Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jan 10;19(1):e0296758. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296758

Cytomegalovirus detection is associated with ICU admission in non-AIDS and AIDS patients with Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia

Alexandre Perret 1,2, Marion Le Marechal 1,2, Raphaele Germi 2,3, Daniele Maubon 2,4, Cécile Garnaud 2,4, Johan Noble 5, Aude Boignard 6, Loïc Falque 7, Mathieu Meunier 8, Théophile Gerster 9, Olivier Epaulard 1,2,10,*
Editor: Benjamin M Liu11
PMCID: PMC10781113  PMID: 38198473

Abstract

Objectives

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is frequently detected in lung and/or blood samples of patients with Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP), although this co-detection is not precisely understood. We aimed to determine whether PJP was more severe in case of CMV detection.

Methods

We retrospectively included all patients with a diagnosis of PJP between 2009 and 2020 in our centre and with a measure of CMV viral load in blood and/or bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL). PJP severity was assessed by the requirement for intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

Results

The median age of the 249 patients was 63 [IQR: 53–73] years. The main conditions were haematological malignancies (44.2%), solid organ transplantations (16.5%), and solid organ cancers (8.8%). Overall, 36.5% patients were admitted to ICU. CMV was detected in BAL in 57/227 patients; the 37 patients with viral load ≥3 log copies/mL were more frequently admitted to ICU (78.4% vs 28.4%, p<0.001). CMV was also detected in blood in 57/194 patients; the 48 patients with viral load ≥3 log copies/mL were more frequently admitted to ICU (68.7% vs 29.4%, p<0.001). ICU admission rate was found to increase with each log of BAL CMV viral load and each log of blood CMV viral load.

Conclusions

PJP is more severe in the case of concomitant CMV detection. This may reflect either the deleterious role of CMV itself, which may require antiviral therapy, or the fact that patients with CMV reactivation are even more immunocompromised.

Introduction

Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP), one of the predominant infections in AIDS, is now acknowledged as an important and increasing threat in other immunocompromised patients [1]. Even when treated, PJP is associated with a high mortality rate ranging from 31% to 60% for non-AIDS patients [2,3], and 10.3% to 13.5% for people with AIDS [4,5]. Several studies [4,6–8] (some of them conducted 30 years ago) reported the detection (by various means) of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in lung samples of AIDS patients with PJP (in a variable proportion depending on the studies). More recently, this has also been reported in non-AIDS patients [9–15], although it should be noted that the first description of this association existed before the AIDS pandemic was known in, for example, a patient receiving busulfan in 1974 [16].

The detection of CMV is still complex to integrate in the management of patients with PJP. When the CMV viral load reaches high values such as 10,000 copies/mL, antiviral therapy is usually introduced in addition to the anti-Pneumocystis treatment; the significance of lower values is not firmly established; e.g., no consensual attitude exist in case of a value of 1,000 copies/mL. Indeed, CMV detection may be interpreted as a non-pathogenic reactivation from the latency reservoir or as a per se deleterious co-infection, depending on the viral load; however, to date, no threshold values have been established.

The aforementioned studies provided contradictory results: some reported higher mortality and longer hospital or ICU stay in the case of concomitant CMV detection [8–11,13,14], while others reported no significant association [7,12]. Nevertheless, the number of studies on the subject remains limited. Further, the majority were performed more than 10 years ago, with a small number of subjects and rarely with non-AIDS patients.

We conducted a study to assess i) the frequency and intensity of CMV detection in non-AIDS and AIDS patients with Pneumocystis infection, and ii) the extent to which CMV detection was associated with severity of PJP.

Materials and methods

Objectives

Our main objective was to explore the association between outcome and CMV detection in patients with PJP. The primary endpoint was the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission related to the PJP episode. We also assessed the length of ICU stay (if any) and 28-day mortality.

Study design

We conducted a retrospective study on all adult (≥18 years) patients in Grenoble-Alpes University Hospital. We considered all patients with a diagnosis of PJP retained by clinicians between July 2009 and January 2020 (we did not retrospectively reassessed the diagnosis); PJP was usually retained in the case of an at-risk medical condition, with an evocative thorax CT scan and a positive P. jirovecii polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) or bronchial aspiration (the thresholds usually applied to fungal load are described below). Among them, we included all patients in whom a search for CMV by PCR in the same BAL as P. jirovecii, or in blood in the week before or after the diagnosis of PJP, or both, had been performed.

P. jirovecii and CMV viral load

In our institution, the diagnosis of PJP relies on the detection of P. jirovecii by PCR on BAL. This method was proven reliable [17]; its high sensitivity leads to use thresholds to differentiate infection from colonisation [18,19]. In the study period, two P. jirovecii PCRs amplifying the nuclear multicopy gene coding for the major surface glycoprotein were used in our institute: from 2009 to 2016, the quantitative P. jirovecii PCR was performed on the Light-cycler 2.0 (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany), and from 2016 to 2020 this PCR was transferred identically to the BD-Max platform (Becton Dickinson, New Jersey, USA). For both PCRs, the interpretation thresholds were established as follows: detectable but < 3,000 copies/ml: probable colonisation; > 30,000 copies/ml: probable PJP; 3,000–30,000 copies/ml: possible PJP (“grey zone”) [20].

For CMV viral load, nucleic acids were extracted from blood using automatic extraction technologies (MagNaPure LC® [Roche Diagnostics] from 2009 to 2017 and eMag [Biomérieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France] since 2017) and from BAL using EasyMag® (Biomérieux) automatic extraction technology. The CMV viral load was measured by real time qPCR by using a CMV R-gene® kit (Biomérieux) on a LightCycler® 480 Instrument II (Roche Diagnostics) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Results were expressed as copies/mL or log10 copies/mL. We conducted some on the analyses by separating patients with blood viral load above or under 3 log copies/mL; indeed, most of guidelines recommend not to treat infection under this value; conversely, the French guidelines for infection in AIDS patients propose to introduce antiviral for value above this threshold [21]. For BAL viral load, as BAL is an intrinsically diluted sample, the choice of the threshold is more complex; by analogy with blood, and even if the two compartiments differ on many points, we used the same cut-off value of 3 log copies/mL.

Data collection

Data for each patient were collected from their electronic medical files and anonymously analysed. Data were collected between the 1st of April and the 15th of May 2020. All patients had signed a consent form for the anonymous use of their medical data for research purposes (a decision that they could revoke at any moment), and information on the retrospective use of anonymised data for research purpose was available for all patients. Due to this process, in accordance with French legislation, it was not required to submit this specific project to an ethical board.

Statistical analysis

The association between continuous and categorical variables was explored using the Mann-Whitney U test, the association between categorical variables using chi-square test, and the association between two continuous variables using the Spearman test.

Data (Excel table) are available on simple email request to the corresponding author.

Results

Study population

We included 249 patients (60.4% men, median age 63 years [IQR 53–73]) (Table 1). The immunosuppressive conditions were haematological malignancies (N = 110, 44.2%), solid organ transplantation (N = 41, 16.5%) (with 14 heart transplantations, 13 kidney transplantations, 8 liver transplantations, and 6 liver transplantations), haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (N = 13, 5.2%), solid cancer (N = 22, 8.8%), immunosuppressive therapy without transplantation or malignancies (N = 36, 14.5%), AIDS (N = 15, 6.0%), and others (N = 12, 5.2%). Median total blood lymphocytes (available in 244 patients at the time of PJP) was 0.4 G/L [0.2–0.8], and median total gammaglobulin levels (available in 145 patients at the diagnosis of PJP or in the preceding 3 months) were 6.7 g/L [4.7–9.7].

Table 1. Patient characteristics according to intensive care unit (ICU) admission or not.

Total
N = 249
Patients admitted to ICU
N = 91
Patients not admitted to ICU
N = 158
p
Age 65 [53–73] 66 [55–73] 65 [53–73] 0.679
Condition Haematological malignancies 110 34 76
Solid organ transplantation 41 13 28
HSCT 13 3 10
Solid cancer 22 8 14
Immunosuppressive therapy without transplantation or malignancies 36 15 21
AIDS 15 10 5
Other 12 8 4
Blood lymphocyte count 0.40 [0.20–0.80] 0.30 [0.10–0.52] 0.40 [0.20–0.90] 0.001
Gammaglobulin in blood (g/L) 6.7 [4.6–9.7] 6.0 [3.8–8.4] 7.4 [5.0–10.3] 0.034
P. jirovecii load in BAL Median [IQR]
log copies/mL
4.9 [4.0–5.9] 5.0 [4.1–6.4] 4.9 [4.0–5.7] 0.166
BAL CMV viral load
N = 227
Median [IQR] log copies/mL 0 [0–1.76] 0 [0–3.42] 0 [0–0] <0.001
Undetectable 170 (74.9%) 44 (53.0%) 126 (87.5%) <0.001
(<3 log vs ≥3 log)
Detectable <3 log 20 (8.8%) 10 (12.0%) 10 (6.9%)
3 to 4 log 21 (9.2%) 13 (15.7%) 8 (5.6%)
≥4 log 16 (7.0%) 16 (19.3%) 0 (0.0%)
Blood CMV viral load
N = 194
Median [IQR] log copies/mL 0 [0–2.94] 0 [0–0.95] 0 [0–0] <0.001
Undetectable 137 (70.6%) 40 (52.6%) 97 (82.2%) <0.001
(<3 log vs ≥3 log)
Detectable <3 log 9 (4.6%) 3 (3.9%) 6 (5.1%)
3 to 4 log 30 (15.5%) 17 (22.4%) 13 (11.0%)
≥4 log 18 (9.3%) 16 (21.1%) 2 (1.7%)
Mortality at 28 days 30 24 (26.4%) 6 (3.8%) <0.001

BAL: Bronchoalveolar lavage; CMV: Cytomegalovirus; HSCT: Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Median P. jirovecii load in BAL was 4.9 log [4.0–5.9] copies/mL; the value was less than 30,000 in 95 patients, including 29 cases with values less than 3,000, meaning that the diagnosis of PJP also depended on other arguments in such cases. AIDS patients had the highest fungal load (7.2 [5.9–8.1] copies/mL).

CMV PCR in BAL was available for 227 patients; CMV was detected in 57 patients (25.1%), including 21 with a viral load between 3 and 4 log copies/mL and 16 above 4 log copies/mL. CMV viral load and P. jirovecii load in BAL were correlated (p<0.001, R = 0.68), and patients with CMV load ≥ 3 log copies/mL had P. jirovecii load 10 times higher than those with a lower or undetectable CMV load (Table 2).

Table 2. Patient characteristics according to cytomegalovirus (CMV) detection in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) or blood.

BAL CMV viral load
(N = 227)
Blood CMV viral load
(N = 194)
<3 log*
(N = 190)
≥3 log
(N = 37)
p <3 log*
(N = 146)
≥3 log
(N = 48)
p
Age (years)
Median [IQR]
65 [53–73] 66 [50–72] 0.673 62 [52–73] 67 [57–73] 0.213
Blood lymphocyte count (G/L)
Median [IQR]
0.40 [0.20–0.90] 0.20 [0.10–0.42] 0.003 0.40 [0.20–0.80] 0.30 [0.10–0.65] 0.185
Gammaglobulin in blood (g/L)
Median [IQR]
6.7 [4.8–10.2] 4.0 [2.8–7.5] 0.002 6.6 [4.8–9.8] 6.1 [3.7–8.8] 0.312
P. jirovecii load in BAL (log copies/mL)
Median [IQR]
4.8 [3.9–5.6] 5.9 [4.8–8.1] <0.001 4.9 [3.9–5.6] 5.9 [4.4–8.1] <0.001
ICU admission N (%) 54/190 (28.4%) 29/37 (78.4%) <0.001 43/146 (29.4%) 33/48 (68.7%) <0.001
ICU lenght of stay (days) 9 [4–18] 18 [9–31] 0.007 10 [4–14] 19 [8–31] 0.001
Mortality at 28 days N (%) 21/190 (11.0%) 5/37 (13.5%) 0.8814 17/146 (12.0%) 4/48 (11.6%) 0.709

ICU = intensive care unit; BAL = bronchoalveolar lavage.

* including patients with undetectable CMV viremia.

Blood CMV viral load was performed in 194 patients; CMV was detected in the blood of 57 patients (29.4%), including 30 with a value between 3 and 4 log copies/mL and 18 with a value above 4 log copies/mL. Those with blood CMV viral load ≥ 3 log copies/mL had P. jirovecii load 10 times higher than those with a lower or undetectable blood CMV load (Table 2).

BAL and blood CMV viral loads were correlated (p<0.001, R = 0.76): 113 patients had negative blood and BAL CMV viral loads, and 24 had blood and BAL CMV viral loads ≥3 log.

ICU admission

Among the 249 patients, 36.5% (91/249) were admitted to ICU; 57 (22.9%) received orotracheal intubation (IOT). Age and P. jirovecii load did not differ according to ICU admission; nevertheless, blood lymphocyte count and gammaglobulin blood concentration were lower in the patients admitted to ICU (Table 1).

CMV viral load in BAL differed according to ICU admission: 34.9% of patients admitted to ICU had BAL viral loads higher than 3.0 log copies/mL versus 5.6% of those not admitted to ICU (p<0.001) (Table 1), while the median BAL CMV viral load was higher in the case of ICU admission (Fig 1). The same association was observed if only patients with P. jirovecii fungal load ≥30,000 were considered. The proportion of ICU admissions was 25.9%, 50.0%, 61.9% and 100% of patients with a BAL CMV viral load that was undetectable, 2 to 3 log, 3 to 4 log, or ≥4 log copies/mL, respectively (p<0.001). Moreover, patients admitted to ICU with a BAL CMV viral load ≥3 log copies/mL stayed in ICU twice as long as those with a BAL CMV viral load <3 log copies/mL or undetectable (Table 2).

Fig 1. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and blood CMV viral load in patients with or without intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

Fig 1

Similarly, blood CMV viral load differed according to ICU admission: 43.5% of patients admitted to ICU had a blood viral load above 3 log copies/mL vs 12.7% of those not admitted to ICU (p<0.001) (Table 1), while the median blood CMV viral load was higher in the case of ICU admission (Fig 1). The same association was observed if only patients with P. jirovecii fungal load ≥30,000 were considered. The proportion of ICU admissions was 29.2%, 33.3%, 56.7% and 88.9% among those with a blood CMV viral load that was undetectable, 2 to 3 log, 3 to 4 log, or ≥4 log copies/mL, respectively (p<0.001). Moreover, patients admitted to ICU with a blood CMV viral load ≥3 log stayed in ICU twice as long as those with a blood CMV viral load <3 log copies/mL or undetectable (Table 2).

When considering both BAL and blood samples, 40 of the 61 (65.6%) patients with BAL and/or blood CMV viral load above 3 log copies/mL were admitted to ICU vs 51 of the 188 (27.1%) patients without BAL or blood viral load above 3 log copies/mL.

Discussion

PJP incidence is increasing, mostly because more patients receive therapy that may lead to an immunocompromised state (especially anti-cancer chemotherapy and immunosuppression in transplantation and autoinflammatory diseases). Meanwhile, AIDS, once the most prominent disease associated with PJP, is less prevalent in most countries. AIDS-associated PJP and PJP associated with immunosuppressive therapy are sometimes considered two different diseases, with a higher fungal load [22] and lower fatality [23] in the former. Steroids have been shown to be favourable in AIDS-associated moderate-to-severe PJP [24], but the routine adjunctive use of glucocorticoids in non-HIV patients with PCP and respiratory failure is not recommended in non-HIV-infected haematology patients by the ECIL [25], or more broadly in non-HIV patients by some authors [26]; it is however recommended by the American Thoracic Society guidelines [27]. Interestingly, some authors warned against the use of steroids in PJP due to the risk of CMV infection in non-AIDS patients [8]. In both populations, concomitant CMV replication/detection has been reported, although the interpretation of this association is not consensual: as already stated, some studies reported a poorer outcome in the case of CMV detection [8–11,13,14], while others did not [7,12]. Recommendations have been extensively produced to guide CMV infection management in patients with AIDS and in other immunocompromised patients, although the specific situation of CMV replication in patients with PJP is not precisely addressed.

We observed that CMV detection in blood or BAL was associated with a worse outcome in PJP patients: those with detectable CMV DNA were more frequently admitted to ICU, while the proportion of ICU admissions increased with CMV viral load. Several interpretations may account for these findings.

Firstly, as CMV is a well-known agent of pneumonia in the immunocompromised host, CMV detection (particularly in BAL) may reflect CMV disease and not only CMV infection. Patients with detectable CMV DNA in BAL would therefore have more severe lung disease than those with only PJP. The fact that we observed a trend between the level of viral load (<3 log, 3 to 4 log, ≥4 log) and the proportion of ICU admission is an important argument for this interpretation. This is also in line with a study reporting that patients with mixed lung infections had higher levels of inflammatory cytokines in BAL than those with “pure” PJP [28]. In addition, in a mouse model of CMV and Pneumocystis infection, more severe lung disease was observed in the case of co-infection [29]. Taken together, these data suggest that antiviral therapy should be applied in patients with PJP and a detectable CMV replication, with a threshold of viral load yet to be defined (given the frequent hematotoxicity of [val]ganciclovir and the frequent nephrotoxicity of foscarnet).

Secondly, the replication of Herpesviridae in the lungs of patients with severe respiratory failure of non-viral origin has been reported in various situations [30], including HSV in Covid-19 [31]. CMV and HSV detection was associated with longer mechanical ventilation (MV) in a study of patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [32]; CMV detection was linked to the duration of MV, length of ICU stay, and 90-day all-cause mortality rate in immunocompetent patients with MV for various conditions [33]. CMV in BAL was even reported to be associated with longer ICU stay in patients with sepsis [34] even without lung failure. Taken together, these data could lead to the interpretation that CMV replication in lung is a bystander event (that is even more frequent in immunocompromised patients) and may reflect the severity of lung damage without necessarily contributing to them, or simply reflect the depth of immunocompromised state. In this interpretation, the association between disease severity and CMV viral load would be due to the fact that more immunocompromised patients may have the worst outcome of PJP and an increased risk of CMV replication, and that CMV infection per se does not impact PJP prognosis. However, the fact that CMV detection was associated with ICU admission independently of immune status (i.e., gammaglobulin blood concentration, total blood lymphocyte count) goes against this interpretation.

To clarify the interpretation of CMV detection in patients with PJP, the impact of CMV therapy should be studied. A clinical trial is nevertheless unlikely to be conducted, as it would only apply to low viral loads: indeed, it would be inappropriate to have an arm without antiviral therapy in patients with high viral loads. Retrospective studies are inconclusive on this point.

Interestingly, CMV detection has been associated with other invasive fungal infections (IFI): for example, a study [35] reported that haematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients with CMV diseases had a higher risk of Aspergillus invasive infection. The contribution of CMV to the physiopathology of IFI may thus be evoked. More simply, the neutropenia frequently associated with anti-CMV therapy may play an important role in these IFI.

Our study has several limitations, the first being its retrospective design. Among others, the diagnosis of PJP was not retrospectively reassessed (in particular, we did not reviewed the chest CT scan), and some patients we included may therefore have P. jirovecii colonisation rather than PJP, which may explain the relatively low mortality rate we observed among those admitted in ICU; however, the fact that the association between ICU admission and CMV detection was still significant when considering only patients with a high fungal load supports the potential link between CMV detection and PJP severity. In addition, the pragmatic proxy that we retained for severity, ICU admission, may be imperfect, as it may be influenced by bed availability, and limitation of life-support techniques (due to age or comorbidities); results could have been different if we had considered oxygen needs (maximal flow required for a SaO2>95%), or the extension of ground-glass opacity on CT scan, or the SaO2 or the PaO2 in room air. Another limit is that we did not expressed the P. jirovecii PCR results as a ratio of a household gene amplification, and these PCR values are therefore highly dependent from BAL dilution. Moreover, we did not assess the influence of antiviral therapy, which may have helped in interpretating the association between CMV detection and PJP outcome. However, it is likely that biases would have prevented us from drawing firm conclusions on this point: as stated, no specific antiviral guidelines exist regarding this situation, and antivirals may have been applied very heterogeneously. In addition, we were not able to totally exclude the possibility that some patients may have had CMV prophylaxis when PJP was diagnosed. Moreover, we did not analysed CMV serology before the onset of PJP; this would had allowed us to discriminate primary infection from reactivation, which differs on several points, including the higher risk of CMV disease of the first. Lastly, some patients may have had pre-existent severe lung impairment (e.g., lymphoid interstitial pneumonia), which may have enhanced the risk of ICU admission.

Conclusion

Blood and BAL detection of CMV is observed in one fourth of patients with PJP, and is associated with a higher rate of ICU admission in this population. Our data may lead to consider that CMV infection is detrimental per se, and not solely a reflection of inflammation and/or failing immune functions. This may suggest that antiviral CMV should be considered in patients with PJP and with CMV detection in blood or BAL, although a viral load threshold is still to be defined.

Data Availability

The data can be find on the OSF depository, at the following link: https://osf.io/3kesf/files/osfstorage/6540f6be87852d1a56a5971c.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Gronseth S, Rogne T, Hannula R, Asvold BO, Afset JE, Damas JK. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of immunocompromised patients infected with Pneumocystis jirovecii in a twelve-year retrospective study from Norway. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21(1):659. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06144-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Liu Y, Su L, Jiang SJ, Qu H. Risk factors for mortality from pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) in non-HIV patients: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8(35):59729–39. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.19927 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sepkowitz KA. Opportunistic infections in patients with and patients without Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34(8):1098–107. doi: 10.1086/339548 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Walzer PD, Evans HE, Copas AJ, Edwards SG, Grant AD, Miller RF. Early predictors of mortality from Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in HIV-infected patients: 1985–2006. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(4):625–33. doi: 10.1086/526778 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Fei MW, Kim EJ, Sant CA, Jarlsberg LG, Davis JL, Swartzman A, et al. Predicting mortality from HIV-associated Pneumocystis pneumonia at illness presentation: an observational cohort study. Thorax. 2009;64(12):1070–6. doi: 10.1136/thx.2009.117846 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bozzette SA, Arcia J, Bartok AE, McGlynn LM, McCutchan JA, Richman DD, et al. Impact of Pneumocystis carinii and cytomegalovirus on the course and outcome of atypical pneumonia in advanced human immunodeficiency virus disease. J Infect Dis. 1992;165(1):93–8. doi: 10.1093/infdis/165.1.93 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Jacobson MA, Mills J, Rush J, Peiperl L, Seru V, Mohanty PK, et al. Morbidity and mortality of patients with AIDS and first-episode Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia unaffected by concomitant pulmonary cytomegalovirus infection. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1991;144(1):6–9. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm/144.1.6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Jensen AM, Lundgren JD, Benfield T, Nielsen TL, Vestbo J. Does cytomegalovirus predict a poor prognosis in Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia treated with corticosteroids? A note for caution. Chest. 1995;108(2):411–4. doi: 10.1378/chest.108.2.411 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Korkmaz Ekren P, Toreyin ZN, Nahid P, Doskaya M, Caner A, Turgay N, et al. The association between Cytomegalovirus co-infection with Pneumocystis pneumonia and mortality in immunocompromised non-HIV patients. Clin Respir J. 2018;12(11):2590–7. doi: 10.1111/crj.12961 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yu Q, Jia P, Su L, Zhao H, Que C. Outcomes and prognostic factors of non-HIV patients with pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia and pulmonary CMV co-infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17(1):392. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2492-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lee S, Park Y, Kim SG, Ko EJ, Chung BH, Yang CW. The impact of cytomegalovirus infection on clinical severity and outcomes in kidney transplant recipients with Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. Microbiol Immunol. 2020;64(5):356–65. doi: 10.1111/1348-0421.12778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kim T, Moon SM, Sung H, Kim MN, Kim SH, Choi SH, et al. Outcomes of non-HIV-infected patients with Pneumocystis pneumonia and concomitant pulmonary cytomegalovirus infection. Scand J Infect Dis. 2012;44(9):670–7. doi: 10.3109/00365548.2011.652665 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Fillatre P, Chevrier S, Revest M, Gacouin A, Jouneau S, Leroy H, et al. Human herpes virus co-infection is associated with mortality in HIV-negative patients with Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2013;32(2):189–94. doi: 10.1007/s10096-012-1730-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kim T, Park SY, Lee HJ, Kim SM, Sung H, Chong YP, et al. Assessment of cytomegalovirus and cell-mediated immunity for predicting outcomes in non-HIV-infected patients with Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(30):e7243. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pliquett RU, Asbe-Vollkopf A, Hauser PM, Presti LL, Hunfeld KP, Berger A, et al. A Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia outbreak in a single kidney-transplant center: role of cytomegalovirus co-infection. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;31(9):2429–37. doi: 10.1007/s10096-012-1586-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Green GI, Levin RL, Pierce LE, Witorsch P. Busulfan lung complicated by pneumocystis carinii and cytomegalovirus infection. Med Ann Dist Columbia. 1974;43(3):124–8.doi. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.McTaggart LR, Wengenack NL, Richardson SE. Validation of the MycAssay Pneumocystis kit for detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii in bronchoalveolar lavage specimens by comparison to a laboratory standard of direct immunofluorescence microscopy, real-time PCR, or conventional PCR. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50(6):1856–9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.05880-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Alanio A, Desoubeaux G, Sarfati C, Hamane S, Bergeron A, Azoulay E, et al. Real-time PCR assay-based strategy for differentiation between active Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia and colonization in immunocompromised patients. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011;17(10):1531–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03400.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Liu B, Totten M, Nematollahi S, Datta K, Memon W, Marimuthu S, et al. Development and Evaluation of a Fully Automated Molecular Assay Targeting the Mitochondrial Small Subunit rRNA Gene for the Detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Specimens. J Mol Diagn. 2020;22(12):1482–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2020.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Maillet M, Maubon D, Brion JP, Francois P, Molina L, Stahl JP, et al. Pneumocystis jirovecii (Pj) quantitative PCR to differentiate Pj pneumonia from Pj colonization in immunocompromised patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;33(3):331–6. doi: 10.1007/s10096-013-1960-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Pd Morlat. [HIV Care—Expert Group Recommendations]. Conseil National du Sida. 2019.doi. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mercier T, Aissaoui N, Gits-Muselli M, Hamane S, Prattes J, Kessler HH, et al. Variable Correlation between Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Fungal Load and Serum-(1,3)-beta-d-Glucan in Patients with Pneumocystosis-A Multicenter ECMM Excellence Center Study. J Fungi (Basel). 2020;6(4). doi: 10.3390/jof6040327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Roux A, Canet E, Valade S, Gangneux-Robert F, Hamane S, Lafabrie A, et al. Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in patients with or without AIDS, France. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014;20(9):1490–7. doi: 10.3201/eid2009.131668 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ewald H, Raatz H, Boscacci R, Furrer H, Bucher HC, Briel M. Adjunctive corticosteroids for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia in patients with HIV infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015(4):CD006150. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006150.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Maschmeyer G, Helweg-Larsen J, Pagano L, Robin C, Cordonnier C, Schellongowski P, et al. ECIL guidelines for treatment of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in non-HIV-infected haematology patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(9):2405–13. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkw158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Injean P, Eells SJ, Wu H, McElroy I, Gregson AL, McKinnell JA. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Data Behind Current Recommendations for Corticosteroids in Non-HIV-Related PCP: Knowing When You Are on Shaky Foundations. Transplant Direct. 2017;3(3):e137. doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000642 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Limper AH, Knox KS, Sarosi GA, Ampel NM, Bennett JE, Catanzaro A, et al. An official American Thoracic Society statement: Treatment of fungal infections in adult pulmonary and critical care patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(1):96–128. doi: 10.1164/rccm.2008-740ST [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chou CW, Lin FC, Tsai HC, Chang SC. The impact of concomitant pulmonary infection on immune dysregulation in Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. BMC Pulm Med. 2014;14:182. doi: 10.1186/1471-2466-14-182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Qureshi MH, Garvy BA, Pomeroy C, Inayat MS, Oakley OR. A murine model of dual infection with cytomegalovirus and Pneumocystis carinii: effects of virus-induced immunomodulation on disease progression. Virus Res. 2005;114(1–2):35–44. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2005.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tachikawa R, Tomii K, Seo R, Nagata K, Otsuka K, Nakagawa A, et al. Detection of herpes viruses by multiplex and real-time polymerase chain reaction in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of patients with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Respiration. 2014;87(4):279–86. doi: 10.1159/000355200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Seessle J, Hippchen T, Schnitzler P, Gsenger J, Giese T, Merle U. High rate of HSV-1 reactivation in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients: Immunological findings. PLoS One. 2021;16(7):e0254129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hraiech S, Bonnardel E, Guervilly C, Fabre C, Loundou A, Forel JM, et al. Herpes simplex virus and Cytomegalovirus reactivation among severe ARDS patients under veno-venous ECMO. Ann Intensive Care. 2019;9(1):142. doi: 10.1186/s13613-019-0616-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zhang Z, Liu X, Sang L, Chen S, Wu Z, Zhang J, et al. Cytomegalovirus reactivation in immunocompetent mechanical ventilation patients: a prospective observational study. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21(1):1026. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06698-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Heininger A, Haeberle H, Fischer I, Beck R, Riessen R, Rohde F, et al. Cytomegalovirus reactivation and associated outcome of critically ill patients with severe sepsis. Crit Care. 2011;15(2):R77. doi: 10.1186/cc10069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Garcia-Vidal C, Upton A, Kirby KA, Marr KA. Epidemiology of invasive mold infections in allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients: biological risk factors for infection according to time after transplantation. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47(8):1041–50. doi: 10.1086/591969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Benjamin M Liu

9 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-27991Cytomegalovirus detection is associated with ICU admission in non-AIDS and AIDS patients with Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumoniaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Epaulard,

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 Nov 03 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,

Benjamin M. Liu, MBBS, PhD, D(ABMM), MB(ASCP)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

""Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Since your aim is to use ICU admission to assess severity, therefore, 36.5% ICU admission is not enough to make a conclusion that “Cytomegalovirus detection is associated with ICU admission in non-AIDS and AIDS patients with Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia”. Kindly re-cast your topic to suite your main findings. Line 96-103 should be written in prose format. Also, no ethical approval obtained for the study.

Provide p value where you compare AID and Non-AID patients in table 1

105: the name of those genes should be specified

133: specify those continuous and categorical variables

134: Check for correct spelling of Chi square

222: Observed association with no p value

The whole conclusion should be re-casted to suite the original findings.

Reviewer #2: 1. In the introduction/discussion, the authors are encouraged to discuss the clinical significance, molecular targets and methodology of detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii in BAL. The authors should cite more references on this perspective, including the three references shown below. The detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii by PCR may be just colonization, rather than true infection. Did the patients under study have any imaging data to be included in this study?

McTaggart LR, Wengenack NL, Richardson SE. Validation of the MycAssay Pneumocystis kit for detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii in bronchoalveolar lavage specimens by comparison to a laboratory standard of direct immunofluorescence microscopy, real-time PCR, or conventional PCR. J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Jun;50(6):1856-9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.05880-11. Epub 2012 Mar 14. PMID: 22422855; PMCID: PMC3372158.

Alanio A, Desoubeaux G, Sarfati C, Hamane S, Bergeron A, Azoulay E, Molina JM, Derouin F, Menotti J. Real-time PCR assay-based strategy for differentiation between active Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia and colonization in immunocompromised patients. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011 Oct;17(10):1531-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03400.x. Epub 2011 Apr 12. PMID: 20946413.

Liu B, Totten M, Nematollahi S, Datta K, Memon W, Marimuthu S, Wolf LA, Carroll KC, Zhang SX. Development and Evaluation of a Fully Automated Molecular Assay Targeting the Mitochondrial Small Subunit rRNA Gene for the Detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Specimens. J Mol Diagn. 2020 Dec;22(12):1482-1493. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2020.10.003. Epub 2020 Oct 15.

2. There is a disconnect between the objectives and the patients enrolled. The authors do not have to emphasize ICU patients in their goals. Though PJP severity was assessed by the requirement for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, there are different other metrics to evaluate the PCP severity.

3. Though the authors proposed that CMV viral load may be associated with PCP, there may be some confounding factors which may be the true reason of the co-incidence of high CMV and PCP. The immunocompromising status may be one of the true reasons. Please discuss this.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Pelumi Daniel Adewole

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jan 10;19(1):e0296758. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296758.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


22 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-27991

Cytomegalovirus detection is associated with ICU admission in non-AIDS and AIDS patients with Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia

Answers to the comments of reviewers

________________________

In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter.

The data can be find on the OSF depository, at the following link: https://osf.io/3kesf/files/osfstorage/6540f6be87852d1a56a5971c

Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

All patients had signed a consent form for the anonymous use of their medical data for research purposes (a decision they could revoke at any moment), and information on the retrospective use of anonymised data for research purpose was available for all patients. Due to this process, in accordance with French legislation, it was not required to submit this specific project to an ethical board. We clarified this in the “Methods” section in the revised version of the manuscript.

Reviewer #1

Since your aim is to use ICU admission to assess severity, therefore, 36.5% ICU admission is not enough to make a conclusion that “Cytomegalovirus detection is associated with ICU admission in non-AIDS and AIDS patients with Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia”.

Having more than one third of the patient with the main outcome could be considered sufficient, in terms of statistical power: having 91 patients out of 249 allows performing robust, classical tests to explore the association of variables with this outcome.

Moreover, it is a rather consensual severity marker: it is likely that most patients admitted in ICU had severe Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, and that most patients not admitted in ICU did not.

Kindly re-cast your topic to suite your main findings.

We are not sure we fully understand this suggestion. Our main findings are about the association between CMV viral load and ICU admission. We rephrased the end of the introduction for better clarity in the revised version of the manuscript.

Line 96-103 should be written in prose format.

This has been done in the revised version of the manuscript.

Also, no ethical approval obtained for the study.

All patients had signed a consent form for the anonymous use of their medical data for research purposes (a decision they could revoke at any moment), and information on the retrospective use of anonymised data for research purpose was available for all patients. Due to this process, in accordance with French legislation, it was not required to submit this specific project to an ethical board. We clarified this in the “Methods” section in the revised version of the manuscript.

Provide p value where you compare AID and Non-AID patients in table 1

There is no comparison between AIDS and not-AIDS patients in the manuscript.

105: the name of those genes should be specified

We used the gene of the major surface glycoprotein (this was already specified in the initial version of the manuscript).

133: specify those continuous and categorical variables

This would make the text maybe too cumbersome: the classification of variables is usually consensual, and in addition is usually obvious when reading tables.

134: Check for correct spelling of Chi square

This modification has been done in the revised version of the manuscript.

222: Observed association with no p value

We added some words in the revised version of the manuscript for more accuracy.

The whole conclusion should be re-casted to suite the original findings.

We modified the conclusion accordingly in the revised version of the manuscript.

________________________

Reviewer #2

In the introduction/discussion, the authors are encouraged to discuss the clinical significance, molecular targets and methodology of detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii in BAL. The authors should cite more references on this perspective, including the three references shown below.

The 3 references may not be in the scope of our study: our aim was not to determine whether PCR on BAL was reliable to diagnose Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, as this is something widely proven, but to study the association between CMV detection and the severity of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. However, we added these 3 references to the revised version of the manuscript.

The detection of Pneumocystis jirovecii by PCR may be just colonization, rather than true infection.

This is an extremely relevant remark. We had acknowledged this is the initial version of the “Discussion” section, with the sentence “(…) the diagnosis of PJP was not retrospectively reassessed, and some patients we included may therefore have P. jirovecii colonisation rather than PJP”.

Did the patients under study have any imaging data to be included in this study?

All the patients had a CT scan to retain the diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. We choose not to include these data in the study, as it was not in its scope (even if another, different study considering, for example, the extension of Ground-glass opacity would also be interesting). We added a sentence on this point in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript.

There is a disconnect between the objectives and the patients enrolled.

We notified 2 goals at the end of the introduction:

- to assess the frequency and intensity of CMV detection in non-AIDS and AIDS patients with Pneumocystis infection,

- to assess the association between CMV detection and PJP severity.

To fulfill these goals, we included patients with a Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia who also had a test to detect CMV in blood or BAL.

Therefore, we do not identify any disconnection between these goals and the population we included.

The authors do not have to emphasize ICU patients in their goals.

There is no such emphasis on ICU admission; we did not mention it at the end of the introduction, where we specified the goals of the study; of course, ICU admission was not an inclusion criteria.

At the beginning of the Methods section, we wrote “Our main objective was to explore the association between outcome and CMV detection in patients with PJP” and then “The primary endpoint was the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission related to the PJP episode”. As we chose ICU admission to determine PJP severity, it would have been complex not to specify it there.

Though PJP severity was assessed by the requirement for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, there are different other metrics to evaluate the PCP severity.

This is an interesting remark. The manuscript does not state that there are no other metrics to evaluate the PCP severity. We could indeed have used the need for oxygen (maximal flow required for a SaO2>95%), or the extension of ground-glass opacity on CT scan, or the SaO2 or the PaO2 in room air.

The definition for severity we retained is more pragmatic, and may reflect more the concerns of clinicians.

We acknowledged the fact that other metrics could have been used for severity in the revised version of the manuscript.

3. Though the authors proposed that CMV viral load may be associated with PCP, there may be some confounding factors which may be the true reason of the co-incidence of high CMV and PCP.

This is a relevant remark. In the submitted version of the manuscript, we had written “Taken together, these data could lead to the interpretation that CMV replication in lung is a bystander event (that is even more frequent in immunocompromised patients) and may reflect the severity of lung damage without necessarily contributing to them, or simply reflect the depth of immunocompromised state.”

The immunocompromising status may be one of the true reasons. Please discuss this.

This is an important point. In the submitted version of the manuscript, we had written “(…) the association between disease severity and CMV viral load would be due to the fact that more immunocompromised patients may have the worst outcome of PJP and an increased risk of CMV replication, and that CMV infection per se does not impact PJP prognosis.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-27991 - answers to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Benjamin M Liu

18 Dec 2023

Cytomegalovirus detection is associated with ICU admission in non-AIDS and AIDS patients with Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia

PONE-D-23-27991R1

Dear Prof Epaulard,

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,

Benjamin M. Liu, MBBS, PhD, D(ABMM), MB(ASCP)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional): Please note that I have acted as a reviewer for this manuscript, and you will find my comments below, under Reviewer 2.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Benjamin M Liu

2 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-27991R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Epaulard,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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. Benjamin M. Liu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES