Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Mar 11;19(3):e0298104. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298104

No association between disease severity and respiratory syncytial virus subtypes RSV-A and RSV-B in hospitalized young children in Norway

Håkon Bøås 1,*,#, Lise Beier Havdal 1,2,#, Ketil Størdal 3,4, Henrik Døllner 5,6, Truls Michael Leegaard 7,8, Terese Bekkevold 1, Elmira Flem 1, Christopher Inchley 2, Svein Arne Nordbø 9,6, Astrid Elisabeth Rojahn 10, Sara Debes 11, Bjørn Barstad 12, Elisebet Haarr 13, Anne-Marte Bakken Kran 1,14; for the Norwegian Enhanced Pediatric Immunisation Surveillance (NorEPIS) Network
Editor: Victor Daniel Miron15
PMCID: PMC10927124  PMID: 38466702

Abstract

Objective

There is conflicting evidence whether subtypes of Respiratory syncytial virus have different seasonality or are differentially associated with clinical severity. We aimed to explore the associations between disease severity and RSV subtypes RSV-A and RSV-B and to describe the circulation of RSV subtypes pattern by season and age.

Methods

Active prospective hospital surveillance for RSV-A and RSV-B in children <59 months of age was conducted during 2015–2018. All febrile children 12–59 months of age were enrolled, whereas children <12 months were eligible if presenting with fever or respiratory symptoms. Risk factors and upper and lower respiratory tract infection was identified by linkage to national registry data and analyzed using penalized maximum likelihood logistic regression.

Results

Both RSV-A and B were found to co-circulate throughout all three study seasons, and no clear seasonal pattern was identified. Likewise, we found no association between sex or measures of severity with RSV-A or RSV-B. There was significantly more RSV-A than RSV-B among children with comorbidities.

Conclusions

No association was found between disease severity or sex and RSV subtypes RSV-A and RSV-B in hospitalized young children in Norway.

Introduction

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the most common cause of viral lower respiratory tract infections in infants and young children worldwide, being responsible for an estimated 33 million episodes of lower respiratory tract respiratory infections (LRTI) globally each year [1]. Children younger than one year of age, elderly or immunocompromised individuals carry a substantial burden of severe cases [2], but re-infections with mild symptoms are common in older children and healthy adults [3], indicating that infection with RSV induces partial immunity [4]. Variation in RSV strains may play a role in the ability to evade existing immunity and cause re-infections throughout life [5, 6].

RSV encompasses two major antigenic subtypes, RSV-A and RSV-B, based on the genetic variability of the G surface glycoprotein [7]. The two strains are further subdivided into several genotypes [7, 8]. Usually RSV-A and B co-circulate during the same season [8, 9], although some temporal and geographic clustering as well as alternating patterns of predominance do occur [7, 10]. Even multiple genotypes of each subtype will often co-exist during the same epidemic season [9].

There is conflicting evidence regarding the association of different RSV subtypes and clinical severity. RSV-A has been associated with more severe disease course in several studies [1115], whereas others find subtype B to cause more severe disease [16, 17]. However, several studies report no difference in disease severity between the two subtypes [1823].

An enhanced understanding of both epidemiology and disease severity is important for the composition of preventive strategies, as novel vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for prophylactic treatment are developed and approved. The monoclonal antibody nirsevimab for use in neonates and infants was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicine Agency [24, 25], as were the first RSV vaccines for use in adults from 60 year of age and older, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [26, 27]. With several maternal and pediatric vaccines against RSV currently in late-stage clinical development, defining the relationship between viral strains and clinical presentation is highly relevant and might impact decisions in the development of future protective strategies.

In a previous study, [28] we reported that 40% of Norwegian children 0–59 months of age presenting at the hospital with fever and/or respiratory symptoms during the influenza season (defined as the period between week 40 and week 20) tested positive for RSV. We found that young age, the presence of comorbidities and having siblings was associated with more severe RSV disease [29]. In the current study, we aimed to explore the associations between disease severity and RSV subtypes RSV-A and RSV-B in Norway between 2015 and 2018. We further aimed to describe the distribution of RSV subtypes pattern by season, sex, age groups and underlying comorbidities.

Methods

Children from 0–59 months of age presenting at hospital were prospectively enrolled through the Norwegian Enhanced Paediatric Immunisation Surveillance Network (NorEPIS). Both inpatients and outpatients were eligible. A detailed description including inclusion- and exclusion criteria has been given previously [28]. Briefly, during three seasons from 2015 to 2018, RSV surveillance was implemented annually from week 40 to week 20 the following year in five major Norwegian secondary-care hospitals, except for 2015 when surveillance was implemented from week 49. Recruitment began December 1st 2015 and ended May 21st 2018. Children between 12–59 months of age were eligible for enrollment if presenting with fever, whereas children <12 months of age were eligible if presenting with fever or respiratory symptoms. Children >5 years of age or with residence outside of the hospital’s catchment area, children admitted more than 48 hours before enrollment, newborns that had not left the hospital and children referred from other hospitals or admitted for elective hospitalization, injury or social indication were excluded. A total of 2590 children 0–59 months of age were enrolled in the study and fulfilled all inclusion criteria, with a total of 2725 independent hospital contacts between them [28]. 1449 children where <12 month old and 1276 children were 12–59 months old Symptoms, clinical data, and information about healthcare use were collected using a study-specific questionnaire.

Processing of samples

Nasopharyngeal flocked swab or aspirate samples were collected from all enrolled patients within 72 hours of arrival and analyzed at the hospital laboratory using routine in house real-time polymerase chain reactions (PCR). Three of five study hospitals used assays differentiating between RSV-A and RSV-B, in addition these hospitals tested for a respiratory panel that included Influenza, Metapneumovirus, Parainfluenza 1, 2, 3, 4 and Adenovirus. All patients with co-infections, defined as testing positive for more than one pathogen, were excluded from the analysis.

Registry data sources

Data collected at hospital were linked to national health registries using unique personal identification numbers. The Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR) and National Health Economics Administration Database (KUHR) together cover all governmental-funded health care in Norway. NPR contains information on all hospital visits in Norway, including International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnoses [30]. KUHR contains International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2) or ICD-10 diagnoses from all publicly funded GPs and primary care emergency clinics [31]. The Medical Birth Registry of Norway (MBRN) contains information on gestational age, congenital malformations and disorders for all children born in Norway [32]. A detailed description of all information retrieved from the above registries for identifying underlying risk groups has been published previously [28, 33].

Risk groups and severity

We identified children in high-risk groups using the data from MBRN, ICD-10 codes from the NPR and ICPC-2 codes from KUHR. Children were categorized as high-risk group if they were registered with an ICD-10 code/ICPC-2 code corresponding to premature birth, trisomy 21, congenital heart disease, pulmonary disease, (S1 Table and [29]). Prematurity as risk factor was defined as gestational age (GA) < 37 weeks. Two primary outcome measures were used to compare disease severity: 1) hospital length-of-stay (LOS) measured in hours from arrival, and 2) the need for respiratory support, in the form of either invasive ventilation, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), or Bi- level Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP). Acute upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) or lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) was categorized based on ICD-10 codes (S2 Table).

Statistical analyses

Statistical analysis was performed in Stata version 15 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas, US). To account for groups with low number of events, we compared the percentage of RSV-A and B positive samples using penalized maximum likelihood logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (OR) with a 95% confidence level. For comparison we also calculated OR and 95% confidence intervals using a standard logistic regression (S3 and S4 Tables). To account for potential differences in age distribution and recruitment procedure, the age groups, month of hospital contact, and the treating hospital were included as independent variables in adjusted analyzes.

The analysis involved only patients where the first reported symptoms arose in the 10 days up to hospitalization. If a patient was recruited on more than one hospital visit within a period of 21 days, and the physician assessed the cause to be the same disease episode, only the first hospital encounter was used. We compared LOS between children with RSV-A and B subtypes, using Wilcoxon ranksum test.

Ethics

Written informed consent was obtained from both parents/legal guardians for all children. The study was reviewed and approved by the Regional committees for medical and health research ethics—South-East A (2015/956).

Results

Study population

During three seasons of active hospital surveillance, a total of 1096 children 0–59 months of age tested positive for RSV, of these, 815 (74%) samples were further typed and characterized as RSV-A or RSV-B. In total, 370 (45.4%) samples were positive for RSV-A and 426 (52.3%) for RSV-B. Nineteen patients (2.3%) were co-infected with both subtypes (Table 1) and were excluded from further analyses. Another 23 samples were excluded due to inconclusive or missing test results for one or more of the viruses tested for as a part of the hospitals’ respiratory panels. Among the remaining 773 RSV positive samples, 119 (15.4%) had co-infections with other respiratory viruses and were excluded from the analysis, resulting in a total of 654 RSV positive samples analyzed (Fig 1). The study included 379 boys and 275 girls <5 years of age. We found no significant differences between the proportion of RSV-A or B by age or sex, neither for the entire study population (Table 2) nor when restricting the analysis to inpatients only (Table 3).

Table 1. Distribution of RSV subtypes by participant age.

0-3m 3-6m 6-12m 1-2y 2-5y
Negative n (%) 331(52.4) 167 (48.0) 299 (63.8) 473 (61.4) 359 (70.9)
RSV-A n (%) 89 (14.1) 62 (17.8) 69 (14.7) 100 (13.0) 50 (9.9)
RSV-B n (%) 116(18.4) 70 (20.1) 65 (13.9) 113 (14.7) 62 (12.3)
RSV-A+B n (%) 4(0.6) 2 (0.6) 0 (0.00) 8 (1.0) 5 (1.0)
RSV not typed n (%) 92(14.6) 47 (13.5) 36 (7.7) 76 (9.9) 30 (5.9)
Total RSV n (%) 301 (47.6) 181 (52.0) 170 (36.2) 297 (38.6) 147 (29.1)
Total (n = 2725.00) 632 (100) 348 (100) 469 (100) 770 (100) 506 (100)

Fig 1. Flowchart of recruitment and testing.

Fig 1

Table 2. Participant (inpatients and outpatients combined) characteristics and penalized maximum likelihood logistic regression of typed RSV-cases without co-infection*.

n RSV-A/B (%B) OR (95% Ci) p Adjusted OR (95% Ci) Adjusted p-value
Age group
0-3m 75/109 (59.2) Ref. Ref.
3-6m 53/64 (54.7) 0.83 (0.52–1.32) 0.437 0.86 (0.54–1.39) 0.548
6-12m 55/49 (47.1) 0.61 (0.38–1.00) 0.048 0.62 (0.38–1.01) 0.053
1-2y 66/94 (58.8) 0.98 (0.64–1.51) 0.926 1.06 (0.68–1.65) 0.788
2-5y 42/47 (52.8) 0.77 (0.46–1.28) 0.314 0.87 (0.52–1.46) 0.591
Sex
Male 170/209 (55.1) Ref. Ref.
Female 121/154 (56.0) 1.03 (0.76–1.41) 0.829 1.01 (0.73–1.39) 0.974
Hospital
Ullevål 153/159 (51.0) Ref. Ref.
AHUS 62/85 (57.8) 1.32 (0.89–1.95) 0.172 1.34 (0.90–2.01) 0.152
Østfold 76/119 (61.0) 1.50 (1.05–2.16) 0.028 1.49 (1.03–2.16) 0.036
Study season
2015/2016 80/144 (64.3) Ref. Ref.
2016/2017 165/159 (49.1) 0.54 (0.38–0.76) <0.001 0.57 (0.38–0.87) 0.009
2018/2019 46/60 (56.6) 0.72 (0.45–1.16) 0.179 0.80 (0.49–1.31) 0.377
Patient type
Out-patient 127/152 (54.5) Ref. Ref.
Inpatient 160/205 (56.2) 1.07 (0.78–1.46) 0.670 1.00 (0.72–1.39) 0.985
Length of stay
<24 hours 162/192 (54.2) Ref. Ref.
> = 24 hours 125/165 (56.9) 1.11 (0.81–1.52) 0.501 1.05 (0.76–1.46) 0.754
Respiratory support
No 243/305 (55.7) Ref. Ref.
Yes 42/53 (55.8) 1.00 (0.65–1.55) 0.988 1.00 (0.63–1.59) 0.990
Acute upper respiratory tract infection (URTI)
No 238/292 (55.1) Ref. Ref.
Yes 53/71 (57.3) 1.09 (0.74–1.61) 0.669 1.06 (0.70–1.59) 0.794
Lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI)
No 68/90 (57.0) Ref. Ref.
Yes 223/273 (55.0) 0.93 (0.65–1.33) 0.677 0.98 (0.67–1.43) 0.911
Congenital heart disease or pulmonary disease (including BPD)
No 268/344 (56.2) Ref. Ref.
Yes 23/19 (45.2) 0.65 (0.35–1.20) 0.169 0.64 (0.34–1.23) 0.180
Comorbidities §
No 255/340 (57.1) Ref. Ref.
Yes 36/23 (39.0) 0.48 (0.28–0.83) 0.009 0.47 (0.27–0.83) 0.009
Gestational age <37 weeks
No 255/322 (55.8) Ref. Ref.
Yes 36/41 (53.3) 0.90 (0.56–1.45) 0.666 0.88 (0.54–1.44) 0.619

* Patients co-infected with one or more of Influenza, Metapneumovirus, Parainfluenza 1, 2, 3, 4 and Adenovirus, or cases with missing information about coinfections are excluded from this table.

Age groups, month of hospital contact, and the treating hospital were included as independent variables

Invasive ventilation, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), or Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP)

§ Including trisomy 21, neuromuscular, impairment, congenital heart disease, pulmonary disease, BPD, immunodeficiency, and cancer.

Table 3. Inpatients characteristics and penalized maximum likelihood logistic regression of typed RSV-cases without co-infection*.

n RSV-A/B (%B) OR (95% Ci) p Adjusted OR (95% Ci) Adjusted p-value
Age group
0-3m 53/79 (59.9) Ref. Ref.
3-6m 23/41 (64.1) 1.19 (0.64–2.19) 0.581 1.31 (0.70–2.46) 0.397
6-12m 24/18 (42.9) 0.51 (0.25–1.02) 0.057 0.55 (0.27–1.11) 0.096
1-2y 36/45 (55.6) 0.84 (0.48–1.46) 0.536 1.00 (0.56–1.78) 0.993
2-5y 24/22 (47.8) 0.62 (0.32–1.21) 0.159 0.73 (0.37–1.45) 0.373
Sex
Male 84/118 (58.4) Ref. Ref.
female 76/87 (53.4) 0.82 (0.54–1.23) 0.335 0.78 (0.51–1.20) 0.264
Hospital
Ullevål 85/98 (53.5) Ref. Ref.
AHUS 35/47 (57.3) 1.16 (0.69–1.96) 0.575 1.20 (0.70–2.04) 0.510
Østfold 40/60 (60.0) 1.30 (0.79–2.12) 0.301 1.28 (0.77–2.13) 0.337
Study season
2015/2016 44/77 (63.6) Ref. Ref.
2016/2017 93/91 (49.5) 0.56 (0.35–0.90) 0.016 0.55 (0.32–0.95) 0.032
2018/2019 23/37 (61.7) 0.92 (0.49–1.73) 0.787 0.95 (0.49–1.83) 0.873
Length of stay
<24 hours 35/40 (53.3) Ref. Ref.
> = 24 hours 125/165 (56.9) 1.16 (0.70–1.92) 0.575 1.17 (0.70–1.96) 0.543
Respiratory support
No 121/152 (55.7) Ref. Ref.
Yes 36/50 (58.1) 1.10 (0.68–1.80) 0.696 1.11 (0.66–1.86) 0.700
Acute upper respiratory tract infection (URTI)
No 146/189 (56.4) Ref. Ref.
Yes 14/16 (53.3) 0.88 (0.42–1.84) 0.734 0.83 (0.39–1.76) 0.629
Lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI)
No 15/16 (51.6) Ref. Ref.
Yes 145/189 (56.6) 1.22 (0.59–2.53) 0.586 1.20 (0.56–2.56) 0.633
Congenital heart disease or pulmonary disease (including BPD)
No 145/193 (57.1) Ref. Ref.
Yes 15/12 (44.4) 0.61 (0.28–1.32) 0.206 0.62 (0.28–1.38) 0.244
Comorbidity §
No 136/190 (58.3) Ref. Ref.
Yes 24/15 (38.5) 0.45 (0.23–0.89) 0.021 0.49 (0.25–0.99) 0.046
Gestational age <37 weeks
No 140/180 (56.3) Ref. Ref.
Yes 20/25 (55.6) 0.97 (0.52–1.80) 0.919 1.04 (0.54–1.98) 0.917

* Patients co-infected with one or more of Influenza, Metapneumovirus, Parainfluenza 1, 2, 3, 4 and Adenovirus, or cases with missing information about coinfections are excluded from this table.

Age groups, month of hospital contact, and the treating hospital were included as independent variables

Invasive ventilation, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), or Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP)

§ Including trisomy 21, neuromuscular, impairment, congenital heart disease, pulmonary disease, BPD, immunodeficiency, and cancer.

Seasonality

The number of identified RSV cases varied considerably between seasons, with the most cases identified during the 2016/17-season. Both RSV-A and B co-circulated all three seasons, with a slightly higher proportion of RSV-B in the 2015/16 season. In contrast, there was little or no difference in the occurrence of the two subtypes during the 2016/17 and 2017/18 seasons (Fig 2 & Table 2).

Fig 2. Number of detected and subtyped RSV positive samples per week through three seasons.

Fig 2

Severity

We found no difference between the RSV subtypes and being admitted as an inpatient or outpatient (p = 0.99, Table 2), nor between patients admitted for more than 24 hours compared to patients with a shorter hospital stay (p = 0.75, Table 2). In the analysis of inpatients only, we found no significant difference in LOS between RSV subtypes. The median LOS for children with RSV-A were 62h (interquartile range (IQR) 27-110h) compared to median LOS 63h (IQR 32–102) for children with RSV-B (z = -0.1, p = 0.91). (Fig 3 and Table 3). There were 6 patients with a LOS exceeding 12 days. To ensure that potential errors in the registration of the admission date or discharge date did not influence the results a secondary analysis was conducted. Excluding these outliers did not affect the result (not shown). Similarly, we found no difference in need for respiratory support (p = 0.99 for all patients [Table 2] and p = 0.70 for inpatients [Table 3]) between the RSV subtypes. Furthermore, the occurrence of RSV-A and RSV-B in children diagnosed with acute upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) or lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) was similar (p = 0.79 and p = 0.91 respectively for all patients [Table 2] and p = 0.63 and p = 0.63 respectively for inpatients [Table 3]).

Fig 3. Duration of hospital stay by RSV subtype positivity (number and percentage).

Fig 3

Risk factors and comorbidities

The number of children in each group of separate co-morbidities was too small for a meaningful analysis. However, there was more RSV-A (~60%) compared to RSV-B (~40%) among children with any comorbidities (Including trisomy 21, neuromuscular impairment, congenital heart disease, pulmonary disease, BPD, immunodeficiency, and cancer), both among all hospital contacts (Table 2) and inpatients (Table 3). There was no association observed between prematurity and RSV subtypes or between having congenital heart disease or pulmonary disease and types of RSV (Tables 2 and 3).

Discussion

In the current study we investigated differences in disease severity, risk factors and comorbidities between RSV-A and RSV-B subtypes in young, hospitalized children in Norway during pre-pandemic period. Both RSV-A and B was found to co-circulate throughout all three study seasons, and no clear difference in the seasonal pattern between the RSV subtypes was identified. Likewise, we found no association between age, sex or measures of severity with RSV-A or RSV-B. There was more RSV-A than RSV-B among children with comorbidities, however with a limited number of children in the study the results should be explored in further studies and currently need to be interpreted with caution.

The seasonal patterns of the RSV subtypes in circulation in Norway, has to our knowledge, not previously been described. However, the overall total RSV seasonality is similar to previous reports from Norway [34] and is presented in detail in our previous publication [28]. The co-circulation of RSV-A and RSV-B was expected and in line with previous reports [8, 9]. Although RSV-B was slightly more dominant during the 2015/16 season, there was no clear dominant subtype during the following two seasons, and little evidence was found for alternating patterns or a strong predomination of any subtype, as has been found by some [7, 10]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries reported a disrupted seasonality of RSV, with little or no RSV circulating during the first years of the pandemic and with untypical out of seasonal peaks once disease control measures was lifted [35]. This disrupted and shifted seasonality of RSV was also observed in Norway during and after the pandemic [36]. Future studies are needed to elucidate if there are differences in the distribution of RSV subtypes after the pandemic. The duration of this study, spanning three seasons, is not ideal for studying shifting seasonal pattern. Thus the lack of predominance of one subtype or different seasonal patterns of RSV subtypes in this study of hospitalized cases, does not exclude the possibility of such a pattern in the community. Although efforts were made to exclude coinfections with common pathogenic viruses, we did not test for all known respiratory viruses, and it is possible that coinfections with respiratory agents such as bocavirus, or endemic coronaviruses could have a limited impact on the results.

Age and sex

We found no difference in sex and age distribution between the two RSV subtypes, and there does not seem to be any predominance of any of the RSV subtypes between age groups [3739]. One study by Tabor, et al. [7] reported the global proportion of RSV-B to be higher in females than males; however, this lacks support in most other studies [7, 13, 15, 38, 39], which is consistent with our results [7, 13, 15, 38, 39].

Severity

Several studies have investigated differences in disease severity of RSV-A and B, but the results remain inconclusive (reviewed in [6]). One study from Italy found RSV-A to predominate in severe cases among premature children [21], whereas community-based monitoring from rural India [40] found RSV-B to cause more severe lower respiratory tract infections in preterm babies. In our study, we found no association between the RSV subtypes and proxies for severity such as length of stay among inpatients, treatment with either of CPAP, BiPAP or high-flow oxygen treatment, or between children diagnosed with URTI or LRTI (Tables 2 and 3). It is not uncommon for children presenting at hospital with RSV to be sent home on the first assessment, and later return to hospital if the condition worsens. Some patients are admitted several times during the course of an RSV infection. In order to avoid counting these patients multiple times we only used the first registered hospital contact during a disease episode, potentially failing to capture the full duration of combined hospital stays, and subsequent loss of power to detect associations between RSV subtypes and length of stay or respiratory treatment. However, about 88% of all RSV cases in the NorEpis study had only one hospital contact during the disease episode [41]. There does not seem to be a predominance of either of the RSV subtypes among premature children with GA < 37 weeks. Restricting the analysis of premature children to extremely premature or very premature children according to the WHO definitions [42], could be warranted, however this was not possible in this study due to low numbers of premature children among the RSV-A and RSV-B cases.

Risk factors and comorbidities

A presence of comorbidities (trisomy 21, neuromuscular impairment, congenital heart disease, pulmonary disease, BPD, immunodeficiency, or cancer) in our previous study was associated with the need for respiratory support and a duration of stay of >72h when hospitalized with RSV [29]. Here we demonstrate that there was significantly more RSV-A than RSV-B among children with comorbidities. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate if there is an association between the presence of comorbidities and RSV subtypes. However, one study found a stronger association between RSV-B infection and a family history of asthma compared to RSV-A. However, this association also varied between RSV-A genotypes, with some genotypes showing a similar association to asthma as RSV-B [43]. The number of RSV positive children with comorbidities was generally very low, making the study underpowered to detect differences between the RSV subtypes and individual comorbidities. The low number of events per risk group makes the estimates vulnerable to random patterns. Therefore, caution should be taken when interpreting the distribution of RSV subtypes in our study. It is possible that any association between risk factors and RSV subtypes are more dependent on different genotypes, than on the subtypes themselves [6, 43], which should be considered in future studies.

Conclusion

No association was found between disease severity or sex and RSV subtypes RSV-A and RSV-B in hospitalized young children in Norway. However, the higher proportion of RSV-A in children with co-morbidities warrants further studies. Both RSV subtypes co-circulate and there are no evident differences in severity. Future studies are needed to investigate how the distribution of RSV and RSV subtypes has changed during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, and the potential impact this has for the prevention of RSV in the future.

Supporting information

S1 Table. ICD-10 and ICPC-2 codes used to identify children with high risk of severe Influenza.

When no additional cases were identified by ICPC-2 codes, only ICD-10 codes are presented.

(DOCX)

pone.0298104.s001.docx (27.3KB, docx)
S2 Table. ICD-10 codes used to identify relevant diagnosis groups.

(DOCX)

pone.0298104.s002.docx (24.9KB, docx)
S3 Table. Characteristics and logistic regression of typed RSV-cases.

Excluding co-infections with one or more of Influenza, Metapneumovirus, Parainfluenza 1, 2, 3, 4 and Adenovirus, or cases with missing information on coinfections.

(DOCX)

pone.0298104.s003.docx (32KB, docx)
S4 Table. Inpatient characteristics and logistic regression of typed RSV-cases.

Excluding co-infections with one or more of Influenza, Metapneumovirus, Parainfluenza 1, 2, 3, 4 and Adenovirus, or cases with missing information on coinfections.

(DOCX)

pone.0298104.s004.docx (31.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the participants, and the personnel involved in the NorEPIS network and respiratory project at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Especially all personnel at the virology department for their help in receiving and registration samples, and the microbiology departments in the study hospitals for adapting their routines to the study. We would also like to express our gratitude to all the study nurses and hospital personnel. They have done an invaluable effort for recruitment and conducting patient interviews. The following researchers are a part of NorEPIS network:

Håkon Bøås1*, Lise Beier Havdal1,2, Ketil Størdal5,12, Henrik Døllner7,9, Truls Michael Leegaard13,14, Terese Bekkevold1, Elmira Flem1, Christopher Inchley2, Svein Arne Nordbø8,9, Astrid Elisabeth Rojahn4, Sara Debes6, Bjørn Barstad MD10, Elisebet Haarr11, Liliana Vázquez Fernández1, Olav Hungnes1, Britt Nakstad2/4, Anne-Marte Bakken Kran1,3,

  1. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway

  2. Department of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway

  3. Department of Microbiology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Oslo, Norway

  4. Division of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Oslo, Norway

  5. Department of Pediatrics, Østfold Hospital, Kalnes, Grålum, Norway

  6. Department of Medical Microbiology, Østfold Hospital, Kalnes, Grålum, Norway

  7. Department of Pediatrics, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

  8. Department of Medical Microbiology, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

  9. Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

  10. Department of Pediatrics, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway

  11. Department of Medical Microbiology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway

  12. Division of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

  13. Department of Microbiology and Infection Control, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog

  14. Institute of Clinical Medicine—Campus Ahus, Division of Medicine and Laboratory Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo

* E-mail address: hakon.boas@fhi.no (H. Bøås)

Data Availability

External researchers are able to request access to data on ICD-10 codes of risk group diagnoses and respiratory diagnoses, sex, age groups, respiratory support, hospital and admission and discharge dates from the Norwegian Patient registry. Researchers can apply for data access through Helsedata.no (https://helsedata.no/en/). Because of ethical and legal restrictions to protect the identity and confidentiality of the participants, as the data contain sensitive information according to the Norwegian Personal Data Act, all other underlying data are only available in aggregated form upon request from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Requests for access can be made to the data access committee represented by Anne-Marte Bakken Kran (Anne-MarteBakken.Kran@fhi.no) or by email to the Norwegian Institute of public health (folkehelseinstituttet@fhi.no, subject: Request for data access - NorEpis).

Funding Statement

This work was supported by The Research Council of Norway (https://www.forskningsradet.no/en/) [240207/F20]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Shi T., McAllister D.A., O’Brien K.L., Simoes E.A.F., Madhi S.A., Gessner B.D., et al., Global, regional, and national disease burden estimates of acute lower respiratory infections due to respiratory syncytial virus in young children in 2015: a systematic review and modelling study. Lancet, 2017. 390(10098): p. 946–958. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30938-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bont L., Checchia P.A., Fauroux B., Figueras-Aloy J., Manzoni P., Paes B., et al., Defining the Epidemiology and Burden of Severe Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection Among Infants and Children in Western Countries. Infect Dis Ther, 2016. 5(3): p. 271–98. doi: 10.1007/s40121-016-0123-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Varga S.M. and Braciale T.J., The adaptive immune response to respiratory syncytial virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol, 2013. 372: p. 155–71. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38919-1_8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wagner D.K., Muelenaer P., Henderson F.W., Snyder M.H., Reimer C.B., Walsh E.E., et al., Serum Immunoglobulin-G Antibody Subclass Response to Respiratory Syncytial Virus-F and G-Glycoproteins after 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Infections. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 1989. 27(3): p. 589–592. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hall C.B., Walsh E.E., Long C.E., and Schnabel K.C., Immunity to and frequency of reinfection with respiratory syncytial virus. J Infect Dis, 1991. 163(4): p. 693–8. doi: 10.1093/infdis/163.4.693 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Vandini S., Biagi C., and Lanari M., Respiratory Syncytial Virus: The Influence of Serotype and Genotype Variability on Clinical Course of Infection. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2017. 18(8). doi: 10.3390/ijms18081717 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tabor D.E., Fernandes F., Langedijk A.C., Wilkins D., Lebbink R.J., Tovchigrechko A., et al., Global Molecular Epidemiology of Respiratory Syncytial Virus from the 2017–2018 INFORM-RSV Study. J Clin Microbiol, 2020. 59(1). doi: 10.1128/JCM.01828-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tabatabai J., Prifert C., Pfeil J., Grulich-Henn J., and Schnitzler P., Novel respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) genotype ON1 predominates in Germany during winter season 2012–13. PLoS One, 2014. 9(10): p. e109191. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Venter M., Madhi S.A., Tiemessen C.T., and Schoub B.D., Genetic diversity and molecular epidemiology of respiratory syncytial virus over four consecutive seasons in South Africa: identification of new subgroup A and B genotypes. J Gen Virol, 2001. 82(Pt 9): p. 2117–2124. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-82-9-2117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yu J., Liu C., Xiao Y., Xiang Z., Zhou H., Chen L., et al., Respiratory Syncytial Virus Seasonality, Beijing, China, 2007–2015. Emerging Infectious Disease journal, 2019. 25(6): p. 1127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Papadopoulos N.G., Gourgiotis D., Javadyan A., Bossios A., Kallergi K., Psarras S., et al., Does respiratory syncytial virus subtype influences the severity of acute bronchiolitis in hospitalized infants? Respir Med, 2004. 98(9): p. 879–82. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2004.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hall C.B., Walsh E.E., Schnabel K.C., Long C.E., McConnochie K.M., Hildreth S.W., et al., Occurrence of groups A and B of respiratory syncytial virus over 15 years: associated epidemiologic and clinical characteristics in hospitalized and ambulatory children. J Infect Dis, 1990. 162(6): p. 1283–90. doi: 10.1093/infdis/162.6.1283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Laham F.R., Mansbach J.M., Piedra P.A., Hasegawa K., Sullivan A.F., Espinola J.A., et al., Clinical Profiles of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Subtypes A AND B Among Children Hospitalized with Bronchiolitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2017. 36(8): p. 808–810. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000001596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Walsh E.E., McConnochie K.M., Long C.E., and Hall C.B., Severity of respiratory syncytial virus infection is related to virus strain. J Infect Dis, 1997. 175(4): p. 814–20. doi: 10.1086/513976 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jafri H.S., Wu X., Makari D., and Henrickson K.J., Distribution of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Subtypes A and B Among Infants Presenting to the Emergency Department With Lower Respiratory Tract Infection or Apnea. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 2013. 32(4): p. 335–340. doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e318282603a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tran D.N., Pham T.M., Ha M.T., Tran T.T., Dang T.K., Yoshida L.M., et al., Molecular epidemiology and disease severity of human respiratory syncytial virus in Vietnam. PLoS One, 2013. 8(1): p. e45436. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045436 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hornsleth A., Klug B., Nir M., Johansen J., Hansen K.S., Christensen L.S., et al., Severity of respiratory syncytial virus disease related to type and genotype of virus and to cytokine values in nasopharyngeal secretions. Pediatr Infect Dis J, 1998. 17(12): p. 1114–21. doi: 10.1097/00006454-199812000-00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.McIntosh E.D., De Silva L.M., and Oates R.K., Clinical severity of respiratory syncytial virus group A and B infection in Sydney, Australia. Pediatr Infect Dis J, 1993. 12(10): p. 815–9. doi: 10.1097/00006454-199310000-00004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fodha I., Vabret A., Ghedira L., Seboui H., Chouchane S., Dewar J., et al., Respiratory syncytial virus infections in hospitalized infants: association between viral load, virus subgroup, and disease severity. J Med Virol, 2007. 79(12): p. 1951–8. doi: 10.1002/jmv.21026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Saravanos G.L., Ramos I., Britton P.N., and Wood N.J., Respiratory syncytial virus subtype circulation and associated disease severity at an Australian paediatric referral hospital, 2014–2018. J Paediatr Child Health, 2021. 57(8): p. 1190–1195. doi: 10.1111/jpc.15419 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ciarlitto C., Vittucci A.C., Antilici L., Concato C., Di Camillo C., Zangari P., et al., Respiratory Syncityal Virus A and B: three bronchiolitis seasons in a third level hospital in Italy. Ital J Pediatr, 2019. 45(1): p. 115. doi: 10.1186/s13052-019-0704-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Straliotto S.M., Roitman B., Lima J.B., Fischer G.B., and Siqueira M.M., Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) bronchiolitis: comparative study of RSV groups A and B infected children. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop, 1994. 27(1): p. 1–4. doi: 10.1590/s0037-86821994000100001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gamino-Arroyo A.E., Moreno-Espinosa S., Llamosas-Gallardo B., Ortiz-Hernandez A.A., Guerrero M.L., Galindo-Fraga A., et al., Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of respiratory syncytial virus infections among children and adults in Mexico. Influenza Other Respir Viruses, 2017. 11(1): p. 48–56. doi: 10.1111/irv.12414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.SANOFI, Press Release: FDA Advisory Committee unanimously recommends nirsevimab as first immunization against RSV disease for all infants. Sanofi, France; Jun 8, 2023 [WEB] [cited 2023 Jun 15]. https://www.sanofi.com/assets/dotcom/pressreleases/2023/2023-06-08-21-19-00-2685235-en.pdf.
  • 25.AstraZeneca, Beyfortus approved in the EU for the prevention of RSV lower respiratory tract disease in infantsa. AstraZeneca, UK; Nov 4, 2022 [WEB] [cited 2023 Jun 15]. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2022/beyfortus-approved-in-the-eu-for-the-prevention-of-rsv-lower-respiratory-tract-disease-in-infants.html.
  • 26.U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), FDA NEWS RELEASE: FDA Approves First Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccine. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, USA; May 03, 2023 [WEB] [cited 2023 Jun 15]. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-respiratory-syncytial-virus-rsv-vaccine.
  • 27.U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Approval Letter—ABRYSVO. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, USA; May 31, 2023 [WEB] [cited 2023 Jun 15]. https://www.fda.gov/media/168890/download.
  • 28.Havdal L.B., Bøås H., Bekkevold T., Kran A.-M.B., Rojahn A.E., Størdal K., et al., The burden of respiratory syncytial virus in children under 5 years of age in Norway. Journal of Infection, 2021. 0(0). doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Havdal L.B., Bøås H., Bekkevold T., Bakken Kran A.-M., Rojahn A.E., Størdal K., et al., Risk factors associated with severe disease in respiratory syncytial virus infected children under 5 years of age. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 2022. 10. doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.1004739 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Norwegian Directorate of Health. Norwegian Patient Registry (Web). Oslo: Norwegian Directorate for Health. Background information on NPR]. https://helsedirektoratet.no/english/norwegian-patient-registry.
  • 31.Norwegian Directorate of Health (2019). KUHR-databasen [Web]. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet (lest 28. september 2021). https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/tema/statistikk-registre-og-rapporter/helsedata-og-helseregistre/kuhr.
  • 32.Norwegian Insitute of Public Health. Medical Birth Registry of Norway (MBRN). https://www.fhi.no/en/hn/health-registries/medical-birth-registry-of-norway/.
  • 33.Bøås H., Bekkevold T., Havdal L.B., Kran A.-M.B., Rojahn A.E., Størdal K., et al., The burden of hospital-attended influenza in Norwegian children. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 2022. 10. doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.963274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Reeves R.M., van Wijhe M., Tong S., Lehtonen T., Stona L., Teirlinck A.C., et al., Respiratory Syncytial Virus-Associated Hospital Admissions in Children Younger Than 5 Years in 7 European Countries Using Routinely Collected Datasets. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2020. 222(Supplement_7): p. S599–S605. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa360 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Stein R.T. and Zar H.J., RSV through the COVID-19 pandemic: Burden, shifting epidemiology, and implications for the future. Pediatric Pulmonology, 2023. 58(6): p. 1631–1639. doi: 10.1002/ppul.26370 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Epidemier av luftveisinfeksjoner i Norge vinteren 2023–24: risiko, scenarioer og håndtering. https://www.fhi.no/publ/statusrapporter/risikovurdering-for-luftveisinfeksjoner/, 2023.
  • 37.Zlateva K.T., Vijgen L., Dekeersmaeker N., Naranjo C., and Van Ranst M., Subgroup prevalence and genotype circulation patterns of human respiratory syncytial virus in Belgium during ten successive epidemic seasons. J Clin Microbiol, 2007. 45(9): p. 3022–30. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00339-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Vianna L.A., Siqueira M.M., Volpini L.P.B., Louro I.D., and Resende P.C., Seasonality, molecular epidemiology, and virulence of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV): A perspective into the Brazilian Influenza Surveillance Program. PLOS ONE, 2021. 16(5): p. e0251361. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251361 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Esposito S., Piralla A., Zampiero A., Bianchini S., Di Pietro G., Scala A., et al., Characteristics and Their Clinical Relevance of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Types and Genotypes Circulating in Northern Italy in Five Consecutive Winter Seasons. PLOS ONE, 2015. 10(6): p. e0129369. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Satav A., Crow R., Potdar V., Dani V., Satav S., Chadha M., et al., The Burden of Respiratory Syncytial Virus in Children Under 2 Years of Age in a Rural Community in Maharashtra, India. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2021. 73(Supplement_3): p. S238–S247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Havdal, L.B., Appropriate level of care for children with viral lower respiratory tract infection, L.B. Havdal, m. Universitetet i Oslo Institutt for klinisk, and f. Universitetet i Oslo Det medisinske, Editors. 2023, University of Oslo: Oslo.
  • 42.World Health Organization (WHO), Fact sheets, Preterm Birth. 2023 [cited 2023 Dec 12]. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preterm-birth.
  • 43.Midulla F., Nenna R., Scagnolari C., Petrarca L., Frassanito A., Viscido A., et al., How Respiratory Syncytial Virus Genotypes Influence the Clinical Course in Infants Hospitalized for Bronchiolitis. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2018. 219(4): p. 526–534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Victor Daniel Miron

9 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-21221No association between disease severity and Respiratory syncytial virus subtypes RSV-A and RSV-B in hospitalized young children in NorwayPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bøås,

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 Dec 24 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,

Victor Daniel Miron

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Elmira Flem is currently employed by Merck & Co., Inc., North Wales, PA, USA. The work for the current study was conducted by Dr. Flem under the previous affiliation at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. 

All other authors hereby declare that no other conflicts of interest exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Merck & Co., Inc. 

(1) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. 

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. 

(2) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).

If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium: Norwegian Enhanced Pediatric Immunisation Surveillance (NorEPIS) Network

In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Dear colleagues I would like to thank you for the interesting research you have performed.

I was impressed by the high volume of data collected and the meticulous analysis performed.

Only trivial comments and questions:

1. page 11 first row of "Table 2: Participant characteristics and penalized maximum likelihood logistic regression of typed RSV cases. Excluding co-infections with one or more of Influenza, Metapneumovirus, Parainfluenza 1, 2, 3, 4 and Adenovirus, or cases with missing information on coinfections" - you have to correct "Inn-patients" with "inpatients"

2. row 222-3 - " Excluding 6 outliers with a LOS exceeding 12 days did not impact the result (not shown)." Please elaborate on these outliers with prolonged LOS - were they with nosocomial infections or preexisting severe conditions, etc?

3. in page 17 row 241-244 "In the current study we investigated differences in disease severity, risk factors and comorbidities between RSV-A and RSV-B subtypes in young, hospitalized children in Norway during pre-pandemic period. Both RSV-A and B was found to co-circulate throughout all three study seasons, and no clear seasonal pattern was identified."

Please elaborate on present research directions... Do you have any research ongoing on COVID-19 pandemic impact on RSV circulation and RSV subtypes? Because there is a plethora of published papers that are documenting major impact of SARS-CoV-2 phenomenon on circulation of certain viruses like influenza, RSV, etc and virtually no impact on Rhinovirus circulation. It would add value on Discussion section.

4. page 18 row 280 " we only had one hospital contact pr. disease episode" - please rephrase this statement, or better the entire section because "contact pr. disease" is not included in your abbreviations section nor is a usual abbreviation.

5. page 18 rows 285-288. Please elaborate on Norwegian national guidelines prophylaxis with palivizumab in premature children because the reference inserted [39] is not in English and can generate confusion. In your country there are implemented guidance for RSV prophylaxis in premature children of what gestational age and since when? Because study period is 2015-18 and reference provided seems to be from 2021.

Reviewer #2: Abstract:

Authors reported the results of sex association with RSV-A or RSV-B, and the comorbidities prevalence among the two types. However, these results weren’t mentioned as an objective or an aim for this study. Results of age association with RSV-A or RSV-B was meant to be an objective of the study, but no result was reported in the results section.

Introduction: Introduction is well written. However, adding more details about the conducted study is important such as the duration and location of the study.

Methods:

- Exclusion criteria wasn’t clear, try to add a paragraph indicating the exclusion criteria of your study.

- Did the studied patients were encountered at the emergency room or a clinical setting? Were they encountered in a tertiary hospital, secondary hospital, or primary care services?

- Among the enrolled 2590 children, how many of them are below the age 12 months? And how many were between 12-59 months of age?

- More details in the method section are needed, exclusion criteria wasn’t clear, please review the comments above.

- Results:

- Results (Table 2, 3): Tables are confusing, and legends does not differentiate them. Also, try to use some in text explanation of these two tables. Furthermore, what type of respiratory support? What are the comorbidities?

- In the severity section add the p-value for significance.

- More in-text elaboration of the results is needed. However, the first part of the result and the tables are confusing and weren’t clearly delivered.

Discussion

- A summarization of the main results with its significant level wasn’t included.

- A comparison of the virus seasonality with the previous findings of the virus pattern in Norway needs to be done.

- The study results of Risk factors and comorbidities weren’t compared with other studies.

- Overall and apart from the severity section, the discussion is unorganized, poorly written, and lacks the inclusion of supporting evidence and other studies.

**********

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: Mihai Craiu

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Mohammad Faraj Alqahtani

**********

[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: Review.docx

pone.0298104.s005.docx (16.3KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Mar 11;19(3):e0298104. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298104.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Dec 2023

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

We have changed the manuscript in accordance with the guidelines.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

“I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Elmira Flem is currently employed by Merck & Co., Inc., North Wales, PA, USA. The work for the current study was conducted by Dr. Flem under the previous affiliation at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health.

All other authors hereby declare that no other conflicts of interest exist.”

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Merck & Co., Inc.

(1) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors’ salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

The financial disclosure statement has been updated with the following:

“This work was supported by The Research Council of Norway [240207/F20]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Elmira Flem is currently employed by Merck & Co., Inc., North Wales, PA, USA. The work on the current study was conducted by Dr. Flem under the previous affiliation. Elmira Flem’s current employer Merck & Co did not contribute financially or with financial support for salaries, as this work was conducted while Dr. Flem was employed at The Norwegian Institute of Public health.”

(2) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: “This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).

If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

The competing interests declaration has been updated with: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Elmira Flem is currently employed by Merck & Co., Inc., North Wales, PA, USA. The work on the current study was conducted by Dr. Flem under the previous affiliation at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

All other authors hereby declare that no other conflicts of interest exist.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

The data availability statement has been updated with:

Because of ethical and legal restrictions to protect the identity and confidentiality of the participants, as the data contain sensitive information according to the Norwegian Personal Data Act, the underlying data are only available upon request from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health Institutional Data Access. Requests for access can be made to the data access committee represented by Anne-Marte Bakken Kran (Anne-MarteBakken.Kran@fhi.no)

4. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium: Norwegian Enhanced Pediatric Immunisation Surveillance (NorEPIS) Network

In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

The individual authors and affiliations are now listed in the acknowledgements section, including an indication of lead author with contact email address.

Reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer’s Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don’t Know

________________________________________

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

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: Dear colleagues I would like to thank you for the interesting research you have performed.

I was impressed by the high volume of data collected and the meticulous analysis performed.

Only trivial comments and questions:

1. page 11 first row of “Table 2: Participant characteristics and penalized maximum likelihood logistic regression of typed RSV cases. Excluding co-infections with one or more of Influenza, Metapneumovirus, Parainfluenza 1, 2, 3, 4 and Adenovirus, or cases with missing information on coinfections” - you have to correct “Inn-patients” with “inpatients”

Corrected

2. row 222-3 - “ Excluding 6 outliers with a LOS exceeding 12 days did not impact the result (not shown).” Please elaborate on these outliers with prolonged LOS - were they with nosocomial infections or preexisting severe conditions, etc?

Unfortunately we do not have any additional information about the length of stay for these 6 patients. The secondary analysis was performed to ensure that any discrepancies in the registration of admission or discharge date in these 6 patients did not influence the results. To make this more clear the following has been added to the manuscript:

“There were 6 patients with a LOS exceeding 12 days. To ensure that potential errors in the registration of the admission or discharge date did not impact the results a secondary analysis was conducted. Excluding these outliers did not impact the result (not shown).”

3. in page 17 row 241-244 “In the current study we investigated differences in disease severity, risk factors and comorbidities between RSV-A and RSV-B subtypes in young, hospitalized children in Norway during pre-pandemic period. Both RSV-A and B was found to co-circulate throughout all three study seasons, and no clear seasonal pattern was identified.”

Please elaborate on present research directions... Do you have any research ongoing on COVID-19 pandemic impact on RSV circulation and RSV subtypes? Because there is a plethora of published papers that are documenting major impact of SARS-CoV-2 phenomenon on circulation of certain viruses like influenza, RSV, etc and virtually no impact on Rhinovirus circulation. It would add value on Discussion section.

The following paragraph has been added with a corresponding change in the conclusion:

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries reported a disrupted seasonality of RSV, with little or no RSV circulating during the first years of the pandemic and with untypical out of seasonal peaks once disease control measures was lifted [1]. This disrupted and shifted seasonality of RSV was also observed in Norway during and after the pandemic [2]. Future studies are needed to elucidate if there are differences in the distribution of RSV subtypes after the pandemic.”

“[…] Future studies are needed to investigate how the distribution of RSV and RSV subtypes has changed during and after the COVIS-19 pandemic, and the potential impact this has for the prevention of RSV in the future.”

4. page 18 row 280 “ we only had one hospital contact pr. disease episode” - please rephrase this statement, or better the entire section because “contact pr. disease” is not included in your abbreviations section nor is a usual abbreviation.

The paragraph has been changed in accordance with the suggestion from the reviewer.

“Some patients are admitted several times during the course of an RSV infection. In order to avoid counting these patients multiple times we only used the first registered hospital contact during a disease episode”.

5. page 18 rows 285-288. Please elaborate on Norwegian national guidelines prophylaxis with palivizumab in premature children because the reference inserted [39] is not in English and can generate confusion. In your country there are implemented guidance for RSV prophylaxis in premature children of what gestational age and since when? Because study period is 2015-18 and reference provided seems to be from 2021.

The first General guidance in pediatrics in Norway was published in 2006, however subsequent updates have only been available in an electronic version that is continuously updated. The guidelines for the use of palivizumab were updated in 2014, 2021 and again in 2023. Although the 2014 and 2021 versions contained similar recommendations, there are some more substantial changes in the recent 2023 version (updated October 12. 2023). To avoid confusion regarding the current guidelines among Norwegian readers this paragraph has been changed to:

“Restricting the analysis of premature children to extremely premature or very premature children according to the WHO definitions [41], could be warranted, however this was not possible in this study due to low numbers of premature children among the RSV-A and RSV-B cases.”

The reference has been changed to the WHO fact sheet on preterm birth.

Reviewer #2: Abstract:

Authors reported the results of sex association with RSV-A or RSV-B, and the comorbidities prevalence among the two types. However, these results weren’t mentioned as an objective or an aim for this study. Results of age association with RSV-A or RSV-B was meant to be an objective of the study, but no result was reported in the results section.

The aim is described at the end of the introduction, mentioning both RSV-subtypes, disease severity, sex, age groups and comorbidities. Thank you for pointing out that this was not stated clearly enough. To make this clearer to the reader, this paragraph has been changed to:

“In the current study, we aimed to explore the associations between disease severity and RSV subtypes RSV-A and RSV-B in Norway between 2015 and 2018. We further aimed to describe the distribution of RSV subtypes pattern by season, sex, age groups and underlying comorbidities.”

At the end of the first paragraph of the result section it is stated “We found no significant differences between the proportion of RSV-A or B by age or sex, neither for the entire study population nor when restricting the analysis to inpatients only (Table 2 and 3).”

The results for age is also a part of both Table 2 and Table 3.

Introduction: Introduction is well written. However, adding more details about the conducted study is important such as the duration and location of the study.

Country and time period is now stated as a part of the aim.

Methods:

- Exclusion criteria wasn’t clear, try to add a paragraph indicating the exclusion criteria of your study.

The following paragraph has been added to the methods section:

“Children >5 years of age or with residence outside of the hospital’s catchment area, children admitted more than 48 hours before enrollment, newborns that had not left the hospital and children referred from other hospitals or admitted for elective hospitalization, injury or social indication were excluded.”

- Did the studied patients were encountered at the emergency room or a clinical setting? Were they encountered in a tertiary hospital, secondary hospital, or primary care services?

The methods section has been changed to make this information more accessible. In addition the study setting has previously been described in detail in our previous publication and is referenced in this description:

" Children from 0-59 months of age presenting at hospital were prospectively enrolled through the Norwegian Enhanced Paediatric Immunisation Surveillance Network (NorEPIS). Both inpatients and outpatients were eligible. A detailed description including inclusion- and exclusion criteria, has been given previously [28]. Briefly, during three seasons from 2015 to 2018, RSV surveillance was implemented annually from week 40 to week 20 the following year in five major Norwegian primary hospitals, except for 2015 when surveillance was implemented from week 49.”

- Among the enrolled 2590 children, how many of them are below the age 12 months? And how many were between 12-59 months of age?

As one child could be enrolled several times e.g. once in season one and then again in season two or three, we do not give a specific age for each child, but we list the age during every hospital contact. This is shown in table 1. To make this clear to the reader the title of the table is changed to: “Age distribution of participants and distribution of RSV subtypes”.

The following has also been added to the methods section in the description of number of hospital contacts: “1449 children were <12 month old and 1276 children were 12-59 months old”

- Results:

- Results (Table 2, 3): Tables are confusing, and legends does not differentiate them. Also, try to use some in text explanation of these two tables. Furthermore, what type of respiratory support? What are the comorbidities?

Table 2 shows the analysis and distribution of all participants tested for RSV-A and RSV-B, while Table 3 restricts the analysis to inpatients only. To make this distinction clearer the title of table 2 has been changed to “Participant (inpatients and outpatients combined) characteristics and penalized maximum likelihood logistic regression of typed RSV-cases. Excluding co-infections with one or more of Influenza, Metapneumovirus, Parainfluenza 1, 2, 3, 4 and Adenovirus, or cases with missing information about coinfections”

The comorbidities are listed as a footnote at the bottom of the tables: “† Including trisomy 21, neuromuscular, impairment, congenital heart disease, pulmonary disease, BPD, immunodeficiency, and cancer.”

Respiratory support is defined in the methods section, under Risk groups and severity. To make this information more accessible we have also added the definition as footnote in Table 1 and Table 2

- In the severity section add the p-value for significance.

The p-value is now stated in the severity section.

- More in-text elaboration of the results is needed. However, the first part of the result and the tables are confusing and weren’t clearly delivered.

I am sorry. I do hope it has improved with the changes we have added.

Discussion

- A summarization of the main results with its significant level wasn’t included.

The summarization of main results at the start of the discussion has been elaborated.

- A comparison of the virus seasonality with the previous findings of the virus pattern in Norway needs to be done.

To our knowledge this is the first study to compare and describe the seasonality of RSV-A and RSV-B in Norway. The following paragraph has been added to the discussion:

“The seasonal patterns of the RSV subtypes in circulation in Norway, has to our knowledge, not previously been described. However, the overall total RSV seasonality described is similar to previous reports from Norway [34] and is presented in detail in our previous publication [28].”

- The study results of Risk factors and comorbidities weren’t compared with other studies.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the possible association between different comorbidities and RSV subtypes. To emphasize this the following paragraph has been added.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate if there is an association between the presence of comorbidities and RSV subtypes. However, one study found that a stronger association between RSV-B infection and a family history of asthma compared to RSV-A. However, this association also varied between RSV-A genotypes, with some genotypes showing a similar association to asthma as RSV-B [42]”

- Overall and apart from the severity section, the discussion is unorganized, poorly written, and lacks the inclusion of supporting evidence and other studies.

I am sorry. I do hope it has improved with the changes and additional references we have added.

1. Stein, R.T. and H.J. Zar, RSV through the COVID-19 pandemic: Burden, shifting epidemiology, and implications for the future. Pediatric Pulmonology, 2023. 58(6): p. 1631-1639.

2. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Epidemier av luftveisinfeksjoner i Norge vinteren 2023-24: risiko, scenarioer og håndtering. Available from: https://www.fhi.no/publ/statusrapporter/risikovurdering-for-luftveisinfeksjoner/, 2023.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0298104.s006.docx (31.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Victor Daniel Miron

20 Jan 2024

No association between disease severity and Respiratory syncytial virus subtypes RSV-A and RSV-B in hospitalized young children in Norway

PONE-D-23-21221R1

Dear Dr. Bøås,

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,

Victor Daniel Miron

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Victor Daniel Miron

24 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-21221R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bøås,

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. Victor Daniel Miron

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. ICD-10 and ICPC-2 codes used to identify children with high risk of severe Influenza.

    When no additional cases were identified by ICPC-2 codes, only ICD-10 codes are presented.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298104.s001.docx (27.3KB, docx)
    S2 Table. ICD-10 codes used to identify relevant diagnosis groups.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298104.s002.docx (24.9KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Characteristics and logistic regression of typed RSV-cases.

    Excluding co-infections with one or more of Influenza, Metapneumovirus, Parainfluenza 1, 2, 3, 4 and Adenovirus, or cases with missing information on coinfections.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298104.s003.docx (32KB, docx)
    S4 Table. Inpatient characteristics and logistic regression of typed RSV-cases.

    Excluding co-infections with one or more of Influenza, Metapneumovirus, Parainfluenza 1, 2, 3, 4 and Adenovirus, or cases with missing information on coinfections.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298104.s004.docx (31.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review.docx

    pone.0298104.s005.docx (16.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0298104.s006.docx (31.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    External researchers are able to request access to data on ICD-10 codes of risk group diagnoses and respiratory diagnoses, sex, age groups, respiratory support, hospital and admission and discharge dates from the Norwegian Patient registry. Researchers can apply for data access through Helsedata.no (https://helsedata.no/en/). Because of ethical and legal restrictions to protect the identity and confidentiality of the participants, as the data contain sensitive information according to the Norwegian Personal Data Act, all other underlying data are only available in aggregated form upon request from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Requests for access can be made to the data access committee represented by Anne-Marte Bakken Kran (Anne-MarteBakken.Kran@fhi.no) or by email to the Norwegian Institute of public health (folkehelseinstituttet@fhi.no, subject: Request for data access - NorEpis).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES