S303666 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Castelli EC, de Castro MV, Naslavsky MS, et al. MHC variants associated with symptomatic versus asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in highly exposed individuals. Front Immunol 2021;12:742881. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.742881 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lu L, Zhang H, Dauphars DJ, He Y-W. A Potential Role of Interleukin 10 in COVID-19 Pathogenesis. Trends Immunol 2021;42:3–5. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2020.10.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Karki R, Sharma BR, Tuladhar S, et al. Synergism of TNF-alpha and IFN-gamma Triggers Inflammatory Cell Death, Tissue Damage, and Mortality in SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Cytokine Shock Syndromes. Cell 2021;184:149–68. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.11.025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Heidari Nia M, Rokn M, Mirinejad S, et al. Association of polymorphisms in tumor necrosis factors with SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality rate: A case-control study and in silico analyses. J Med Virol 2022;94:1502–12. doi: 10.1002/jmv.27477 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Batur LK, Hekim N. Correlation between interleukin gene polymorphisms and current prevalence and mortality rates due to novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019) in 23 countries. J Med Virol 2021;93:5853–63. doi: 10.1002/jmv.27127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Avendaño-Félix M, Ochoa-Ramírez LA, Ramos-Payán R, et al. Lack of Effects of the Genetic Polymorphisms of Interleukin-10 in Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19. Viral Immunol 2021;34: 567–72. doi: 10.1089/vim.2021.0022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yan B, Freiwald T, Chauss D, et al. SARS-CoV-2 drives JAK1/2-dependent local complement hyperactivation. Sci Immunol 2021;6:eabg0833. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.abg0833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Banday AR, Stanifer ML, Florez-Vargas O, et al. Genetic regulation of OAS1 nonsense-mediated decay underlies association with COVID-19 hospitalization in patients of European and African ancestries. Nat Genet 2022;54(8):1103–16. doi: 10.1038/s41588-022-01113-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wang SS, Carrington M, Berndt SI, et al. HLA class I and II diversity contributes to the etiologic heterogeneity of non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes. Cancer Res 2018;78:4086–96. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-2900/0008-5472.CAN-17-2900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cerhan JR, Berndt SI, Vijai J, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies multiple susceptibility loci for diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Nat Genet 2014;46:1233–8. doi: 10.1038/ng.3105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Vijai J, Wang Z, Berndt SI, et al. A genome-wide association study of marginal zone lymphoma shows association to the HLA region. Nat Commun 2015;6:5751. doi: 10.1038/ncomms6751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Rothman N, Skibola CF, Wang SS, et al. Genetic variation in TNF and IL10 and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a report from the InterLymph Consortium. Lancet Oncol 2006:7:27–8. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70434-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Butterbach K, Beckmann L, de Sanjosé S, et al. Association of JAK-STAT pathway related genes with lymphoma risk: results of a European case-control study (EpiLymph). Br J Haematol 2011;153:318–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08632.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chiu BCH, Hou N. Epidemiology and etiology of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Cancer Treat Res 2015;165:1–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Suarez F, Lecuit M. Infection-associated non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015; 21:991–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.07.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kerrouch H, Khalidi M, Frikh R, Hjira N, Boui M. Primary cutaneous lymphoma and risk for severe COVID-19: a prospective study of 48 cases in Morocco. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2022; 36:e512–4. doi: 10.1111/jdv.18057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sánchez-Velázquez A, Bauer-Alonso A, Estrach T, et al. Patients with primary cutaneous lymphoma are at risk for severe COVID-19. Data from the Spanish Primary Cutaneous Lymphoma Registry. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2021;35: e624–6. doi: 10.1111/jdv.17430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bhogal T, Khan UT, Lee R, et al. Haematological malignancy and nosocomial transmission are associated with an increased risk of death from COVID-19: results of a multi-center UK cohort. Leuk Lymphoma 2021;62:1682–91. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2021.1876865 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Regalado-Artamendi I, Jiménez-Ubieto A, Hernández-Rivas JA, et al. Risk Factors and Mortality of COVID-19 in Patients with Lymphoma: A Multicenter Study. Hemasphere 2021; 5:e538. doi: 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000538 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Li Z, Wei Y, Zhu G, Wang M, Zhang L. Cancers and COVID-19 Risk: A Mendelian Randomization Study. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14:2086. doi: 10.3390/cancers14092086 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Berktas BM, Koyuncu A. Case Report: Unremitting COVID-19 Pneumonia, Viral Shedding, and Failure to Develop Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies for More Than 6 Months in Patient with Mantle Cell Lymphoma Treated with Rituximab. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2022;106:1104–7. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.21-1010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bonuomo V, Ferrarini I, Dell’Eva M, Sbisà E, Krampera M, Visco C. COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 infection) in lymphoma patients: A review. World J Virol 2021;10:312–25. doi: 10.5501/wjv.v10.i6.312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Passamonti F, Romano A, Salvini M, et al. COVID-19 elicits an impaired antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with haematological malignancies. Br J Haematol 2021;195: 371–7. doi: 10.1111/bjh.17704 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Broccia G, Carter J, Ozsin-Ozler C, Meloni F, De Matteis S, Cocco P. Incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among adults in Sardinia, Italy. PLoS One 2022;17:e0260078. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Broccia G, Longinotti M, Gabbas A, Porcu C, Chessa E, Giannico B. A 30-year epidemiologic survey (1974–2003) of haematological malignancies on the island of Sardinia: temporal changes in incidence and a geographic comparison of incidence rates. Ann Hematol 2014;93:1041–9. doi: 10.1007/s00277-013-2002-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cocco P. [Lessons learned from the ‘Quirra syndrome’: epidemiology? No, thanks]. Epidemiol Prev 2012;36: 41–4. [In Italian]. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Broccia G, Carter J, Ozsin-Ozler C, et al. Haemolymphatic cancer among children in Sardinia, Italy: 1974–2003 incidence. BMJ Open 2020;10:e037163. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Azienda per la Tutela della Salute in Sardegna. [Covid-19 Report of 31.12.2020]. Sassari, Italy: ATS Sardegna, 2021.[In Italian]
  • 35.Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Vandentorren S, Smaïli S, Chatignoux E, et al. The effect of social deprivation on the dynamic of SARS-CoV-2 infection in France: a population-based analysis. Lancet Public Health 2022;7: e240–9. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00007-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Fabiani M, Onder G, Boros S, et al. [The case fatality rate of the SARS-CoV-2 infection at regional level and by the different epidemic phases in Italy. Version of 20 January 2021]. ISS COVID-19 Report No. 1/2021, 2021. In: https://www.iss.it/documents/20126/0/Rapporto+ISS+ COVID-19+n.+1_2021.pdf/eef324b0-983d-c257-96fd-e8d430e1ca82?t = 1612179039051. Accessed 11 April 2021. [In Italian]
  • 38.Morgenstern H. Ecologic studies in epidemiology: concepts, principles, and methods. Annu Rev Public Health 1995;16:61–81. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pu.16.050195.000425 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bjork J, Modig K, Kahn F, Ahlbom A. Revival of ecological studies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur J Epidemiol 2021;36:1225–9. doi: 10.1007/s10654-021-00830-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

M Kariuki Njenga

18 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-29855COVID-19 and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a common susceptibility pattern?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pierluigi Cocco,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Upon reviewing this manuscript, I like the justification provided by the authors for correlating COVID-19 disease with NHL. The manuscript is well-written. However, I concur with the concerns raised by the reviewer and urge the authors to address each of these before resubmission.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 04 2023 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,

M. Kariuki Njenga

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.We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

4. 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.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option. 

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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: No

**********

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

**********

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: General comments

The authors do not give enough background information on COVID-19 testing for the reader to understand what the limitations of the COVID-19 data are. Was testing widely available? Was it limited to those who had symptoms only? Was there massive uptake of testing by the general public?

The limitations of ecological studies have been noted by the authors which I agree with. My main concern is that the rates of NHL and COVID-19 incidence refer to two different age groups - the details of which I have provided below.

Introduction

“Also, during the first epidemic wave but not afterwards, the vaccination against seasonal influenza provided protection – the authors appear to state as a fact that influenza vaccination protects against SARS-CoV-2 infection. This is not true. The reference stated is an ecological study which is weak evidence at best. The sentence should be reframed to make clear what the evidence is regarding this statement.

The message is the first paragraph appears not to be fully formulated. It is not clear to me why the authors mention findings from ecological studies in passing then immediately pivot to genetic variants that influence COVID-19 infection and severity. What is the relevance of mentioning the ecological studies? Did the authors mean to link the ecological studies to the genetic variants? Are they two distinct messages? If yes, the message on ecological studies is incomplete – what is the relevance of these ecological studies to this study? The issues on genetic variations move from susceptibility to infection to severe disease then back to infection. It would be easier to read if the authors were systematic in their presentation - focusing on susceptibility to infection then susceptibility to symptomatic or severe disease. However, the authors do not provide the relevance of mentioning severe disease and how it relates to their own paper. Is it that more severe disease is more likely to be detected and that’s why they mention it. If there is no link between more severe COVID-19 disease and the objectives of their study then the information is distracting and not essential to the manuscript.

“However, NHL subtypes may differ in terms of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Treatment-induced immunosuppression [26,27] and a low-rate seroconversion [28] in onco-haematological patients would only partly explain such differences.” – seroconversion to what? Do the authors mean seroconversion following SARS-CoV-2 infection. If that is the case are they referring to vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 re-infection? The message the authors are relaying is not clear.

“Taking profit” – this is not a commonly used term. Consider using a different term.

“COVID-19 has shown a direct link with TNF-� and TNF-� gene polymorphisms” – what type of link is the author referring to? The reader is forced to open up the references to understand the nature of this link.

Methods

“Briefly, due to the lack of a regional Cancer Registry, the chief haematologist of the Cagliari Oncology Hospital, with the support of the health authorities and the clinical departments of the whole region, created a database of all incident haematological cancers, diagnosed among the Sardinian population of both genders and any age from 1974-2003 [30].” – when was this done? Has the data been collected prospectively from 1974 or was this done retrospectively.

“Its completeness was validated through the comparison with mortality and hospitalization data [31] and, limited to the last decade and the northern part of the region, with Cancer Registry records [32].” – this sentence is not easily understood.

Analysis

It is not clear to me what a sensitivity analysis by quartile of population size is.

The incidence of NHL is presented among individuals 25 years of age and older for the period 1974-2003 but COVID-19 incidence is presented across all ages. Shouldn’t the analysis have been done using the same age groups if the authors intention is to imply that those who have NHL are at higher risk of COVID-19 infection i.e. the COVID-19 incidence should have been limited to those 42 years of age and older.

Results

The author implies in the first paragraph that the incidence of COVID-19 was 11,935 per 100,000 population in a commune with 1,240 which seems impossible. Is this accurate?

Why are there no confidence intervals round the COVID-19 incidence rates?

**********

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

**********

[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.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 16;18(3):e0277588. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277588.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Feb 2023

Reviewer #1: General comments

1. “The authors do not give enough background information on COVID-19 testing for the reader to understand what the limitations of the COVID-19 data are. Was testing widely available? Was it limited to those who had symptoms only? Was there massive uptake of testing by the general public?”

In the previous version, we mentioned this point as a limitation. The revised version (unmarked version of the revised version, discussion section, second paragraph, last four lines on page 10 -through line 6 on page 11) includes a new paragraph explaining that molecular testing was widely available to the general public nationwide and it was mandatory for air and train traveling and to work on-site and access hospitals and public offices. It was also performed on a voluntary basis by anyone who had symptoms and anyone willing to take it by effect of a specific COVID-19 testing program funded by the Regional Administration. Data on nasopharyngeal swabs were unavailable at the regional level. At the national level, the swab rate increased steadily during the first epidemic wave from 1 March to 13 May (conventionally set as the end of the first epidemic wave based on the nadir of the epidemic curve). During the second epidemic wave, conventionally set between 13 September and 28 December, the swab rate remained stable through the middle of December and started declining afterwards. Please refer to Cocco P, De Matteis S. Epidemiol Infect 2022:1-26. https://doi: 10.1017/S095026882200084X) for details (reference # 5 in the list of references of the revised version).

2. “The limitations of ecological studies have been noted by the authors which I agree with. My main concern is that the rates of NHL and COVID-19 incidence refer to two different age groups.” “The incidence of NHL is presented among individuals 25 years of age and older for the period 1974-2003 but COVID-19 incidence is presented across all ages. Shouldn’t the analysis have been done using the same age groups if the authors intention is to imply that those who have NHL are at higher risk of COVID-19 infection i.e. the COVID-19 incidence should have been limited to those 42 years of age and older.”

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In the previous version, we acknowledged the difference between the NHL incidence rates (ages 25+, age- and gender-adjusted) and the COVID-19 cumulative incidence (crude) as a limitation due to the unavailability of the incident COVID-19 cases by age and gender. In the revised version, we followed the reviewer’s suggestion and calculated the NHL incident rate among individuals aged 45 years or older to make the two rates more comparable. Figure 1 shows the result of the regression analysis.

The correlation between the past incidence of NHL and the 2020 cumulative incidence of COVID-19 did not substantially change when using the NHL incidence at age 45 or older. In the revised version, we mentioned this new analysis in the results section and the discussion.

Figure 1. Graph plotting the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 against the 1974-2003 NHL incidence rate at age 25+ (A) and the same incidence rate at age 45+ (B). Each commune is represented by a bubble of diameter proportional to its population size relative to the total regional population.

A

B

3. Introduction. “...the authors appear to state as a fact that influenza vaccination protects against SARS-CoV-2 infection. This is not true. The reference stated is an ecological study which is weak evidence at best. The sentence should be reframed to make clear what the evidence is regarding this statement.”

In the revised version, we rephrased the sentence mentioned by the reviewer and clarified that the evidence came from ecological studies.

4. “The message is the first paragraph appears not to be fully formulated. It is not clear to me why the authors mention findings from ecological studies in passing then immediately pivot to genetic variants that influence COVID-19 infection and severity. What is the relevance of mentioning the ecological studies? Did the authors mean to link the ecological studies to the genetic variants? Are they two distinct messages? If yes, the message on ecological studies is incomplete – what is the relevance of these ecological studies to this study?”

The first sentence of our paper cites ref. # 1 suggesting an interplay between genetic susceptibility and environmental factors might explain the geographic variability of COVID-19 incidence. Many scholars adopted the ecological approach as soon as official data were made available to investigate the possible contribution of environmental variables to the occurrence of the infection. These are still the only studies addressing the hypothesis. The paragraph that follows describes the genetic factors. In the revised version (unmarked version, introduction, lines 1-6), we modified the sentence to better describe the current knowledge on the factors that contribute to the geographic variation in COVID-19 incidence.

5. “The issues on genetic variations move from susceptibility to infection to severe disease then back to infection. It would be easier to read if the authors were systematic in their presentation - focusing on susceptibility to infection then susceptibility to symptomatic or severe disease. “

In the revised version, we reorganized the paragraphs presenting the current state of knowledge on the genetic factors associated with the susceptibility to the infection, the appearance of symptoms , and the more severe forms of the disease.

6. “...the authors do not provide the relevance of mentioning severe disease and how it relates to their own paper. Is it that more severe disease is more likely to be detected and that’s why they mention it. If there is no link between more severe COVID-19 disease and the objectives of their study then the information is distracting and not essential to the manuscript.”

In our view, the appearance of symptoms and the unfavourable evolution of COVID-19 are major drivers for testing and diagnosing the disease. In the revised version (unmarked version, introduction, page 4, lines 19-23), we now explain that the genetic factors associated with the more severe forms have also been implicated in the pathogenesis of NHL.

7. “However, NHL subtypes may differ in terms of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Treatment-induced immunosuppression [26,27] and a low-rate seroconversion [28] in onco-haematological patients would only partly explain such differences.” – seroconversion to what? Do the authors mean seroconversion following SARS-CoV-2 infection. If that is the case are they referring to vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 re-infection? The message the authors are relaying is not clear.”

In the revised version (unmarked copy, introduction, page 5, lines 6-9), we modified this sentence and the preceding paragraph to clarify the hypothesis of shared pathways between NHL and infections in general and COVID-19 in particular.

8. “Taking profit” – this is not a commonly used term. Consider using a different term.”

We rephrased the sentence according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

9. “COVID-19 has shown a direct link with TNF-� and TNF-� gene polymorphisms” – what type of link is the author referring to? The reader is forced to open up the references to understand the nature of this link.”

In the revised version (unmarked version, introduction, page 4, lines 21-23), we clarified the effect of TNF-� and TNF-� genetic variants on the prevalence and severity of COVID-19. This point is incorporated in the revised version of the whole paragraph described in point # 6.

10. “Methods. Briefly, due to the lack of a regional Cancer Registry, the chief haematologist of the Cagliari Oncology Hospital, with the support of the health authorities and the clinical departments of the whole region, created a database of all incident haematological cancers, diagnosed among the Sardinian population of both genders and any age from 1974-2003 [30].” – when was this done? Has the data been collected prospectively from 1974 or was this done retrospectively.”

One of the co-authors (GB) started creating the register of all incident diagnoses of haematological malignancies since he became the director of the Oncohaematology department of the Oncology Hospital that became operative in 1974. He kept updating regularly the database along the years up to retirement in 2003. In the revised version, we clarified this point.

11. “Its completeness was validated through the comparison with mortality and hospitalization data [31] and, limited to the last decade and the northern part of the region, with Cancer Registry records [32].” – this sentence is not easily understood.”

we modified the sentence as the reviewer requested (unmarked copy of the revised version, methods section, page 6, lines 1-4). We hope that now it more clearly explains the validation procedure.

12. “Analysis. It is not clear to me what a sensitivity analysis by quartile of population size is.”

We used the term “sensitivity analysis” to indicate that we repeated the correlation analysis within strata of the communes based on the quartile distribution of the resident population. In the revised version, we rephrased this sentence to make it clearer.

13. “Results. The author implies in the first paragraph that the incidence of COVID-19 was 11,935 per 100,000 population in a commune with 1,240 which seems impossible. Is this accurate?”

In that commune, in 2020, 148 COVID-19 cases were diagnosed among 1,240 residents (11.9%). It was the highest cumulative incidence among the Sardinian administrative units. Because of the wide range of the population size across the communes, and to use the same unit for COVID-19 cumulative incidence and incidence rate of NHL, we set to 100,000 the denominator for both rates, which is why the cumulative incidence was so high.

14. “Why are there no confidence intervals round the COVID-19 incidence rates?”

As the number of COVID-19 cases referred to the whole regional population and not to a sample we thought the 95% confidence interval was unnecessary. However, as the reviewer thinks differently and having reported it for the NHL incidence rate, in the revised version, we now report the 95% confidence interval of COVID-19 cumulative incidence.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS One Reviewer comments.docx

Decision Letter 1

M Kariuki Njenga

27 Feb 2023

COVID-19 and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a common susceptibility pattern?

PONE-D-22-29855R1

Dear Dr. Pierluigi Cocco,

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,

M. Kariuki Njenga

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional): The authors have adequately addressed most of the substantive comments from the reviewers.  

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

M Kariuki Njenga

6 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-29855R1

COVID-19 and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a common susceptibility pattern?

Dear Dr. Cocco:

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. M. Kariuki Njenga

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS One Reviewer comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are stored on the figshare repository and are publicly available (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.22210675


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES