Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Dec 8;18(12):e0295040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295040

Smoking and pre-existing co-morbidities as risk factors for developing severity of COVID-19 infection: Evidence from a field hospital in a rural area of Bangladesh

Rashadul Islam 1,*, Sayem Ahmed 2, Samar Kishor Chakma 1,*, Tareq Mahmud 1, Abdullah Al Mamun 1, Ziaul Islam 1, M Munirul Islam 1
Editor: Steve Zimmerman3
PMCID: PMC10707513  PMID: 38064450

Abstract

Since August 2020; the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) in collaboration with UNICEF has been operating a COVID-19 field hospital at the Teknaf sub-district of Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. This paper is focused on estimating the effects of a history of tobacco smoking and pre-existing co-morbidities on the severity of COVID-19 infection among adult patients admitted into the aforesaid hospital. We conducted a retrospective data analysis of COVID-19 adult patients hospitalized from August 27, 2020 to April 20, 2022. Based on inclusion criteria; a total of 788 admitted patients were included in the analysis. We conducted a Chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test for the categorical variables to see their associations. Multinomial logistic regression models were performed to explore the risk factors for the severity of COVID-19 infection. Among 788 patients, 18.4%, 18.8%, 13%, 7.1%, 3.4%, and 1.9% have had a history of smoking, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular diseases (CVD), and asthma respectively. Overall, the mean age of the patients was 40.3 ± 16.4 years and 51% were female. In multivariate analysis, history of smoking and co-morbidities were identified as the risk factors for the severity of COVID-19 infection; the history of smoking was found linked with an increase in the risk of developing critical, severe, and moderate level of COVID-19 infection- notably 3.17 times (RRR = 3.17; 95% CI: 1.3–7.68), 2.98 times (RRR = 2.98; 95% CI: 1.87–4.76) and 1.96 times (RRR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.25–3.08) respectively more than the patients who never smoked. It was evident that patients with at least one of the selected co-morbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, COPD, CVD, and asthma exhibited a significantly higher likelihood of experiencing severe illness of COVID-19 compared to patients without any co-morbidity. History of tobacco smoking and pre-existing co-morbidities were significantly associated with an increased severity of COVID-19 infection.

Background

The pandemic

COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease, 2019) was first detected in Wuhan province of China in early December 2019 [1]. It is a highly infectious, rapidly transmissible and fatal disease caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [2]. Globally, it infected over 587 million people, including 6.44 million deaths till August 10, 2022 [3]. COVID-19 outbreak was declared a Public Health Emergency of Global Concern on January 30, 2020, and a pandemic on March 11, 2020, by the World Health Organization (WHO) [1]. In Bangladesh, the first 3 COVID-19 cases were detected in March 2020 [4] and more than 2.0 million COVID-19 cases were identified, including about 29,300 deaths till August 10, 2022 [5].

Literature review

Globally, several studies have been conducted to identify the factors associated with COVID-19 disease severity, with most of the studies focusing on a limited number of conditions (i.e., comorbidities) including smoking status [5–8]. Approximately 20% of adults worldwide smoke tobacco, which is recognized as a significant risk factor for respiratory diseases [6, 9] and smokers have a 34% greater risk of contracting the common flu than among non-smokers [10]. Also, smoking leads to inflammation of the pulmonary epithelium causing cytokines release, increased mucous secretion, and impaired mucociliary clearance [11, 12]. The prevalence of tobacco use in Bangladesh is significant, with nearly 35% of adults primarily smoking tobacco currently [13]. Since 2004, this lower middle-income country has witnessed a dramatic increase in the health and economic burden linked to smoking or smokeless tobacco use, as evidenced by primary data from a nationally representative survey of patients with tobacco-related illnesses, where tobacco smoking significantly contributes to non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, underscoring the imperative to address tobacco control measures to mitigate its impact on both public health and economic growth [14].

Several studies have found mixed results in regard to the association between smoking and the severity of COVID-19 disease [5, 7]. An analysis of a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that current and former smokers are more likely to present with severe COVID-19 conditions as compared with non-smokers [15], while another study reported that the severity of COVID-19 illness was not associated with smoking [7]. Additionally, smoking tobacco is strongly linked to the development of co-morbidities such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and asthma, which may worsen the outcome of COVID-19 disease [7, 17].

Hypertension is one of the most common and frequent co-morbidities which may contribute to the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with COVID-19 positivity [16]. Various findings have been reported regarding the association between the comorbidity of hypertension and the severity of COVID-19 [17–19]. According to a retrospective cohort study, hypertension was not an independent risk factor but was linked to diabetes and cardiovascular disease [20].

Diabetes, another common comorbidity, has been identified as a significant public health issue in Bangladesh and affects approximately one in ten adults [21]. A study found that diabetic patients with COVID-19 had a more severe condition and poorer clinical outcomes, as well as a higher mortality rate and increased ICU admissions, highlighting the need for improved management strategies in order to improve their prognosis [22–24]. Nevertheless, a study conducted in China with a limited sample size did not find diabetes to be associated with severe COVID-19 [25].

Globally, approximately 200 million people suffer from COPD, and 3.2 million people die from COPD every year, making it the third leading cause of death among adults [26], and currently, 12.5% of Bangladeshi adults have COPD [27]. People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can suffer from acute deterioration of their health status due to respiratory viruses, and since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, they have faced additional challenges [28]. Several studies have demonstrated that patients with underlying COPD are more likely to experience severe COVID-19 outcomes (e.g., hospitalization, severe disease, and ICU admission) [6, 29]. However, a study conducted on symptomatic patients found that COPD and asthma alone did not lead to worsening infections, hospitalizations, or deaths associated with COVID-19 [30]. Similarly, a study found cases with CVD and asthma show a significantly elevated risk of increasing severity of COVID-19 [31].

Despite several studies in many countries, to date, only one study has been found in Bangladesh which focused on the association between the smoking habit and the severity of COVID-19 infection but did not consider any specific co-morbidities [5]. To address this evidence gap; our objective was to estimate the effects of a history of smoking, either cigarettes or other tobacco products and pre -existing co-morbidities on the severity of COVID-19 infection in a rural setting of Bangladesh.

Materials and methods

The study setting

The hospital, initiated as part of COVID-19 outbreak management in Teknaf, began operations on August 27, 2020, and it is still actively providing services to the local population and Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals (FDMN) as a not-for-profit organization. Out of total 95 beds; initially, 80 beds of this field hospital were dedicated to COVID-19 patients inclusive of a 10-bed High Dependency Unit (HDU) with central oxygen, concentrator, and cylinder oxygen supply. Besides; 24/7 Emergency, Out-Patient Department, radiology, laboratory services, and referral by ambulance to higher level facilities in Cox’s Bazar district remain available free of charge. Necessary medicines, high flow nasal cannula, pulse oximeter, PPE, masks, hand sanitizer, and other necessary medical appliances were adequately supplied by the donor. A large contingent of trained medical doctors, nurses, patient care attendants, medical technologists, infection prevention and control (IPC) workers, and biomedical engineers were deployed by the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) to run the facility effectively. An uninterrupted supply of power and safe water was ensured in the hospital. However; the physical structure of the hospital was made of bamboo huts with concrete floors.

Study design and data source

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the data collected from COVID-19 positive adult patients who were hospitalized at Teknaf field hospital. Upon initial contact, the physician used a standardized Case Record Form (CRF) to record the patient’s background characteristics, medical history, smoking history (current or past smoker), co-morbidity, the severity of illness and underlying co-morbidities. A skilled data management team maintains and updates the hospital’s online database system named "ONA" to accommodate the collection of patient information. We extracted data from COVID-19 patients treated between August 27, 2020 and April 20, 2022 (in .CSV format). There were 961 patients admitted to the study hospital during this period who were diagnosed as positive for COVID-19 by both nasal and oropharyngeal swabs in Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR).

Because this study focused on adult patients (aged 18 years or older or older), 173 patients under the age of 18 were excluded from this analysis. We chose to categorize patients as "adults" (18–60 years) and "elderly" (>60 years) [32] due to the observed significant association between these age groups and the severity of COVID-19 infection in the pilot analysis. Therefore, finally, 788 COVID-19 patients were included in this analysis. COPD, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes were diagnosed based on patients’ history, clinical features and radiological and laboratory findings. For this study, the current and past smokers were grouped as ‘ever-smoker’.

The severity of COVID-19 infection

The severity of COVID-19 infection was determined based on WHO standards [33]. The severity levels of COVID-19 infection (only for adult patients) are explained as,

  • Mild type: Clinical symptoms (e.g., fever, cough, fatigue, anorexia, shore throat, nasal congestion, headache, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, dizziness, weakness) are present, without evidence of viral pneumonia or hypoxia (Hypoxia: New-onset oxygen saturation of ≤94.0%).

  • Moderate type: clinical signs of pneumonia (fever, cough, dyspnea, fast breathing) and other non-specific symptoms (sore throat, nasal congestion, headache, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting) are present but no signs of severe pneumonia, including SpO2 ≥ 90% on room air.

  • Severe type: Patients with at least one of the following: SpO2 < 90% on room air; Severe pneumonia; signs of severe respiratory distress (in adults, accessory muscle use, inability to complete full sentences, respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min;);

  • Critical type: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), sepsis, septic shock is present, and the need for invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation or vasopressor therapy.

During the course of treatment, the duty physician assigned everyone included in this study a severity level based on the above definition. It was used in the analysis as a dependent variable.

It is important to note that in this study, both cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use were considered as part of smoking, encompassing a broad spectrum of tobacco consumption habits.

Statistical analysis

The data was analyzed using STATA 16.0 (StataCorp LLC) statistical package and descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency and percentage of background, characteristics, severity levels of COVID-19 infection, pre-existing comorbidities, and smoking history. To assess the association between main variables of interest (e.g., history of smoking, underlying co-morbidities) and severity of COVID-19 infection, Pearson’s Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test are used. Multinomial logistic regression models [34] were used to identify potential risk factors and determine the effect size of these factors on the progression of COVID-19 infection severity in the patients. To measure statistical significance, a P-value of 0.05 was considered.

The MNL model is described below:

There are k categorical outcomes (e.g., mild, moderate, severe, and critical) and—without loss of generality—let the base outcome be 1. The probability that the response for the jth observation is equal to the ith outcome is

pij=Pryj=i=1/(1+∑km=2expXjβm,ifi=1 (1)
pij=Pryj=i=expXjβm/(1+∑km=2expXjβm,ifi>1 (2)

With k = 1, 2, 3, 4

where xj is the row vector of observed values of the independent variables for the jth observation and βm is the coefficient vector for outcome m.

Eq (1) used to measure the associations of severity of COVID-19 infection with the variables of interest in separate unadjusted models. The following Eq (2) was estimated to examine the relationship between the severity of COVID-19 infection and the history of smoking with control variables such as age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, COPD, CVD, and asthma. To assess the goodness-of-fit of the model, we used the likelihood ratio chi-square test, and the McFadden’s pseudo-R-squared.

Ethical clearance

The Ethical Review Committee (ERC) of the International Center for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh, waived the requirement for Institutional Review Board (IRB) review since all data is de-identified and no personal information will be disclosed. The participants gave verbal consent for their information to be used for further research since they did not intend to sign any documents or leave fingerprints, and many of them were analphabetic. Furthermore, no minors were included in this study, hence parent or guardian consent was not required.

Results

Patient characteristics

A total of 788 COVID-19 positive hospitalized patients were studied, of which 3.4% were critical, 20.6% were severe, 29.4% were moderate and 46.6% were mild. Overall, the mean age of the patients was 40.3 ± 16.4 years and 13.0% of patients were aged above 60 years. The majority of patients were female, with 51.0% being female, and 18.4% being ever-smokers. Based on the selected co-morbidities, 18.8% of patients had hypertension, 13.0% had diabetes, 7.1% had COPD, 3.4% had cardiovascular disease, and 1.9% had asthma as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Distribution of patient characteristics and co-morbidities in COVID-19 cases.

Characteristics Category n (%)
Sex Female 402 (51.0)
Male 386 (49.0)
Age (years), mean ± SD [95%Cl] 40.3 ± 16.4 [23.9–56.7]
Age 18–60 years (adult) 686 (87.0)
>60 years (elderly) 102 (13.0)
History of Smoking Ever-smoker 145 (18.4)
Non-smoker 643 (81.6)
Severity of COVID-19 infection Mild 367 (46.6)
Moderate 232 (29.4)
Severe 162 (20.6)
Critical 27 (3.4)
Co-morbidities Yes 241 (30.6)
Hypertension Yes 148 (18.8)
No 640 (81.2)
Diabetes Yes 103 (13.0)
No 685 (87.0)
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Yes 56 (7.1)
No 732 (92.9)
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) Yes 27 (3.4)
No 761 (96.6)
Asthma Yes 15 (1.9)
No 773 (98.1)
Total 788 (100)

Severity of COVID-19 infection and patient’s characteristics

Table 2 presents bivariate associations between the severity of the COVID-19 infection and the characteristics of the patients. There was a significant association (P<0.05) between the age and smoking history of the patients and COVID-19 infection. The percentage of severely COVID-19 infection was higher among the elderly patients (60 and older), compared to relatively younger adults. The proportions of patient with moderate, severe, and critical COVID-19 infection were higher among ever-smoker in comparison to non-smoker.

Table 2. Distribution and association of patient characteristics with severity of COVID-19 infection.

Characteristics Mild n (%) Moderate n (%) Severe n (%) Critical n (%) P value
Sex
Male 193 (50.0) 107 (27.7) 76 (19.7) 10 (2.6) 0.213b
Female 174 (43.3) 125 (31.1) 86 (21.4) 17 (4.2)
Age
18–60 years (adult) 360 (52.5) 195 (28.4) 118 (17.2) 13 (1.9) 0.001a
>60 years (elderly) 7 (6.8) 37 (36.3) 44 (43.1) 14 (13.7)
History of Smoking
Ever-smoker 43 (29.7) 48 (33.1) 46 (31.7) 8 (5.5) 0.001b
Non-smoker 324 (50.4) 184 (28.6) 116 (18.0) 19 (3.0)

a Fisher’s exact test; p-value = .0000 treated as 0.001

b Chi-square test; p-value = .0000 treated as 0.001

Severity of COVID-19 infection and pre-existing co-morbidities

Table 3 presents the outcomes of a bivariate analysis of the severity of COVID-19 infection and selected pre-existing co-morbidities (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, COPD, CVD, asthma). There was a significant association between the presence of these co-morbidities and the severity of COVID-19 infection. 50.0% of patients with COPD developed severe COVID-19 infection, followed by moderate (30.4%), and critical (16.0%) cases. Among hypertensive patients, the highest proportion (50.7%) had moderate infection, then severe (37.2%), and critical (6.1%). Patients with diabetes, CVDs, and asthma had similar patterns of severity of COVID-19 infection (i.e., the highest proportion had a moderate level of severity followed by severe and critical conditions).

Table 3. Association between the co-morbidities and severity of COVID-19 infection.

Co-morbidities Status Mild n (%) Moderate n (%) Severe n (%) Critical n (%) P-value
Hypertension Yes 9 (6.0) 75 (50.7) 55 (37.2) 9 (6.1) 0.001b
No 358 (55.9) 157 (24.5) 107 (16.7) 18 (2.8)
Diabetes Yes 4 (3.8) 51 (49.5) 38 (37.0) 10 (9.7) 0.001a
No 363 (53.0) 181 (26.4) 124 (18.1) 17 (2.5)
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Yes 2 (3.6) 17 (30.4) 28 (50.0) 9 (16.0) 0.001a
No 365 (49.8) 215 (29.4) 134 (18.3) 18 (2.5)
Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Yes 2 (7.4) 13 (48.2) 9 (33.3) 3 (11.1) 0.001a
No 365 (47.9) 219 (28.7) 155 (20.1) 24 (3.1)
Asthma Yes 2 (13.3) 8 (53.4) 5 (33.3) No observation 0.031a
No 365 (47.2) 224 (29.0) 157 (20.3) 27 (3.5)

a Fisher’s exact test; p-value = .0000 treated as 0.001

b Chi-square test; p-value = .0000 treated as 0.001

Regression results

Table 4 presents the results of the multinomial logistic regression analysis of the effects of potential risk factors on the progression of severity of COVID-19 infection among the admitted patients. The unadjusted model indicated that ever-smoker COVID-19 patients suffered 3.17 (RRR = 3.17; 95% CI: 1.3–7.68) times more critical stages of the COVID-19 disease severity in comparison with non-smoker COVID-19 patients. Compared to non-smoker, the same group of patients suffered 1.96 (RRR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.25–3.08) times more moderate and 2.98 (RRR = 2.98; 95% CI:1.87–4.76) times more severe COVID-19 infections. Similarly, co-morbidities were identified as risk factors for critical, severe, and moderate severity levels of COVID-19 infection in the separate unadjusted models.

Table 4. Factors associated with severity of COVID-19 infection using multinomial logistic regression models.

Outcome variable Disease severity Ref. category Unadjusted Models RRR (95% Cl) Adjusted Model RRR (95% Cl)
Mild (Base outcome)
History of Smoking Moderate Ever-smoker (Ref: Never-smoker) 1.96 (1.25–3.08)*** 1.55 (0.91–2.64)
Severe Ever-smoker (Ref: Never-smoker) 2.98 (1.87–4.76)*** 1.98 (1.11–3.56)**
Critical Ever-smoker (Ref: Never-smoker) 3.17 (1.30–7.68)** 1.52 (0.50–4.54)
Hypertension Moderate Hypertension (Ref: No hypertension) 19 (9.28–38.89)*** 9.13 (4.25–19.59)***
Severe Hypertension (Ref: No hypertension) 20.44 (9.78–42.73)*** 8.51 (3.80–19.08)***
Critical Hypertension (Ref: No hypertension) 19.88 (7.04–56.16)*** 4.76 (1.47–15.04)***
Diabetes Moderate Diabetes (Ref: No diabetes) 25.57 (9.09–71.85)*** 13.19 (4.5–38.69)***
Severe Diabetes (Ref: No diabetes) 27.81 (9.72–79.49)*** 16.2 (5.39–48.96)***
Critical Diabetes (Ref: No diabetes) 53.3 (15.18–187.7)*** 42.29 (10.65–167.93)***
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Moderate COPD (Ref: No COPD) 14.43 (3.30–63.06)*** 8.45 (1.82–39.13)***
Severe COPD (Ref: No COPD) 38.1 (8.96–162.26)*** 18.78 (4.12–85.48)***
Critical COPD (Ref: No COPD) 91.2 (18.35–453.5)*** 36.55 (6.45–207.1)***
Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Moderate CVD (Ref: No CVD) 10.83 (2.42–48.45)*** 4.98 (0.93–26.47)*
Severe CVD (Ref: No CVD) 10.73 (2.29–48.45)*** 3.93 (0.67–23.01)
Critical CVD (Ref: No CVD) 22.81 (3.63–143.1)*** 5.29 (0.56–49.3)
Asthma Moderate Asthma (Ref: No Asthma) 6.5 (1.37–30.91)** 8.15 (1.63–40.65)**
Severe Asthma (Ref: No Asthma) 5.8 (1.11–30.23)** 8.52 (1.54–47.20)**
Critical Asthma (Ref: No Asthma) No observation No observation
Sex Moderate Female (Ref: Male) 1.29 (0.93–1.8) 1.10 (0.74–1.62)
Severe Female (Ref: Male) 1.25 (0.86–1.81) 1.24 (0.78–1.95)
Critical Female (Ref: Male) 1.88 (0.84–4.22) 2.27 (0.88–5.81)
Age
>60 yr.(elderly) Moderate >60 yr. (Ref: 18–60 yr.) 9.75 (4.27–22.29)*** 7.33 (3.07–17.48)***
Severe >60 yr. (Ref: 18–60 yr.) 19.17 (8.41–43.72)*** 12.35 (5.13–29.73)***
Critical >60 yr. (Ref: 18–60 yr.) 55.38 (19.13–160.29)*** 42.83 (13.2–138.9)***
Number of obs. 788
LR chi2(6) 338.2
Prob > chi2 0.001
Pseudo R2 0.1855
Log likelihood -742.37

*p<0.1;

**p<0.05;

***p<0.01;

p-value = .0000 treated as 0.001

As potential risk factors, the following variables were incorporated into the final model (adjusted model): smoking history, hypertension, diabetes, COPD, CVD, asthma, gender, and age (>60 years old—elderly). In the adjusted model, while smoking history was recognized as a risk factor contributing to the severity of COVID-19 infection, it was not associated with moderate and critical levels of severity. Hypertensive patients were 4.75 times more proneto experience critical severity of COVID-19 infection (RRR = 4.76; 95% CI: 1.47–15.04) compared to non-hypertensive patients. In addition, hypertensive patients were 8.51 times more vulnerable to develop severe infections (RR = 8.51; 95% CI: 3.80–19.08) and 9.13 times more vulnerable to suffering moderate infections (RR = 9.13; 95% CI: 4.25–19.59) compared to those without hypertension. Similarly, patients with diabetes had 42.29 times higher risk of developing critical COVID-19 infections (RRR = 42.29; 95% CI: 10.65–167.93), 16.2 times higher risk of severe infections (RRR = 16.2; 95% CI: 5.39–48.96), and 13.19 times higher risk of moderate infections (RRR = 13.19; 95% CI: 4.5–38.69) compared to patients without diabetes. Patients with COPD were 36.55 times susceptible to experience critical COVID-19 infection (RRR = 36.55; 95% CI: 6.45–207.1), 18.78 times susceptible to have severe infections (RRR = 18.78; 95% CI: 4.12–85.48), and 8.45 times susceptible to have moderate infections (RRR = 8.45; 95% CI: 1.82–39.13) when compared with non-COPD patients. Considering asthma, patients with this condition were over 8 times risk of having worse COVID-19 infection conditions of moderate to severe. As a result of the limited number of asthmatic participants in the study (n = 15), no association was established between pre-existing asthma and the development of critical stages of COVID-19 infection. Lastly, elderly patients (>60 years) had 42.83 times critical COVID-19 infection (RRR = 42.83; 95% CI: 13.2–138.9), had12.35 times severe infections (RRR = 12.35; 95% CI: 5.13–29.73), and had 7.33 times moderate infections (RRR = 7.33; 95% CI: 3.07–17.48) than mild, when compared to adults aged between 18 and 60 years.

Discussion

The present study investigated the vulnerability to severe COVID-19 infection in smokers of both sexes, especially those with comorbidities like hypertension, diabetes, COPD, CVD, and asthma. Age was also identified as a significant factor in determining the severity of COVID-19 infection. Multiple factors were investigated that contributed to the severity of COVID-19 infection independently and cumulatively. The prevalence of ever-smoker among the studied patients was approximately eighteen percent, with both females and males being ever-smoker, though the prevalence was not examined separately. Additionally, a subset of patients (30.6%) presented with at least one of the selected underlying co-morbidities.

The study revealed a significant association between a history of smoking and the severity of COVID-19 infection where patients with smoking habits were at a greater risk of developing severe, and critical stages of COVID-19 infection than patients who did not smoke. This finding was supported by a meta-analysis which found that current or former smokers had a significantly higher chance of developing severe or critical cases of COVID-19 infection. Another study conducted in Dhaka, Bangladesh showed that people who had actively smoked for a long time were more likely to develop severe and critical COVID-19 [5]. Additionally, there is evidence that smokers have a greater risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19, such as hospitalization and progression to severe disease [35]. The effects of smoking may be attributed to the significant changes in cytokines that can affect systemic immunity and inflammation [36] since cytokines play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 [37]. Furthermore, smokers are vulnerable to get common cold and respiratory viral diseases [11]. Lippi G and Henry BM, however, found that smoking did not contribute to the severity of COVID-19 illness in their study [7].

Although a retrospective cohort study found that, hypertension was not an independent risk factor for COVID-19 severity [20]. However, current study found that hypertension is significantly associated with the severity of COVID-19 infection. Even after adjusting for other factors, it was identified as a potential risk factor attributable to moderate, severe, and critical stages of COVID-19 infection. This finding is consistent with another systematic review and meta-analysis findings which revealed that hypertension was associated with an increased composite poor outcome (risk ratio (RR) 2.11) and its subgroups, including mortality, severe COVID-19, ARDS, intensive care, and disease progression [38]. Moreover, another systematic review identified hypertension as the most prevalent comorbidity in COVID-19 patients which noticeably increases the risk of hospitalization and death [39].

Likewise, diabetes and asthma were also found to be risk factors for COVID-19 infection severity in the current study, with the adjusted odds of severe infection being higher among those with diabetes and asthma. There was, however, no significant association between diabetes and severe COVID-19 outcomes in a study conducted in China with a limited sample size [25]. This study’s findings, however, may not be easily generalizable to wider populations or contexts due to the limitations of its sample size. The current study also found diabetes, and asthma as risk factors for the severity of COVID-19 infection. Similarly, a study conducted in the United States of America found that diabetes and asthma are associated with an increased severity of COVID-19 infection [31]. Additionally, asthma has been identified as a potential comorbid condition associated with severe illness of COVID-19 [34] by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [40].

Although univariate analysis found that two-thirds of the patients with cardiovascular diseases were severely ill and 11% were critically ill, the multivariate analysis adjusted with covariates found CVD to be insignificant as an independent predictor of COVID-19 infection severity. Kunihiro et al similarly, found that CVD was independently associated with COVID-19 severity [19].

The presence of underlying COPD among 75 percent of patient was significantly associated with a greater risk of developing severe infection with COVID-19. Multivariate analysis after adjusting for the covariates such as age, gender, smoking history, hypertension, diabetes, CVD, and asthma revealed that this association persisted, indicating COVID-19 patients with COPD had worse conditions than those without COPD. As highlighted in a narrative review of the basic science and clinical outcomes of COVID-19, COPD is associated with an increased risk of severe illness independently [41]. Moreover, a study examined the distinct effects of asthma and COPD on the progression and outcomes of COVID-19 patients and found that patients suffering from COPD were 23 times more likely to develop severe illness than patients without COPD [42]. Nevertheless, a study conducted on symptomatic patients found that COPD and asthma alone did not worsen infections, hospitalizations, or deaths associated with COVID-19 [30].

Patients’ age was identified as a significant risk factor associated with hospitalization for COVID-19 critical illness. Elderly patients, particularly those aged 60 years and older, had an increased risk of severe COVID-19-associated outcomes. This finding aligned with the data reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which found that elderly patients with COVID-19 infection were more likely to suffer severe COVID-19-associated outcomes [40]. Nevertheless, future large-scale research is warranted to address the lack of conclusive estimation of severe rates, thereby enhancing our understanding of COVID-19 severity and elderly age [43].

The prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension, diabetes, and COPD is high-burden in Bangladesh [44–46], and a majority of the population is unaware of these diseases and their consequences. Based on the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS), 50% of hypertensive women and 66% of hypertensive men are unaware of their high blood pressure, and 60% of diabetic patients are unaware of their elevated blood glucose levels among adults (aged 18 and older) [47]. During the course of this study, we gained insight into the local people’s lifestyle, attitudes, and responses to diseases, as well as the environmental factors that contribute to disease. In Teknaf, the prevalence of smoking and undiagnosed non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is particularly high, especially among respiratory patients. While the patients in our study were tested for these co-morbidities during their hospital stay, there is a possibility that some patients may not have been aware of their pre-existing conditions. This particularly applies to first-time patients, like the Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals (FDMN) refugees, who might lack prior medical records.

Strength of the study

The main strength of this study is the use of existing dataset which covers all the three waves of COVID-19 surges in a remote rural setting of Bangladesh. All the stages of severity of COVID-19 infection were well diagnosed by the trained physicians according to the pre-established standard definitions set by the National Guidelines on COVID-19 Management. Therefore, the dataset was well representative of the defined severity of COVID-19 infection in Bangladesh.

Study limitations

The vaccination uptake and its potential impact on moderating the severity of COVID-19 infection were not considered in the analysis. Also, the clinical team did not perform spirometry to diagnose COPD. However, physicians diagnosed the patients by clinical examination and X-ray chest in the hospital. Study patients were unwilling to share their monthly income and occupation for which this study could not capture their socio-economic status. Furthermore, while we examined the individual effects of sex and smoking on the severity of COVID-19 infection, we did not conduct a specific analysis to explore potential interaction effects between these factors that could influence the development of severe COVID-19.

Conclusions

It is evident from the study findings that smoking history and underlying co-morbidities are risk factors for the development of COVID-19 infection severity. Among the covariates of COVID-19 infection severity, the age of patients also contributes to worsening the severity status. Policymakers, public health activists, and clinical practitioners need to take advantage of these findings to plan interventions that can contribute to improving the preventive strategy for reducing the above-mentioned risk factors and the management of those risk factors in clinical settings. Also, it is recommended that public health initiatives prioritize extensive smoking cessation programs and awareness campaigns aimed at reducing smoking rates, particularly among individuals with pre-existing health conditions. Additionally, enhancing diagnostic infrastructure for those with comorbidities can aid in the timely identification of their health issues.. Furthermore, efforts should be made to enhance the early detection and management of hypertension, diabetes, COPD, and asthma in the community to mitigate the severity of COVID-19 infections and improve overall health outcomes.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(CSV)

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the Data Management team, Laboratory Technologists, and Radiology Technologists of SARI ITC Teknaf for providing their continuous support in cleaning and compiling data. Heartful thanks to the Management staffs, Doctors specially Dr. Sojol Jahangir Alom, and Nurses of SARI ITC for their cordial co-operation and support. icddr,b is also grateful to the Governments of Bangladesh, Canada, Sweden and the UK for providing core/unrestricted support.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic [Internet]. [cited 2022 Aug 11]. https://www.who.int/europe/emergencies/situations/covid-19
  • 2.Deng CX. The global battle against SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Int J Biol Sci. 2020;2020(10):1676–7. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.45587 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard | WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard With Vaccination Data [Internet]. [cited 2023 Apr 9]. https://covid19.who.int/?mapFilter=cases
  • 4.Kamal SMM, Kabir MF, Rahman MH, Uddin J, Hosen MS, Shumi SS, et al. Impact of home quarantine due to covid-19 among bangladeshi population. Int J Publ Health Sci. 2021;10(1):1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mohsin FM, Tonmon TT, Nahrin R, Tithy SA, Ame FA, Ara I, et al. Association Between Smoking and COVID-19 Severity: Evidence from Bangladesh. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2021. Jul;14:1923. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S317603 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sanchez-Ramirez DC, Mackey D. Underlying respiratory diseases, specifically COPD, and smoking are associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Respir Med. 2020;171(June):106096. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2020.106096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lippi G, Henry BM. Active smoking is not associated with severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Eur J Intern Med. 2020. May 1;75:107–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2020.03.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zhao Q, Meng M, Kumar R, Wu Y, Huang J, Lian N, et al. The impact of COPD and smoking history on the severity of COVID-19: A systemic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol. 2020. Oct 1;92(10):1915–21. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25889 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.World Development Indicators | DataBank [Internet]. [cited 2022 Aug 11]. https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=SH.PRV.SMOK#
  • 10.Lawrence H, Hunter A, Murray R, Lim WS, McKeever T. Cigarette smoking and the occurrence of influenza–Systematic review. Journal of Infection. 2019. Nov 1;79(5):401–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2019.08.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Brake SJ, Barnsley K, Lu W, McAlinden KD, Eapen MS, Sohal SS. Smoking Upregulates Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme-2 Receptor: A Potential Adhesion Site for Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19). Journal of Clinical Medicine 2020, Vol 9, Page 841. 2020. Mar 20;9(3): 841. doi: 10.3390/jcm9030841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Adrish M, Chilimuri S, Mantri N, Sun H, Zahid M, Gongati S, et al. Association of smoking status with outcomes in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2020;7(1):1–6. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000716 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.World Bank. Prevalence of current tobacco use (% of adults)—Bangladesh | Data [Internet]. [cited 2023 Aug 7]. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.PRV.SMOK?locations=BD
  • 14.Nargis N, Mohiuddin Faruque G, Ahmed M, Huq I, Parven R, Naimul Wadood S, et al. A comprehensive economic assessment of the health effects of tobacco use and implications for tobacco control in Bangladesh Ministry of Finance of the Government of the People’s Republic of. Tob Control [Internet]. 2021. [cited 2023 Aug 7];0:1–7. Available from: doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Umnuaypornlert A, Kanchanasurakit S, Lucero-Prisno DE, Saokaew S. Smoking and risk of negative outcomes among COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Tob Induc Dis. 2021. Feb 1;19. doi: 10.18332/tid/132411 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ramírez P, Gordón M, Martín-Cerezuela M, Villarreal E, Sancho E, Padrós M, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19. Clinical and prognostic features from a medical Critical Care Unit in Valencia, Spain. Med Intensiva [Internet]. 2021. Jan 1 [cited 2023 Aug 7];45(1):27. doi: 10.1016/j.medin.2020.06.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Schiffrin EL, Flack JM, Ito S, Muntner P, Webb RC. Hypertension and COVID-19. Am J Hypertens. 2020. Apr 29;33(5):373–4. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpaa057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Liu W, Tao ZW, Wang L, Yuan ML, Liu K, Zhou L, et al. Analysis of factors associated with disease outcomes in hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus disease. Chin Med J (Engl). 2020. May 5;133(9):1032–8. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000000775 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Matsushita K, Ding N, Kou M, Hu X, Chen M, Gao Y, et al. The relationship of COVID-19 severity with cardiovascular disease and its traditional risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Glob Heart. 2020. Sep 22;15(1):64. doi: 10.5334/gh.814 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sun Y, Guan X, Jia L, Xing N, Cheng L, Liu B, et al. Independent and combined effects of hypertension and diabetes on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study of Huoshen Mountain Hospital and Guanggu Fangcang Shelter Hospital. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension. 2021. Feb 1;23(2):218–31. doi: 10.1111/jch.14146 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Akter S, Mizanur Rahman M, Abe SK, Sultana P. Prevalence of diabetes and prediabetes and their risk factors among Bangladeshi adults: a nationwide survey. Bull World Health Organ. 2014. Mar;92(3). doi: 10.2471/BLT.13.128371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fox T, Ruddiman K, Lo KB, Peterson E, DeJoy R, Salacup G, et al. The relationship between diabetes and clinical outcomes in COVID-19: a single-center retrospective analysis. Acta Diabetol. 2021. Jan 1;58(1):33–8. doi: 10.1007/s00592-020-01592-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Alshukry A, Bu Abbas M, Ali Y, Alahmad B, Al-Shammari AA, Alhamar G, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with diabetes mellitus in Kuwait. Heliyon. 2020. Apr 1;7(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zhang Y, Cui Y, Shen M, Zhang J, Liu B, Dai M, et al. Association of diabetes mellitus with disease severity and prognosis in COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2020. Jul 1;165. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zhang J jin, Dong X, Cao Y yuan, Yuan Y dong, Yang Y bin, Yan Y qin, et al. Clinical characteristics of 140 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China. Allergy. 2020. Jul 1;75(7):1730–41. doi: 10.1111/all.14238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Levine S, Marciniuk D, Aglan A, Celedón JC, Fong K, Horsburgh R, et al. The Global Impact of Respiratory Disease THIRD EDITION 2 WRITING COMMITTEE.
  • 27.Sutradhar I, Das Gupta R, Hasan M, Wazib A, Sarker M. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Bangladesh: A Systematic Review. Cureus [Internet]. 2019. Jan 28 [cited 2023 Aug 7];11(1). doi: 10.7759/cureus.3970 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Alqahtani JS, Oyelade T, Aldhahir AM, Mendes RG, Alghamdi SM, Miravitlles M, et al. Reduction in hospitalised COPD exacerbations during COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2021. Aug 1;16(8):e0255659. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255659 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gerayeli F V., Milne S, Cheung C, Li X, Yang CWT, Tam A, et al. COPD and the risk of poor outcomes in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2021. Mar 1;33:100789. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100789 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Calmes D, Graff S, Maes N, Frix AN, Thys M, Bonhomme O, et al. Asthma and COPD Are Not Risk Factors for ICU Stay and Death in Case of SARS-CoV2 Infection. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021. Jan 1;9(1):160–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.09.044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mendy A, Apewokin S, Wells AA, Morrow AL. Factors Associated with Hospitalization and Disease Severity in a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Population of COVID-19 Patients. medRxiv. 2020. Jun 27; [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kabir ZN, Ferdous T, Cederholm T, Khanam MA, Streatfied K, Wahlin Å. Mini Nutritional Assessment of rural elderly people in Bangladesh: the impact of demographic, socio-economic and health factors. Public Health Nutr [Internet]. 2006. [cited 2022 Aug 11];9(8):968–74. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/mini-nutritional-assessment-of-rural-elderly-people-in-bangladesh-the-impact-of-demographic-socioeconomic-and-health-factors/AA7074B89734F78B8C40B451B2DD6465 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.WHO. Living Guidance for clinical management of COVID-19. World Health Organization. 2021;(November):63.
  • 34.Greene WH. Econometric analysis. 8th Edition. New York, USA: Pearson; 2017. 1–1176 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Goniewicz ML, Pentz MA, Bhatnagar A, Benowitz NL, Goniewicz ML, Halpern-Felsher B, et al. Personal View Tobacco product use and the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19: current understanding and recommendations for future research. 2022. [cited 2023 Aug 6];10. Available from: doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00182-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wang H, Chen H, Fu Y, Liu M, Zhang J, Han S, et al. Effects of Smoking on Inflammatory-Related Cytokine Levels in Human Serum. Molecules [Internet]. 2022. Jun 1 [cited 2023 Aug 6];27(12). doi: 10.3390/molecules27123715 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Buszko M, Nita-Lazar A, Park JH, Schwartzberg PL, Verthelyi D, Young HA, et al. Lessons learned: new insights on the role of cytokines in COVID-19. Nature Immunology 2021 22:4 [Internet]. 2021. Mar 15 [cited 2023 Aug 6];22(4):404–11. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-021-00901-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Pranata R, Lim MA, Huang I, Raharjo SB, Lukito AA. Hypertension is associated with increased mortality and severity of disease in COVID-19 pneumonia: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. J Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone Syst. 2020. Apr 1;21(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Peng M, He J, Xue Y, Yang X, Liu S, Gong Z. Role of Hypertension on the Severity of COVID-19: A Review. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2021. Nov 1;78(5):e648. doi: 10.1097/FJC.0000000000001116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Team CC 19 R, Team CC 19 R, Chow N, Fleming-Dutra K, Gierke R, Hall A, et al. Preliminary Estimates of the Prevalence of Selected Underlying Health Conditions Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019—United States, February 12–March 28, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2020. Apr 4;69(13):382. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6913e2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Higham A, Mathioudakis A, Vestbo J, Singh D. COVID-19 and COPD: a narrative review of the basic science and clinical outcomes. European Respiratory Review. 2020. Dec 31;29(158):1–13. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0199-2020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Song J, Zeng M, Wang H, Qin C, Hou HY, Sun ZY, et al. Distinct effects of asthma and COPD comorbidity on disease expression and outcome in patients with COVID-19. Allergy. 2021. Feb 1;76(2):483–96. doi: 10.1111/all.14517 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lu G, Zhang Y, Zhang H, Ai J, He L, Yuan X, et al. Geriatric risk and protective factors for serious COVID-19 outcomes among older adults in Shanghai Omicron wave. Emerg Microbes Infect [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023. Aug 9];11(1):2045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hasan MM, Tasnim F, Tariqujjaman M, Ahmed S. Socioeconomic Inequalities of Undiagnosed Diabetes in a Resource-Poor Setting: Insights from the Cross-Sectional Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2011. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2019, Vol 16, Page 115. 2019. Jan 3;16(1):115. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16010115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Haider MR, Gupta R Das. Inequalities in Undiagnosed Hypertension Among Adult Population in Bangladesh: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Survey. High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention 2021 29:1. 2021. Nov 10;29(1):57–64. doi: 10.1007/s40292-021-00488-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Koblizek V, Novotna B, Zbozinkova Z, Hejduk K. Diagnosing COPD: advances in training and practice–a systematic review. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2016;7:219. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S76976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT); ICF International; Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2017–18. Dhaka, Bangladesh, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: NIPORT and ICF. 2020;1–511.

Decision Letter 0

Md Feroz Kabir

20 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-33469Smoking and Pre-existing Co-morbidities as Risk Factors for Developing Severity of COVID-19 Infection: Evidence from a Field Hospital in a Rural Area of BangladeshPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Islam,

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 May 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,

Md. Feroz Kabir, BPT, MPT, MPH, BPED, MPED

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 include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments :

Please clearly mentioned the sampling procedures and the population and calculation of sample in Methodology section.

Give very early and current study synchronization in Literature review section.

Clearly state the disease severity and patient’s characteristics and properly acknowledge it in Result section

Compare and contrast with the current available evidence.

Thanks for your hard work.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: To Authors.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Dec 8;18(12):e0295040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295040.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Apr 2023

Sampling procedures and the population: We explained clearly the sampling procedures and the study population in the “Study design and data source” in Materials and methods section.

Sample size calculation: According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, this study included all the patients who were COVID-19 positive and admitted at the studied hospital. This is a retrospective analysis of medical records of the patients. Therefore, the calculation of sample size could be considered as a waive.

For example; the below listed studies also did not consider sample size calculation in their retrospective methodology.

1. Adrish M, Chilimuri S, Mantri N, et al. Association of smoking status with outcomes in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. BMJ Open Resp Res 2020;7:e000716. doi:10.1136/ bmjresp-2020-000716; https://bmjopenrespres.bmj.com/content/bmjresp/7/1/e000716.full.pdf

2. Asthma and COPD Are Not Risk Factors for ICU Stay and Death in Case of SARS-CoV2 Infection; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2020.09.044

3. Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China, N Engl J Med 2020;382:1708-20.DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2002032; https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/nejmoa2002032

Other changes:

�I have now added the following keywords: Severity of COVID-19; SARS-CoV2; Risk factors; Smoking history; Co-morbidities; icddr,b; Bangladesh;” just after the abstract section (line-46).

�I have rephrased the “Introduction” to “Background” (line-48), “COVID-19 disease severity” and “severity of COVID-19 disease” to “severity of COVID-19 infection” throughout the manuscript.

�Literature review section is now up-to-date with the clear and current study synchronization. Below are the changes in reference list:

�In the pandemic (line 49): Ref. #4 is now moved to the ref. # 1 and ref. #3 move to the ref. #5; ref. #2, #3, and #4 is newly inserted;

�In Literature review (line 58): Ref. #5, #1, #11, #12, #7, #30, #16, #17, #18, #19, #21, #22, & #6 is now moved to ref. #6, #7, #10, #11, #12, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, & #24 respectively. Ref. #14 & #16 is newly inserted;

�In Study design and data source (line 105): Ref. #23 is now moved to the ref. #25

�In Severity of COVID-19 infection (line 121): Ref. #25 is now moved to the ref. #26

�In Statistical analysis (line142): Ref. #26 is now moved to the ref. #27, Ref. #28 is newly inserted;

�In Discussion (line 245): Ref. #28, #29, #27, #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, & #36 is now moved to ref. #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, & #37 respectively.

�Disease severity is clearly defined based on the “Living Guidance for clinical management of COVID-19 2021 by WHO (line 121 - 138)”. Now, the disease severity and patient’s characteristics are clearly stated and properly acknowledged in the Result section. Below are the changes:

In the discussion section, I compared and contrasted with the current available evidences. I made the following changes: “In 2020, a research conducted by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) COVID-19 Response Team in USA showed that smokers had higher risk of having critical condition than never-smoker” by “For assessing the impact of smoking on COVID-19 severity, a meta-analysis found that patients who were current or former smoker had an increased risk of severe or critical COVID-19 infection”. I have also updated the references in the main text (line 260 - 264). I have also added the paragraph” “We found that CVD are independently associated with severity of COVID-19 infection, which is found to be insignificant when adjusting with its excoriates. Similar findings were observed in, Kunihiro et al. study that CVD were independently associated with severity of COVID-19” (line 286 - 289).

Laboratory protocols is not applicable because the samples are collected in the SARI ITC icddr,b and tested at RT PCR laboratory set-up by World Health Organization in Cox’s Bazar as COVID-19 emergency response and is permitted to use for research purpose.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response of Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Mosharop Hossian

4 Aug 2023

PONE-D-22-33469R1Smoking and Pre-existing Co-morbidities as Risk Factors for Developing Severity of COVID-19 Infection: Evidence from a Field Hospital in a Rural Area of BangladeshPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Islam,

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 Sep 18 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,

Mosharop Hossian

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The Manuscript investigates an interesting topic however, the authors did not provide highly considerable finding as follows:

1- The authors did not get any permission from the patients to use their data. Even if the data are de-identified in the hospital archives, patients shall be asked to get their permission as a part of the ethical rights of patients.

2- The authors did not explain the reason behind applying two different statistical tests for association.

3- The age variable is not investigated properly. The association of age groups with respect to COVID severity shall be used according to the WHO classification of age groups by infection (not below 60 and above 60 years old).

4- The discussion section needs an additional improvement to link the finding of the paper with the published data. The authors compared their finding only with a limited number of published studies. Thus, the contradiction of association (mentioned in the introduction) is not addressed again in the discussion to fill this research gap.

Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for the great work on this manuscript.

Just a few comments:

In line 74: “However, patients with ….” Do you mean “However, in other studies patients with ..”? if not please rephrase.

In line 78: it states there are only a couple of studies in Bangladesh as of now

The mentioned one in the manuscript is referenced as [6]: Mohsin FM, Tonmon TT, Nahrin R, Tithy SA, Ame FA, Ara I, et al. Association Between 352 Smoking and COVID-19 Severity: Evidence from Bangladesh. J Multidiscip Healthc 353 [Internet]. 2021 Jul [cited 2021 Aug 26];14:1923. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC8315768/

What is the other study?

Line 85 and 86: can you rephrase this part? the purpose of the hospital was to manage COVID-19 outbreak from when to when?

Line 90: “…during the study period.” Only during that time?

Line 92: “…supplied as well” and line 94: “…deployed to run ….. ensured ...” by who ? or rephrase please.

172: Severity “of”

334: Conclusion

can you please add specific recommendation for smoking and COVID-19

Thank you for the great work again.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript requires improvement in its English language usage. While the content is satisfactory, the writing needs to be enhanced. The author should focus on refining the methods, results, and conclusion sections.

Reviewer #4: General comments:

The authors present a paper on hospital-level data of COVID-19 patients, their disease severity and the association of disease severity and selected risk factors. The study is carefully thought out and statistically sound. There are a few points that the authors might consider to strengthen the overall contribution.

The title of this paper suggests that the primary association that is under investigation is between COVID-19 disease severity and smoking. However, there is little background on tobacco use behaviors in the country and the level of detailed data collected and analyzed is very superficial.

A stronger rationale for the co-morbidities chosen would help frame the aims of the paper.

Careful proofreading of the flow of English would help with clarity in some parts (eg – Introduction) of the paper. Also, please check spellings of words.

Introduction:

General comments:

The authors present a succinct literature review stating the existing research on COVID-19 risk and associated risk factors. It may help to present some background data on the impact of COVID-19 in the country or region. Also, what is the burden of disease and associated risk factors for CVD and diabetes? It would help to have more on this to frame the issue.

Regarding the use of tobacco, what is the most commonly used form of tobacco? If you have data on frequency or amount smoked per day that would be interesting. Did you account for chewing tobacco use?

Please add citation for statement on line59:

“Smokers are 34% more likely to contract the common flu than non-smokers.”

Methods:

Did you have a pre-specified analysis plan? if so it would be good to state this.

It is not fully clear from your description of your data, or statistical analysis what “factors” you are assessing other than smoking. What are the other co-morbidities and how were they defined (lab values, cut-offs, self-report)?

Results:

The results of this study are not surprising. Did you consider any interaction effects (smoking*CVD or smoking*COPD or Diabetes*CVD)?

Discussion and Conclusion

The data was collected over several waves, and so I wondered if there was any discussion on how vaccination uptake may/may not have moderated the severity of disease? If this was not collected or considered in the analysis, then it should be discussed as a limitation.

I think that the discussion could be expanded a bit to draw a connection to the policy and practice implications stated in the conclusion.

Reviewer #5: Reviewer Comments for "Smoking and Pre-existing Co-morbidities as Risk Factors for Developing Severity of COVID-19 Infection: Evidence from a Field Hospital in a Rural Area of Bangladesh"

Summary

This study is a retrospective analysis of COVID-19 hospital admissions to a rural hospital in Bangladesh. It is unique in its description of its target population in a rural, low-resource setting. It is commendable to find detailed hospital records that could test the association between co-morbidities like COPD, Hypertension, Asthma and CVD with the propensity to develop moderate, severe and critical COVID-19 infection. It also tested the association between demographic characteristics like age, gender and risk habits like smoking with COVID-19 severity. The authors successfully tested the relationship using bivariate analysis (Chi-square analysis and Fisher's exact test) and multivariate analysis (Multinomial logistic regression). The results were presented in clear and concise tables. This study is precise in its aims and has successfully met them. The following comments could improve the study's reporting and enhance the paper's quality.

Abstract

1. Line # 23: "Based on inclusion criteria;" seems redundant. You could say that "788

admitted patients were included in the analysis."

2. Line # 34: A measure of association to the result would increase its credibility –"It was

evident that the patients with at least one of the selected co-morbidities (e.g.,

hypertension, diabetes, COPD, CVD, asthma) had suffered severe illness of COVID-19

compared to the patients who had no co-morbidity."

Background

The background clearly describes COVID-19 infection and how co-morbidities influence it.

Materials and Methods

1. Line 85-96: The study setting gives a detailed description of the field hospital in Teknaf. A brief description of the catchment area/patient population would enhance this description. One or two lines on the patient population - regarding their socio-economic status, dominant occupation, etc.- will help set the study context.

2. Line 153-154: To improve the multinomial logistic regression model reporting, you could mention the independent variables (predictors) used in the analysis. To be more specific, listing the control variables used in the model that examines the "adjusted relationship" between the severity of COVID-19 infection and smoking could help understand the regression model.

3. Line 141: If a categorical variable like the Severity of Covid-19 infection is used as the dependent variable, it would help to mention the reference category and why it was used as a reference category. The justification could be linked to the implications of the result if possible.

4. Line 154: You could include measures of model fit to assess how well the model fits the data. Common goodness-of-fit statistics for multinomial logistic regression include the likelihood ratio chi-square test, the McFadden's pseudo R-squared, or the AIC (Akaike Information Criterion). It is mentioned in the results section but can be mentioned in the methodology section.

5. Could you justify why current and past smokers were combined as one variable? Was it because of uneven distribution across the two categories? Or was it because of a lack of differentiation between the two categories in the database?

6. Were there any missing data or incomplete records?

Results

1. Line 170: The title of the table could be more elaborate. You could detail what kind of characteristics-demographic/ clinical you are showing. In addition, you could specify what kind of patients you are describing-COVID-19 patients admitted to the field hospital. A detailed title will help quick readers skim through your results.

2. Line 179: Table 2 shows the distribution of variables in addition to association. Could you highlight that in your title?

3. Line 205: You could list what the other variables/confounders were added to your final model.

4. Line 207-271: Please rework reporting the RRR interpretation. For example, in Line 208: It would make sense if you could say that hypertensive patients were 4.75 times more likely to develop critical severity of COVID-10 than non-hypertensive patients. The outcome and the comparator group must be reported together. The different categories must not be compared with each other unless the analysis puts one of them as the reference category.

5. Line 217: Please specify the comparator group(those not suffering from COPD).

6. Line 218: Please specify the comparator group similar to how you have described in line 224.

7. Line 223: RRR shows increased odds of developing moderate/severe/critical COVID-19 infection from the reference mild COVID-19 infection. You could report … "more risks higher odds of reporting critical, severe, and moderate COVID-19 infected patients, infections than mild COVID-19 infection, when compared to adults …Reference category has to be specified when interpreting the relative risk ratio.

Discussion

1. Line 303: Can you rule out misclassification errors that could occur if the patient did not know if they had CVD, COPD or hypertension prior to COVID-19 infection? Were they tested for all these co-morbidities in the hospital? Were these co-morbidities diagnosed prior to the admission (hospital records of the only facility in the area) or during admission (first-time patients, refugees with no prior records) etc.

2. If you could describe your study population, the results could be generalised to this group. This could be a strength of your study, as it describes the particular group.

3. Line 311: As you mentioned that a significant proportion of the population is unaware of their co-morbidities, you could suggest mass awareness campaigns should be coupled with diagnostic infrastructure the target population could access.

Acknowledgement

I am glad that the authors have acknowledged the support staff and managers who make hospital records a rich resource for researchers. To be able to extract data without missing reports or incomplete reports is a feat.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes: Preetha Menon

**********

[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 Dec 8;18(12):e0295040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295040.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


11 Aug 2023

Dear Mosharop Hossian,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you and the reviewers for taking the time to assess our manuscript titled "Smoking and Pre-existing Co-morbidities as Risk Factors for Developing Severity of COVID-19 Infection: Evidence from a Field Hospital in a Rural Area of Bangladesh." We value the constructive feedback provided by the reviewers, and we have carefully addressed each point raised in the reviews.

Please find our detailed responses below, along with the corresponding changes made in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1: The Manuscript investigates an interesting topic however; the authors did not provide highly considerable findings as follows:

Comment 1- The authors did not get any permission from the patients to use their data. Even if the data are de-identified in the hospital archives, patients shall be asked to get their permission as a part of the ethical rights of patients.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. In the ethical clearance section, we mention that the participant provided verbal consent. In order to make it more understandable, we have rephrased it.

Comment: 2- The authors did not explain the reason behind applying two different statistical tests for association.

Response: We appreciate your comment regarding the statistical tests. The decision to apply two different statistical tests, Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test, for association was based on established statistical principles. While the Chi-square test is commonly used for identifying associations between categorical variables, it may yield less reliable results when the Expected cell frequency is less than 5. In such cases, Fisher's exact test provides a more robust measure. In this study, we found that the Expected cell frequency was less than 5 for certain variables, including Age, Diabetes, COPD, CVD, and Asthma. Hence, we opted for Fisher's exact test to ensure a more accurate and reliable analysis for these specific variables.

Comment: 3- The age variable is not investigated properly. The association of age groups with respect to COVID severity shall be used according to the WHO classification of age groups by infection (not below 60 and above 60 years old).

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We acknowledge the importance of using age groups based on the WHO classification for COVID-19 severity analysis. Regarding the age variable, we chose to categorize patients as "adults" (18-60 years) and "elderly" (>60 years) due to the observed significant association between these age groups and the severity of COVID-19 infection in the pilot analysis.

Comment: 4- The discussion section needs an additional improvement to link the finding of the paper with the published data. The authors compared their findings only with a limited number of published studies. Thus, the contradiction of association (mentioned in the introduction) is not addressed again in the discussion to fill this research gap.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. Based on your suggestions, we have now enhanced the discussion section by adding a few references addressing the contradiction of association.

Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for the great work on this manuscript. Just a few comments:

Comment: In line 74: “However, patients with ….” Do you mean “However, in other studies patients with.”? if not please rephrase.

Response: We appreciate the comment. We have rephrased the sentence in line 74 to clarify the statement with a proper citation which now can be found on line number 98 to 100: " However, a study conducted on symptomatic patients found that COPD and asthma alone did not lead to worsening infections, hospitalizations, or deaths associated with COVID-19 [30]

Comment: In line 78: it states there are only a couple of studies in Bangladesh as of now The mentioned one in the manuscript is referenced as [6]: Mohsin FM, Tonmon TT, Nahrin R, Tithy SA, Ame FA, Ara I, et al. Association Between 352 Smoking and COVID-19 Severity: Evidence from Bangladesh. J Multidiscip Healthc 353 [Internet]. 2021 Jul [cited 2021 Aug 26];14:1923. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC8315768/ What is the other study?

Response: We appreciate your keen observation and valuable input. Since we have only found one study as of now, we have rephrased the statement in line 78, which can be found in lines 102 to 104, as follows: " Despite several studies in many countries, to date, only one study has been found in Bangladesh on the associated risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, such as smoking [6] and other co-morbidities."

Comment: Line 85 and 86: can you rephrase this part? the purpose of the hospital was to manage COVID-19 outbreak from when to when?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's comment and helpful suggestion for rephrasing. The revised version of the sentence, now found on line number 92, reads: "As part of the COVID-19 outbreak management, operations began on August 27, 2020, and are still in progress"

Comment: Line 90: “…during the study period.” Only during that time? Line 92: “…supplied as well (by the donor)” and line 94: “…deployed to run ….. ensured ...” by who ? or rephrase please.

Response: Thank you so much, I really appreciate it. The free of charge is not only during the study period but still in progress. The materials were supplied by the Donor and deployed by the ICDDR, B. The following points are now clearly stated to make it clearer, as shown in line numbers 116-121.

Comment: 172: Severity “of”, 334: Conclusion can you please add specific recommendations for smoking and COVID-19 Thank you for the great work again.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The missing preposition "of" has now been added to new line 191 and the formatting mark has been removed from your mentioned line number, which is now line 370. We have also added the following specific recommendations which can be found in lines number 378 and 384, read as: “It is recommended that public health interventions should prioritize smoking cessation programs and awareness campaigns to reduce smoking prevalence among the population, particularly those with comorbidities. Furthermore, efforts should be made to enhance the early detection and management of hypertension, diabetes, COPD, and asthma in the community to mitigate the severity of COVID-19 infections and improve overall health outcomes.”

Reviewer #3, Comment: The manuscript requires improvement in its English language usage. While the content is satisfactory, the writing needs to be enhanced. The author should focus on refining the methods, results, and conclusion sections.

Response: Thank you for acknowledging the satisfactory content of our manuscript. We have taken your comments seriously and have focused on refining the English language usage in the methods, results, and conclusion sections to ensure better readability and clarity. We believe that these improvements will enhance the overall presentation of our findings and make them more accessible to the readers. Your valuable input has been instrumental in improving the quality of our manuscript, and we are grateful for your guidance.

Reviewer #4: General comments: The authors present a paper on hospital-level data of COVID-19 patients, their disease severity and the association of disease severity and selected risk factors. The study is carefully thought out and statistically sound. There are a few points that the authors might consider to strengthen the overall contribution.

Comment: The title of this paper suggests that the primary association that is under investigation is between COVID-19 disease severity and smoking. However, there is a little background on tobacco use behaviors in the country, and the level of detailed data collected and analyzed is very superficial.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have enhanced our background by adding the following details “Bangladesh is significant, with nearly 35% of adults smoking or smokeless tobacco currently. Since 2004, this lower middle-income country has witnessed a dramatic increase in the health and economic burden linked to tobacco use, as evidenced by primary data from a nationally representative survey of patients with tobacco-related illnesses. Tobacco smoking significantly contributes to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, underscoring the imperative to address tobacco control measures to mitigate its impact on both public health and economic growth.”

Comment: A stronger rationale for the co-morbidities chosen would help frame the aims of the paper.

Response: Rational about some co-morbidities have already been addressed, and the rationale about diabetes as a co-morbidity has been newly added and can be read as” Diabetic patients with COVID-19 have a more severe condition and poorer clinical outcomes, including a higher mortality rate and a higher ICU admission rate, highlighting the necessity for better management strategies in order to improve their prognosis.”

Comment: Careful proofreading of the flow of English would help with clarity in some parts (eg – Introduction) of the paper. Also, please check spelling of words.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have now carefully proofread the manuscript and corrected any misspelled words found.

Comment: Introduction: General comments: The authors present a succinct literature review stating the existing research on COVID-19 risk and associated risk factors. It may help to present some background data on the impact of COVID-19 in the country or region. Also, what is the burden of disease and associated risk factors for CVD and diabetes? It would help to have more on this to frame the issue.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have background data on the impact of COVID-19 in the country (Bangladesh), and this can be found in line # as “. In Bangladesh, the first 3 COVID-19 cases were detected on March 2020[4]and more than 2.0 million COVID-19 cases were identified, including about 29,300 deaths till August 10, 2022”. Although the burden of the co-morbidities like CVD and Diabetes were not our primary focus of the study, however, we have added a background related to burden of diabetes in the country in the introduction section.

Comment: Regarding the use of tobacco, what is the most commonly used form of tobacco? If you have data on the frequency or amount smoked per day that would be interesting. Did you account for chewing tobacco use?

Response: Thank you for your question. All the patient included in the study verbally acknowledged that they were smoking cigarette. The study did not specifically collect data on the frequency or amount smoked per day. Additionally, chewing tobacco use was not accounted for in the analysis, as the study focused primarily on the association between smoking and COVID-19 severity. However, we have included a clarification in the manuscript to explicitly mention that the study focused on cigarette smoking.

Comment: Please add citation for statement on line59: “Smokers are 34% more likely to contract the common flu than non-smokers.”

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have now added the citation and can be found on the new line number # 60

Comment: Methods: Did you have a pre-specified analysis plan? if so it would be good to state this. It is not fully clear from your description of your data, or statistical analysis what “factors” you are assessing other than smoking. What are the other co-morbidities and how were they defined (lab values, cut-offs, self-report)?

Response: Thank you for your question. The following were considered in the Analysis plan: “ COPD, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes were diagnosed based on patient history, clinical features, and radiological and laboratory findings. The severity of COVID-19 infection was determined based on WHO standards. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency and percentage of background, characteristics, severity levels of COVID-19 infections, pre-existing comorbidities, and smoking history. To assess the association between main variables of interest (e.g. history of smoking, underlying co-morbidities) and severity of COVID-19 infection, Pearson's Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test are used. Multinomial logistic regression models were used to identify potential risk factors and determine the effect size of these factors on the progression of COVID-19 infection severity in the patients. To measure statistical significance, a P-value of 0.05 was considered.”

Comment: Results: The results of this study are not surprising. Did you consider any interaction effects (smoking*CVD or smoking*COPD or Diabetes*CVD)?

Response: Thank you for your question. The study primarily focused on assessing the individual effects of various risk factors on the severity of COVID-19 infection. While the potential for interaction effects, such as smoking interacting with CVD or COPD, and diabetes interacting with CVD, could provide valuable insights, these specific interaction effects were not investigated in this study. The focus was primarily on understanding the independent contributions of each factor to the severity of COVID-19 infection.

Discussion and Conclusion

Comment: The data was collected over several waves, and so I wondered if there was any discussion on how vaccination uptake may/may not have moderated the severity of disease? If this was not collected or considered in the analysis, then it should be discussed as a limitation. I think that the discussion could be expanded a bit to draw a connection to the policy and practice implications stated in the conclusion.

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. As a result of your feedback, we have mentioned our limitation as 'The vaccination uptake and its potential role in moderating the severity of COVID-19 infection were not considered in the analysis'. Also, the clinical team did not perform spirometry to diagnose COPD.”Furthermore, to address your point, we have expanded our conclusion and it reads as follows: Also, it is recommended that public health interventions should prioritize smoking cessation programs and awareness campaigns to reduce smoking prevalence among the population, particularly those with comorbidities. Among the vulnerable group of people, the implementation of mass awareness campaigns along with diagnostic infrastructure concerning pre-existing co-morbidities may result in a reduction of severity and mortality rate.”

Reviewer #5: Reviewer Comments for "Smoking and Pre-existing Co-morbidities as Risk Factors for Developing Severity of

COVID-19 Infection: Evidence from a Field Hospital in a Rural Area of Bangladesh"

Summary

This study is a retrospective analysis of COVID-19 hospital admissions to a rural hospital in Bangladesh. It is unique in its description of its target population in a rural, low-resource setting. It is commendable to find detailed hospital records that could test the association between co-morbidities like COPD, Hypertension, Asthma and CVD with the propensity to develop moderate, severe and critical COVID-19 infection. It also tested the association between demographic characteristics like age, gender and risk habits like smoking with COVID-19 severity. The authors successfully tested the relationship using bivariate analysis (Chi-square analysis and Fisher's exact test) and multivariate analysis (Multinomial logistic regression).

The results were presented in clear and concise tables. This study is precise in its aims and has successfully met them. The following comments could improve the study's reporting and enhance the paper's quality.

Abstract

Comment: 1. Line # 23: "Based on inclusion criteria;" seems redundant. You could say that "788 admitted patients were included in the analysis."

Response: We appreciate your suggestion. Now, we have made this change and can be found in line number #137

Comment: 2. Line # 34: A measure of association to the result would increase its credibility –"It was evident that the patients with at least one of the selected co-morbidities (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, COPD, CVD, asthma) had suffered severe illness of COVID-19 compared to the patients who had no co-morbidity."

Response: Thank you so much. We have made the necessary adjustment to the sentence you mentioned: "It was evident that patients with at least one of the selected co-morbidities (such as hypertension, diabetes, COPD, CVD, asthma) exhibited a significantly higher likelihood of experiencing severe illness due to COVID-19 compared to patients without any co-morbidity." This revision emphasizes the statistically significant association between the presence of co-morbidities and the severity of COVID-19 infection, thus strengthening the credibility of our results. You can find this on new line numbers 37-41

Background

The background clearly describes COVID-19 infection and how co-morbidities influence it.

Materials and Methods

Comment: 1. Line 85-96: The study setting gives a detailed description of the field hospital in Teknaf. A brief description of the catchment area/patient population would enhance this description. One or two lines on the patient population - regarding their socio-economic status, dominant occupation, etc.- will help set the study context.

Response: We greatly appreciate your feedback and suggestion to provide more context regarding the catchment area and patient population. While we acknowledge the importance of socio-economic status and its potential impact on the study findings, we regret to inform you that we did not include participants' socio-economic status in our analysis due to the emergency of Covid-19 pandemic at hospital setup. As you correctly pointed out, our analysis primarily focused on factors such as age, sex, smoking history, and underlying co-morbidities in relation to the severity of COVID-19 infection which are considered highly relevant to the COVID-19 severity.

Comment: 2. Line 153-154: To improve the multinomial logistic regression model reporting, you could mention the independent variables (predictors) used in the analysis. To be more specific, listing the control variables used in the model that examines the "adjusted relationship" between the severity of COVID-19 infection and smoking could help understand the regression model.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have addressed your point and rephrased the sentence by adding the control variables and can be found in new line numbers #184-#188 as” The following equation (2) was estimated to examine the relationship between the severity of COVID-19 infection and the history of smoking with control variables, such as age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, COPD, CVD, and asthma.”

Comment: 3. Line 141: If a categorical variable like the Severity of Covid-19 infection is used as the dependent variable, it would help to mention the reference category and why it was used as a reference category. The justification could be linked to the implications of the result if possible.

Response: Multinomial logistic regression models [27] were used to identify the potential risk factors and measure the effect size of these factors on the progression of severity of COVID-19 infection in the patients where "mild case" was used as a reference category’ because severity increases from mild to critical when the factors of interest are present. We have now rephrased and updated the manuscript.

Comment: 4. Line 154: You could include measures of model fit to assess how well the model fits the data. Common goodness-of-fit statistics for multinomial logistic regression include the likelihood ratio chi-square test, the McFadden's pseudo R-squared, or the AIC (Akaike Information Criterion). It is mentioned in the results section but can be mentioned in the methodology section.

Response: The following equation (2) was estimated to examine the adjusted relationship between the severity of COVID-19 infection and the history of smoking with control variables. We mentioned the likelihood ratio chi-square test and McFadden's pseudo-R-squared values in the results section for assessing the fit of the model to the data.

Comment: 5. Could you justify why current and past smokers were combined as one variable? Was it because of uneven distribution across the two categories? Or was it because of a lack of differentiation between the two categories in the database?

Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Our primary focus was to assess the impact of smoking on the severity of COVID-19, rather than evaluating its duration. While there was a distinction between the two categories in our database, the differentiation was based on verbal acknowledgment from the patients. Collecting concrete evidence regarding a patient's smoking status, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 situation, is challenging and often relies on verbal consent due to the limitations posed by the circumstances.

Comment: 6. Were there any missing data or incomplete records?

Response: Thank you. No missing data or incomplete records were included in the study. We extracted data that aligned with our predefined inclusion criteria, ensuring a comprehensive and complete dataset for our analysis.

Results

Comment: 1. Line 170: The title of the table could be more elaborate. You could detail what kind of characteristics-demographic/ clinical you are showing. In addition, you could specify what kind of patients you are describing-COVID-19 patients admitted to the field hospital. A detailed title will help quick readers skim through your results.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your suggestion for a more informative and comprehensive title for the table. We have updated the title as per your recommendation to enhance clarity and aid quick readers in comprehending the content. The revised title now reads “Table 1: Distribution of Patient Characteristics and Co-morbidities in COVID-19 Cases”. We hope this revised title effectively communicates the scope of the table's contents and provides a clear overview for readers.

Comment: 2. Line 179: Table 2 shows the distribution of variables in addition to association. Could you highlight that in your title?

Response: Thank you for your valuable input. We have revised the title of the table to accurately reflect its contents. The new title is: “Table 2: Distribution and Association of Patient Characteristics with Severity of COVID-19 Infection” which highlights both the distribution of patient characteristics and their association with the severity of COVID-19 infection, as indicated in the table.

Comment: 3. Line 205: You could list what the other variables/confounders were added to your final model.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this. We have now added the other confounders included in the final model and rephrased them as follows” As potential risk factors, the following variables were incorporated into the final model (adjusted model): smoking history, hypertension, diabetes, COPD, CVD, asthma, gender, and age (>60 years old - elderly). In the adjusted model, while smoking history was recognized as a risk factor contributing to the severity of COVID-19 infection, it was not associated with moderate and critical levels of severity.” You can find this on the new line number # 246-251

Comment: 4. Line 207-271: Please rework reporting the RRR interpretation. For example, in Line 208: It would make sense if you could say that. The outcome and the comparator group must be reported together. The different categories must not be compared with each other unless the analysis puts one of them as the reference category.

5. Line 217: Please specify the comparator group(those not suffering from COPD).

6. Line 218: Please specify the comparator group similar to how you have described in line 224.

7. Line 223: RRR shows increased odds of developing moderate/severe/critical COVID-19 infection from the reference mild COVID-19 infection. You could report … "more risks higher odds of reporting critical, severe, and moderate COVID-19 infected patients, infections than mild COVID-19 infection, when compared to adults …Reference category has to be specified when interpreting the relative risk ratio.

Responses (4, 5, 6, 7): Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. The sentences have now been rephrased based on your feedback and can be found on new lines 250- 270

Discussion

Comment: 1. Line 303: Can you rule out misclassification errors that could occur if the patient did not know if they had CVD, COPD or hypertension prior to COVID-19 infection? Were they tested for all these co-morbidities in the hospital? Were these comorbidities diagnosed prior to the admission (hospital records of the only facility in the area) or during admission (first time patients, refugees with no prior records) etc.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. While the patients in our study were tested clinically and laboratory confirmation for these co-morbidities during their hospital stay, there is a possibility that some patients may not have been aware of their pre-existing conditions. This particularly applies to first-time patients, like the Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals (FDMN) refugees, who might lack prior medical records. These points have also been addressed and rephrased in the manuscript and can be found on lines 138-140 in the methodology section.

Comment: 2. If you could describe your study population, the results could be generalized to this group. This could be a strength of your study, as it describes the particular group.

Response: We appreciate the idea. This study population can be found in the study setting section, which states that "The hospital is a not-for-profit organization serving locals, and Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals (FDMN) in Teknaf."

Comment: 3. Line 311: As you mentioned that a significant proportion of the population is unaware of their co-morbidities, you could suggest mass awareness campaigns should be coupled with diagnostic infrastructure the target population could access.

Response: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Our conclusion section now discusses the need to link mass awareness campaigns with diagnostic infrastructure and can be found on line 378-380.

Acknowledgment

Comment: I am glad that the authors have acknowledged the support staff and managers who make hospital records a rich resource for researchers. To be able to extract data without missing reports or incomplete reports is a feat.

Response: Yes, acknowledging the staff behind the data is an honor and we appreciate your valuable comments.

In addition to addressing the specific points raised by the reviewers, we have carefully proofread and improved the manuscript language to correct any grammatical errors and ensure clarity. We believe that these revisions significantly enhance the quality and impact of the manuscript.

Once again, we are grateful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our work. We sincerely hope that the changes made in the manuscript adequately address the reviewers' concerns and meet the standards of the [Journal Name]. We eagerly await further guidance and feedback from you and the reviewers.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Md. Rashadul Islam

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Steve Zimmerman

3 Nov 2023

PONE-D-22-33469R2Smoking and Pre-existing Co-morbidities as Risk Factors for Developing Severity of COVID-19 Infection: Evidence from a Field Hospital in a Rural Area of BangladeshPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Islam,

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.

The manuscript has been evaluated by three of  the reviewers who provided feedback on the previous version of your paper, and their comments are available below. The reviewers are satisfied with the revisions you made in response to their comments, but they have a few requests for minor amendments. Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 16 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,

Steve Zimmerman, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing the previous comments and the great work on the manuscript language.

Minor comments:

In line 97, the word "hospitalization" is duplicated, please delete.

from line 110 to 112: please rephrase this to be more understandable. For example: It used to serve as ... and since August 27, 2020, it began to serve as .. and continue until now.

In line 116: since the hospital, it's services and supplies still continue to serve people for free, please adjust the grammar of the sentence accordingly.

In line 137: can you please clarify if this sentences is being referenced to reference number [32] and what information the reference is supporting? [32]: if not please check your references, as reference [32] is only mentioned in this line.

According to your response to the reviewer, you stated that "We chose to categorize patients as "adults" (18-60 years) and "elderly" (>60 years) due to the observed significant association between these age groups and the severity of COVID-19 infection in the pilot analysis." I would suggest adding this information to the manuscript.

line 380: please rephase.

Reviewer #4: Thank you for your revision. I find the manuscript much improved. I only have a few comments for the authors to address:

Background, line 105-106: "...either cigarettes or other tobacco products..." Only cigarette smoking is addressed in the manuscript and so if other tobacco products were not considered it should be noted as a limitation or the reference to these should be removed.

Methods, line137: remove (why was this reference deleted?)

Results, line 250: word choice "riskier" is awkward

Discussion:

You did not analyze the effects of sex and smoking combined, and it is noted here in your manuscript, but it should be noted as a limitation as there may be an interaction effect on men being more likely to develop severe COVID due to more of them being smokers.

What do you make of the non-significance of the association between smoking status and critical COVID in the adjusted model?

line 301: "consistence" should be "consistent"

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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 Dec 8;18(12):e0295040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295040.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


4 Nov 2023

Date: 04.11.2023

Subject: Response to Reviewers - Manuscript Number PONE-D-22-33469R1.

Dear Steve Zimmerman,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you and the reviewers for taking the time to assess our manuscript titled "Smoking and Pre-existing Co-morbidities as Risk Factors for Developing Severity of COVID-19 Infection: Evidence from a Field Hospital in a Rural Area of Bangladesh." We value the constructive feedback provided by the reviewers, and we have carefully addressed each point raised in the reviews.

Please find our detailed responses below, along with the corresponding changes made in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing the previous comments and the great work on the manuscript language.

Reviewer comment #1: In line 97, the word "hospitalization" is duplicated, please delete.

Author repones: Thank you. Now the duplicate has been removed.

Reviewer comment #2: from line 110 to 112: please rephrase this to be more understandable. For example: It used to serve as ... and since August 27, 2020, it began to serve as .. and continue until now.

Author response: We appreciate your feedback. It has now been rephrased as ” The hospital, initiated as part of COVID-19 outbreak management in Teknaf, began operations on August 27, 2020, and it is still actively providing services to the local population and Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals (FDMN) as a not-for-profit organization”

Reviewer comment #3: In line 116: since the hospital, it's services and supplies still continue to serve people for free, please adjust the grammar of the sentence accordingly.

Author response: We've corrected the grammar, and it now reads “Besides; 24/7 Emergency, Out-Patient Department, radiology, laboratory services, and referral by ambulance to higher level facilities in Cox’s Bazar district remain available free of charge”

Reviewer comment #4: In line 137: can you please clarify if this sentences is being referenced to reference number [32] and what information the reference is supporting? [32]: if not, please check your references, as reference [32] is only mentioned in this line.

According to your response to the reviewer, you stated that "We chose to categorize patients as "adults" (18-60 years) and "elderly" (>60 years) due to the observed significant association between these age groups and the severity of COVID-19 infection in the pilot analysis." I would suggest adding this information to the manuscript.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. There was an unnecessary text, and it has now been removed. Your suggestions have also been incorporated into the manuscript

Reviewer comment #5: line 380: please rephase.

Author response: We have revised the line (new line #386), and it now reads: “Also, it is recommended that public health initiatives prioritize extensive smoking cessation programs and awareness campaigns aimed at reducing smoking rates, particularly among individuals with pre-existing health conditions. Additionally, enhancing diagnostic infrastructure for those with comorbidities can aid in the timely identification of their health issues.”

Reviewer #4: Thank you for your revision. I find the manuscript much improved. I only have a few comments for the authors to address:

Reviewer comment #1: Background, line 105-106: "...either cigarettes or other tobacco products..." Only cigarette smoking is addressed in the manuscript and so if other tobacco products were not considered it should be noted as a limitation or the reference to these should be removed.

Author response: We appreciate your attention to this matter. We have now clarified in the methodology section (line number #164) that our study considers both cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use as part of the broader category of smoking. This approach allows us to encompass a wide range of tobacco consumption habits.

Reviewer comment #2: Methods, line137: remove (why was this reference deleted?)

Author response: Thank you. Now it has been removed

Reviewer comment #3: Results, line 250: word choice "riskier" is awkward

Author response: We have changed the word "riskier" to "more prone".

Reviewer comment #4: Discussion: You did not analyze the effects of sex and smoking combined, and it is noted here in your manuscript, but it should be noted as a limitation as there may be an interaction effect on men being more likely to develop severe COVID due to more of them being smokers.

Author response: Thank you for your feedback. The prevalence of smoking, which may influence the severity of COVID-19, was not examined separately for males and females in our study. We acknowledged this limitation in the "Limitations" section (Line number #375), highlighting that we did not analyze the potential interaction effects between sex and smoking that could influence the development of severe COVID-19.

Reviewer comment #5: What do you make of the non-significance of the association between smoking status and critical COVID in the adjusted model?

Author Response: Thank you for your question. The non-significance of the "Critical" category in the adjusted model is likely influenced by the smaller sample size of critical cases compared to severe cases. Additionally, the presence of other significant risk factors, such as hypertension, COPD, and age, in the model may have minimized the influence of smoking status when it comes to critical cases.

Reviewer comment #6: line 301: "consistence" should be "consistent"

Author Response #6: Thank you. We have changed the word.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Md. Rashadul Islam

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-2.docx

Decision Letter 3

Steve Zimmerman

15 Nov 2023

Smoking and Pre-existing Co-morbidities as Risk Factors for Developing Severity of COVID-19 Infection: Evidence from a Field Hospital in a Rural Area of Bangladesh

PONE-D-22-33469R3

Dear Dr. Islam,

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,

Steve Zimmerman, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Steve Zimmerman

30 Nov 2023

PONE-D-22-33469R3

Smoking and Pre-existing Co-morbidities as Risk Factors for Developing Severity of COVID-19 Infection: Evidence from a Field Hospital in a Rural Area of Bangladesh

Dear Dr. Islam:

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 customercare@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 Steve Zimmerman

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (CSV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: To Authors.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response of Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES