Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Sep 25;19(9):e0310528. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310528

Demographic and pathogen characteristics of incident bacterial meningitis in infants in South Africa: A cohort study

Yannick Nkiambi Kiakuvue 1, Sumaya Mall 1, Nelesh Govender 1,2,3,4,5,6, Anne von Gottberg 1,7, Rudzani Mashau 7, Susan Meiring 2, Cheryl Cohen 1,7,*
Editor: D William Cameron8
PMCID: PMC11423971  PMID: 39321191

Abstract

Introduction

Bacterial meningitis is a major cause of death, with an approximate case fatality rate of 37% across all age groups in South Africa. This study aimed to describe the demographic and pathogen characteristics of incident meningitis in children aged <1 year in South Africa from 2014 through 2018, during a period when Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) were both included in the expanded program on immunization (EPI).

Methods

We conducted a cohort study of routine laboratory data in the National Health Laboratory Service Corporate Data Warehouse, which covers approximately 80% of the South African population. We defined a case of laboratory-confirmed bacterial meningitis as any person aged <1 year with meningitis diagnosed by culture and identification of a pathogen documented as being a common cause of meningitis in CSF. The cause-specific incidence risks were calculated by dividing the number of positive specimens in each age group and year by the corresponding mid-year population for children under 1 year old and those in the post-neonatal period (≥ 28 days to 365 days old). For children under 28 days old, the annual numbers of registered livebirths were used. We used Poisson regression to compare the incidence of meningitis by year.

Results

We identified 3575 (1.5%) cases of culture-confirmed bacterial meningitis from the 232,016 cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens tested from 2014–2018. The highest number of cases were recorded in children aged <28 days (1873, 52.4%), male children (1800, 50.4%) as well as in the Gauteng Province (2014, 56.3%). Acinetobacter baumannii (14.9%), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae (13.5%), and group B streptococcus (GBS) (10.7%), were the most common pathogens detected. Overall, A. baumannii had the highest incidence risk, occurring at 9.8 per 100,000 persons in children aged <1 year in 2018. Among neonates, A. baumannii peaked at 14.9 per 100,000 livebirths in 2018, while Streptococcus pneumoniae was most common in the post-neonatal period (≥ 28 days to 365 days old), peaking at 9.8 per 100,000 persons in 2014. There was an increase in the annual incidence of most pathogens over the study period.

Conclusion

There was an increasing trend in the annual incidence of bacterial meningitis in infants caused by most pathogens, particularly A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae and GBS. In addition to increased uptake of vaccination, prevention measures to reduce nosocomial and mother-to-child transmission of bacteria could include antenatal screening for GBS in pregnant women, rigorous hygiene in the hospital environment as well as rational antibiotic use.

Introduction

Bacterial meningitis comes second in terms of frequency among the causes of meningitis in children, with viral meningitis being the most common [1, 2]. In Low-and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC), the bacterial meningitis fatality rate is estimated at 8% in children under 5 years old while it is estimated between 40 and 58% in neonates [3–6]. Global burden of disease data suggests that LMIC experience a higher burden of bacterial meningitis than high-income countries [7]. The consequences of meningitis pose serious implications for public health including mortality and long-term cognitive consequences [5, 8, 9].

Incidence estimates of meningitis vary globally, particularly between high-income and low-income countries. For example, in 2016, estimated overall bacterial meningitis incidence varied from 0.5 per 100 000 persons in Australia to 207.4 per 100 000 persons in South Sudan. The variations observed could arise from true differences in disease burden and, to some extent, from factors such as lack of consistency in surveillance systems of different regions leading to the underreporting of cases [7, 10]. However, in 2016, 2.8 million cases of bacterial meningitis were estimated in all ages in the world and 56% of them were among children under 5 years with an estimated annual incidence of 143.6 per 100 000 persons [11]. In South Africa, from 2014 to 2018, Mashau and colleagues reported an overall incidence risk of neonatal bloodstream infection and meningitis estimated at 6.0 per 1000 livebirths [12].

There is also variation in aetiology (pathogen characteristics) of bacterial meningitis and aetiology may change over time with the introduction of new vaccines [10]. Globally, bacterial meningitis aetiology varies by geographic region and age group. S. pneumoniae and Neisseria meningitidis are still the more predominant pathogens in all age groups and all regions despite the introduction of their respective vaccines, whereas the incidence of Haemophilus influenzae type b has declined since the introduction of the Hib vaccine [7, 13]. Escherichia coli, GBS, and Listeria monocytogenes are the most frequent bacteria that cause meningitis in the neonatal period around the world [14]. N. meningitidis is known to be a major cause of endemic and epidemic meningitis around the world [10]. A study conducted from 2014 to 2019 among South African neonates aged <28 days, using a similar dataset to the one we have used, found that A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae, GBS were the most common pathogens detected in the CSF specimens [12].

Several meningitis vaccines are included in routine immunisation schedules or are used to control outbreaks around the world [15]. In South Africa, the PCV-7 vaccine was introduced in 2009 replaced by PCV-13 in 2011 [15–17]. The Hib vaccine was introduced in 1999 as part of the national immunisation programme and the Hib vaccine booster dose in 2010 [18, 19]. A quadrivalent protein-polysaccharide meningococcal vaccine is available in South Africa but is not part of the public South African immunisation programme [15, 19, 20].

To date, there are a paucity of nationally representative data assessing the incidence and associated characteristics (including the pathogens described above) of bacterial meningitis (excluding tuberculosis (TB)) after introduction of different vaccines. The purpose of this study was to describe the incidence risk and aetiology of bacterial meningitis in children aged <1-year-old in South Africa from year 2014 through 2018 while Hib and PCV-13 vaccines were in use.

Materials and methods

Study population and study design

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of routine laboratory data. Our study population included any person aged <1 year who underwent a lumbar puncture at a public sector facility in South Africa and had a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimen sent to an NHLS laboratory. We specifically focused on cases where a bacterial organism, considered a pathogen causing meningitis, was identified through culture between January 2014 and December 2018.

Source of data

Our data were extracted from the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS) Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The NHLS is South Africa’s largest diagnostic pathology service, serving public-sector facilities in all nine provinces. It provides laboratory diagnostics for an estimated 80% of the population of South Africa [21]. All routine laboratory results with accompanying demographic data from NHLS laboratory-processed specimens are electronically archived in the CDW [22]. Data were extracted on all CSF specimens submitted to NHLS laboratories from children aged <1 year from 2014 to 2018. Mid-year population and livebirths data from the Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) were used for the incidence calculations [23]. Our data consisted of pathology records collected from 210 healthcare facilities.

Definitions

We defined a case of laboratory-confirmed bacterial meningitis as any person aged <1 year with meningitis diagnosed by culture and identification of a pathogen documented as being a common cause of meningitis from CSF including N. meningitidis, H. influenzae, K. pneumoniae, Group B Streptococcus (GBS), Klebsiella spp., S. pneumoniae, E. coli, L. monocytogenes, A. baumannii, Serratia marcescens, Enterobacter cloacae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Streptococcus anginosus etc. Any specimen sample with an organism that is not documented as being a common cause of meningitis and which can commonly contaminate CSF sample (e.g.: Aerococcus viridans, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus spp, Corynebacterium species; Staphylococcus capitis, Staphylococcus cohnii, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus haemolyticus, Staphylococcus hominis, Staphylococcus intermedius, Staphylococcus lentus, Staphylococcus saprophyticus, Staphylococcus urealyticus, Staphylococcus warneri, Streptococcus gordonii, Streptococcus mitis, Streptococcus oralis, Streptococcus parasanguinis, Streptococcus sanguinis, Streptococcus salivarius, Streptococcus vestibularis,) was defined a contaminant. As recommended by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a case of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) infection was defined as two or more separate cultures isolated within two days of the original culture [24]. CoNS was considered a contaminant in each case where it was isolated from only one specimen or from two specimens, but the second specimen was collected more than 48 hours later. Cases of TB were not included in the study.

As individuals could have had multiple CSF specimens submitted during the study period, we defined an episode of illness as all positive samples within a 14-day period. If a sample tested positive more than 14 days after a previous episode, it was considered a new episode.

The post-neonatal period was defined as the interval from ≥28 to 365 days of age, while the neonatal period encompassed the time frame from birth to <28 days of age.

The seasons were defined accordingly to the South African meteorological reports as followed: Summer: December, January, February; Autumn: March, April, May; Winter: June, July, August; Spring: September, October, November [25].

Only cases with a recorded date of birth were included. For cases with missing date of birth, but with ward name marked as kangaroo mother care (KMC) unit, neonatal/nursery were included in the analysis, and the ward name was used a proxy for being neonates.

Statistical analysis

A number of steps were undertaken in the analysis phase:

First, a descriptive analysis of the aetiology of bacterial meningitis was conducted using frequency (n) and percentage (%) tables. We calculated proportions by dividing the number of cause-specific cases by the total number of cases of bacterial meningitis. Only the six most commonly detected pathogens were included in this part of the study, other pathogens were grouped under “other” pathogen category.

Secondly, the incidence risk of specific pathogens were calculated by dividing the age-group, year of the specimen and the number of positive specimens by the appropriate mid-year population. Livebirths were used for the calculation of incidence risk among children under 28 days old, while the appropriate under-1-year population was estimated from the Stats SA Sprague table [26]. For children ≥ 28 days to 365 days old, the population was estimated by subtracting the livebirths from the under-1-year appropriate population. Given that people who use public facilities account for 80% of the population, the mid-year population was then multiplied by 0.8 [21]. All incidence risks among children aged <28 days were expressed per 100 000 livebirths and per 100 000 persons for the two other age groups (under 1 year and ≥ 28 days to 365 days old). Data on the Western Cape Province for the year 2014 was not included in any incidence calculations because of the missing CSF data for the same year. Poisson regression was used to determine if the incidence risk trends were different by year. Only the six most commonly detected pathogens were included in the distribution calculations, while pathogens with fewer cases were grouped under "other” pathogen. Stata (Statacorp, College Station, Texas USA), version 15 was used for data management and all statistical analyses.

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the University of the Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics (Medical) Committee (M210110). All data were protected and accessed on 30/04/2021 after ethical approval. Co-authors did not have access to individual participants and could not identify them. Additionally, all data were fully anonymized before being accessed, ensuring the confidentiality and privacy of the participants.

Results and discussion

Results

During the five-year study period (2014–2018), a total of 3575 (1.5%) cases of culture-confirmed bacterial meningitis were identified from the 232,016 CSF specimens tested by the NHLS in South Africa (Fig 1). Of the 3575 cases, 52.4% (n = 1873) were in neonates aged <28 days, 50.4% (n = 1800) were males, 56.3% (n = 2014) were recorded in Gauteng Province, and 26.9% (n = 963) occurred in the Spring (Table 1).

Fig 1. Flow diagram of the population included in the study.

Fig 1

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of patients with laboratory-confirmed meningitis infection due to bacterial pathogen in South Africa, 2014–2018.

Pathogens A. baumannii K. pneumoniae GBS S. pneumoniae S. aureus E. faecium Others TOTAL
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
TOTAL (n/N) 536(14.9) 484(13.5) 384(10.7) 372(10.4) 321(8.9) 224(6.3) 1,308(32.2) 3575(100)
AGE-GROUP (days)
<28 388(72.4) 304(62.8) 287(74.7) 60(16.1) 120(37.4) 137(61.2) 578(46.1) 1873(52.4)
≥28 148(27.6) 180(37.2) 97(25.3) 312(83.9) 201(62.6) 87(38.8) 677(53.9) 1702(47.6)
SEX
Female 223(41.6) 213(44) 188(48.9) 172(46.2) 144(44.9) 102(45.5) 540(43) 1582(44.2)
Male 272(50.7) 242(50) 178(46.4) 183(49.2) 162(50.5) 111(49.6) 653(52) 1800(50.4)
Unknown 41(7.7) 29(6) 18(4.7) 17(4.6) 15(4.6) 11(4.9) 62(5) 193(5.4)
PROVINCE
Eastern cape 34(6.3) 44(9.1) 36(9.4) 41(11) 18(5.6) 6(2.7) 96(7.6) 275(7.7)
Free state 28(5.2) 12(2.5) 12(3.1) 27(7.3) 11(3.4) 8(3.6) 47(3.7) 145(4.1)
Gauteng 374(69.8) 288(59.5) 197(51.3) 164(44.1) 195(60.8) 167(74.6) 630(50.2) 2014(56.3)
KwaZulu-Natal 40(7.5) 71(14.7) 52(13.5) 43(11.6) 47(14.6) 25(11.2) 197(15.7) 475(13.3)
Limpopo 25(4.7) 23(4.8) 13(3.4) 19(5.1) 13(4.1) 5(2.2) 78(6.2) 176(4.9)
Mpumalanga 12(2.2) 9(1.9) 13(3.4) 13(3.5) 2(0.6) 3(1.3) 29(2.3) 81(2.3)
North West 2(0.4) 8(1.7) 8(2.1) 25(6.7) 1(0.3) 0(0) 32(2.5) 76(2.1)
Northern cape 4(0.7) 5(1) 3(0.8) 5(1.3) 4(1.3) 4(1.8) 20(1.6) 45(1.2)
Western cape 17(3.2) 24(4.9) 50(13) 35(9.4) 30(9.4) 6(2.7) 126(10) 288(8.1)
YEAR
2014 52(9.7) 67(13.8) 63(16.4) 66(17.7) 55(17.1) 24(10.7) 184(14.6) 511(14.3)
2015 85(15.9) 75(15.5) 78(20.3) 88(23.7) 71(22.1) 48(21.4) 214(17.1) 659(18.4)
2016 85(15.9) 99(20.45) 65(16.9) 70(18.8) 56(17.5) 48(21.4) 317(25.3) 740(20.7)
2017 151(28.2) 110(22.7) 87(22.7) 74(19.9) 58(18.1) 35(15.6) 262(20.9) 777(21.7)
2018 163(30.4) 133(27.48) 91(23.7) 74(19.9) 81(25.2) 69(30.8) 278(22.2) 888(24.8)
MONTH
January 40(7.5) 50(10.3) 31(8) 21(5.7) 28(8.7) 12(5.4) 94(7.5) 276(7.7)
February 44(8.2) 45(9.3) 32(8.3) 25(6.7) 23(7.1) 10(4.5) 108(8.6) 287(8)
March 38(7.1) 53(10.9) 26(6.8) 30(8.1) 35(10.9) 22(9.8) 111(8.8) 315(8.8)
April 45(8.4) 37(7.6) 29(7.5) 35(9.4) 40(12.5) 12(5.4) 105(8.4) 303(8.5)
May 47(8.8) 37(7.6) 34(8.8) 35(9.4) 38(11.8) 23(10.3) 117(9.3) 331(9.3)
June 40(7.5) 29(5.9) 31(8) 42(11.3) 22(6.8) 23(10.3) 98(7.8) 285(7.9)
July 35(6.5) 40(8.3) 28(7.3) 36(9.6) 21(6.5) 21(9.4) 97(7.7) 278(7.8)
August 48(8.9) 36(7.4) 42(10.9) 30(8.1) 23(7.20 21(9.4) 89(7.1) 289(8.1)
September 43(8) 31(6.4) 34(8.8) 40(10.7) 19(5.9) 24(10.7) 120(9.6) 311(8.7)
October 42(7.8) 36(7.4) 38(9.9) 30(8.1) 27(8.4) 26(11.6) 115(9.2) 313(8.8)
November 79(14.7) 47(9.7) 34(8.8) 30(8.1) 26(8.1) 16(7.1) 107(8.5) 339(9.5)
December 35(6.5) 43(8.9) 25(6.5) 18(4.8) 19(5.9) 14(6.2) 94(7.5) 248(6.9)
SEASON
Summer 119(22.2) 138(28.5) 88(22.9) 64(17.2) 70(21.8) 36(16.1) 296(23.6) 811(22.7)
Autumn 130(24.2) 127(26.3) 89(23.2) 100(26.9) 113(35.2) 57(25.5) 333(26.5) 949(26.5)
Winter 123(22.9) 105(21.7) 101(26.3) 108(29) 66(20.6) 65(29) 284(22.6) 852(23.8)
Spring 164(30.6) 114(23.6) 106(27.6) 100(26.9) 72(22.4) 66(29.5) 342(27.2) 963(26.9)

n: frequency; %: column percentage; GBS–Group B streptococcus

Aetiology

A. baumannii was the most common pathogen identified (536, 14.9%) followed by K. pneumoniae (484, 13.5%), GBS (384, 10.7%), S. pneumoniae (372, 10.4%), S aureus (321, 8.9%), E. faecium (224, 6.3%) (Table 1). E. faecalis. E. coli, N. meningitidis, P. aeruginosa, H. influenzae, E. cloacae, S. marcescens, and S. maltophilia were among the other pathogens detected.

The most common pathogens detected among neonates aged <28 days were A. baumannii (388, 20.7%), K. pneumoniae (304, 16.2%), and GBS (287, 15.3%), while the most common pathogens detected among those in post-neonatal age group were S. pneumoniae (312, 18.3%), S. aureus (201, 11.8%), and K. pneumoniae (180, 10.6%). More than 70% of A. baumannii cases were observed in neonates, while more than 80% of cases of S. pneumoniae were recorded in children in the post-neonatal period. A. baumannii was the most common pathogen identified in both male and female children (Table 1).

When examined by province, A. baumannii was as the most common pathogen in Gauteng (374, 18.6%), Limpopo (25, 14.2%) and the Free State provinces (28, 19.3%), while K. pneumoniae dominated in the Eastern Cape (44, 16%) and KwaZulu-Natal provinces (71, 14.9%). In Mpumalanga (13, 16%) and the Western Cape provinces (50, 17.3%), GBS was the most frequently recorded pathogen, while in the North West Province, S. pneumoniae (25, 32.9%) was most common. A. baumannii was the most common pathogen detected in the Spring (164, 17%), Winter (123, 14.4%), and the Autumn (130, 13.7%), while K. pneumoniae was the most common in the Summer (138, 17%) (Table 1).

In the overall sample, N. meningitidis and H. influenzae were relatively rare, accounting for 1.4% (51 cases) and 2.2% (79 cases) of infections, respectively, and were thus categorized under other pathogens. Among the identified cases, 80.4% (41 cases) of N. meningitidis and 92.4% (73 cases) of H. influenzae cases were recorded in children aged ≥28 days.

Incidence

The annual incidence risk of most pathogens increased each year in all ages categories (all under 1 year, neonate, post-neonate) (Figs 2–4). The annual incidence risk among children aged <1 year varied by pathogen and year. With an incidence risk of 9.8 per 100 000 persons (95% CI, 8.4–11.5) in children under 1 year old in 2018 and14.9 per 100 000 livebirths (95% CI 12.4–17.9) in children under 28 days old in 2018, A. baumannii had the highest incidence risk calculated over the study period in these two age groups. In children ≥28 days (post-neonatal period), the highest incidence risk was for S. pneumoniae (9.8 per 100 000 persons (95% CI 7.3–12.7)) (Table 2).

Fig 2. Incidence risk of the most common pathogens among children under 1-year-old by year, South Africa, 2014–2018.

Fig 2

Fig 4. Incidence risk of the most common pathogens detected among children ≥28 days old, South Africa, 2014–2018.

Fig 4

Table 2. Incidence risk (95% CI) per 100 000 persons of the most common pathogens detected among children under 1 year old, South Africa, 2014–2018.

Age group 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
All
A. baumannii 3.3 (2.5–4.3) 3.6 (2.9–4.5) 3.6 (2.9–4.5) 9.4 (7.9–11.1) 9.8 (8.4–11.5)
K. pneumoniae 4.2 (3.3–5.4) 3.2 (2.5–4.0) 4.2 (3.4–5.1) 6.9 (5.6–8.3) 8.1 (6.8–9.6)
S. pneumoniae 4.2 (3.2–5.3) 3.8 (3.0–4.6) 2.9 (3.5–4.6) 4.6 (3.6–5.8) 4.5 (3.5–5.2)
GBS 3.9 (2.6–4.2) 3.3 (2.6–4.2) 2.7 (2.1–3.5) 5.4 (4.3–6.7) 5.5 (4.4–6.7)
S. aureus 3.5 (2.6–4.5) 3.0 (2.3–3.8) 2.4 (1.8–3.1) 3.6 (2.7–4.6) 4.9 (3.9–6.1)
E. faecium 1.5 (0.9–2.3) 2.1 (1.5–2.7) 2.0 (1.5–2.7) 2.2 (1.5–2.7) 4.2 (3.3–5.3)
<28 days old
A. baumannii 4.2 (2.9–5.7) 6.1 (4.6–7.9) 7.9 (6–10.1) 14.5 (12–17.4) 14.9 (12.4–17.9)
K. pneumoniae 3.9 (2.8–5.5) 6.1 (4.6–7.9) 7.2 (5.5–9.4) 8.9 (7.0–11.3) 10.9 (8.7–13.4)
S. pneumoniae 1.1 (0.5–2.0) 1.8 (1.1–2.9) 1.4 (0.7–2.5) 1.3 (0.6–2.4) 1.5 (0.8–2.6)
GBS 5.5 (4.1–7.2) 6.3 (4.8–8.3) 6.3 (4.7–8.4) 8.1 (6.2–10.3) 8.5 (6.7–10.8)
S. aureus 2.3 (1.4–3.5) 3.5 (2.3–4.9) 3.1 (1.9–4.9) 2.7 (1.6–4.1) 2.9 (1.9–4.4)
E. faecium 1.6 (0.9–2.7) 3.5 (2.3–4.9) 3.4 (2.2–4.9) 2.8 (1.7–4.9) 5.5 (3.9–7.3)
≥28 to 365 days old
A. baumannii 2.1 (1.1–3.5) 2.2 (1.5–3.1) 1.5 (0.9–2.3) 4.4 (3.1–6.14) 4.9 (3.6–6.8)
K. pneumoniae 4.6 (3.1–6.6) 1.5 (0.9–2.3) 2.7 (1.9–3.7) 4.8 (3.4–6.6) 5.4 (3.9–7.2)
S. pneumoniae 8.3 (6.3–10.8) 4.9 (3.8–6.2) 3.7 (2.8–4.8) 7.8 (5.9–9.9) 7.4 (5.7–9.5)
GBS 1.9 (1.0–3.3) 1.6 (0.9–2.4) 1.0 (0.6–1.6) 2.8 (1.8–4.3) 2.6 (1.6–3.9)
S. aureus 5.1 (3.5–7.1) 2.8 (2.0–3.8) 2.0 (1.4–2.8) 4.6 (3.2–6.3) 6.8 (5.1–8.8)
E. faecium 1.3 (0.6–2.6) 1.2 (0.7–1.9) 1.4 (0.8–2.1) 1.6 (0.8–2.7) 2.9 (1.9–4.4)

GBS: group B streptococcus

Fig 3. Incidence risk of the most common pathogens detected among children <28 days old, South Africa, 2014–2018.

Fig 3

Almost all of the most common pathogens detected in different provinces increased over time, with the exception of S. aureus, S. pneumoniae and GBS, which increased from 2014 to 2017 before slightly decreasing in most provinces in 2018. Gauteng province had the highest incidence risk for all pathogens.

Discussion

We described a 5-year incidence of culture-confirmed bacterial meningitis among infants in South Africa, bringing to light several important findings. There was an increase in the annual incidence of most pathogens over the study period. A. baumannii, followed by K. pneumoniae and GBS were the most common pathogens detected throughout the study. A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae, and GBS were most frequently identified in neonates, while in the post-neonatal period, S. pneumoniae, S. aureus, and K. pneumoniae were the most common pathogens. Finally, the Gauteng Province recorded the highest proportions and incidences of all pathogens.

We found an increasing (annual) incidence of most pathogens during the study period, a finding that is not always corroborated in previous studies. Several studies have found a decrease in the incidence of bacterial meningitis and its causative pathogens worldwide as well as in South Africa (in adults) following the introduction of various vaccines [27–32]. Our findings are consistent with what Mashau and colleagues discovered in children under the age of 28 days using the same dataset but describing cases of neonatal meningitis or bloodstream infection; they also discovered an increasing trend in the overall incidence risk of neonatal meningitis [12]. South Africa has established a long-standing vaccination program targeting pneumococcus and Hib [33]. However, there were some cases of S. pneumoniae as well as H. influenzae; the increasing trend cannot be attributed to these organisms. The rise in the incidences of bacterial meningitis can be attributed to several factors: increased bacterial transmission, especially among premature neonates; the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant strains; and changes in healthcare practices. Social factors like poverty and overcrowding could also exacerbate the spread of meningitis. Additionally, outbreaks in specific facilities, advancements in laboratory techniques, and improved NHLS CDW data collection and treatment contribute to this trend.

We found that A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae, and GBS were the most common pathogens detected during the study period. The current study’s findings indicate a high proportion and predominance of pathogens such as A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae, S. aureus that can be classified as healthcare-associated infections and vertical transmission mostly for GBS. Inadequate infection control programmes (poor hand hygiene, poor environmental cleaning, disinfection and sterilization, poor antibiotic stewardship) prolonged hospital stays, a large number of premature births as well as a lack of antenatal screening and education for GBS in pregnant women could explain these trends [34–37].

The leading causes of bacterial meningitis in our study differed from what previous studies, also from LMICs, had suggested. In one study conducted in the Gulf region of Oman, for example, the introduction of meningococcal serogroup A and C vaccine, pneumococcal vaccine, and Hib vaccine had no effect on the leading pathogens. H. influenzae S. pneumoniae, and N. meningitidis remained the top three causes of bacterial meningitis in children under 1 year [38]. That could be because the Oman study used neutrophilic pleocytosis, a latex agglutination test for antigen, and a CSF culture test to define a case of bacterial meningitis, whereas our study only included the CSF culture test. Additionally, our study had a significantly higher number of neonatal infections compared to the study in Oman. In neonates, our fundings were comparable to what Mashau and colleagues found using a similar dataset, but the proportions of different pathogens were not the same [12]. In the post-neonatal period, the leading causative pathogens of bacterial meningitis in our study were different from what was found in Namibia, where S. pneumoniae, Haemophilus spp, and Streptococcus spp were the three most common pathogens isolated among children 1 month to 11 months of age, even though the first pathogen was the same [39]. This could be due to differences in the healthcare systems of the two countries as well as the study period (2009–2012).

The fact that Gauteng Province reported most cases is understandable given that it is the most populated province, accounting for 25.3% of the national population in 2018, as well as being highly urbanised, with better access to healthcare and laboratory testing [21, 40].

Strengths and limitations

The research has several strengths. The study included all bacterial pathogens (other than tuberculosis) and data from all over South Africa. Despite the fact that the study only included CSF culture, it provided a clear distribution of aetiology and incidence of bacterial meningitis over a 5-year period using data from South Africa’s largest pathology diagnostic service with good facilities for microbiological testing and procedures, which serves 80% of the total population [41].

We have also identified several limitations in our study. Firstly, we only considered cases where a laboratory examination was requested and performed. In some instances, a clinical diagnosis and treatment may have been instituted without a laboratory examination. Additionally, some cases may have been CSF culture-negative not because of the absence of a pathogen but because effective treatment was administered before the laboratory examination, leading to false negatives. These factors could result in an underestimation of the incidence and a distortion of the actual aetiology.

Secondly, the incidence risks of specific pathogens were calculated by dividing the number of positive specimens by the appropriate mid-year population, categorized by age group and year of specimen collection. For children under 28 days old, livebirths were used for the calculation of incidence risk, while for the under-1-year population, estimates were derived from the Stats SA Sprague table. This method of estimation adds another layer of limitation, as it may not fully capture the precise population at risk.

Additionally, children using public sector services might differ in various sociodemographic and health-related aspects compared to those using private sector services. This difference might influence our incidence estimates and should be considered when interpreting the results.

Moreover, the absence of gestational age data for mothers and the lack of information on preterm surviving children made it difficult to accurately identify premature neonates. This limitation hindered our ability to precisely attribute the high incidence rate of bacterial meningitis to this particular population group. We also had missing data for the entire Western Cape Province in 2014 and missing dates of birth for 2960 specimens. Furthermore, we were unable to classify community-acquired versus nosocomial-acquired infections due to the unavailability of admission dates.

Conclusion

The incidence of various pathogens increased during our study period. A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae, and GBS were the most common causative pathogens in neonates and children under one year old, while in the post-neonatal period, S. pneumoniae, S aureus, K. pneumoniae were the most common pathogens identified. Overall, this study suggests that nosocomial pathogens and pathogens transmitted from mother to child are the most common causes of bacterial meningitis, and that S. pneumoniae is the most common pathogen recorded in children in the postnatal period. Different public health programs should not only focus on vaccination (immunization) programs. National and provincial infection prevention programmes, antenatal screening for GBS in pregnant women and hygienic practice in the labour room and intensive care units, as well as a rationalization of antibiotic use to prevent nosocomial and mother to child transmissible pathogens should also be considered. In addition, further studies could collect clinical variables for a more in-depth characterisation of bacterial meningitis.

Acknowledgments

We thank the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS) Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) for allowing us to use their data. We also thank the Centre for Respiratory Diseases and Meningitis team of National Institute for Communicable Disease (NICD) for their assistance.

Data Availability

Data are available from the National Health Laboratory Service Corporate Data Warehouse (NHLS-CDW) Institutional Data Access for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Funding Statement

Funding for the study was awarded as a grant to NG from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1208882). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Logan SAE, MacMahon E. Viral meningitis. Bmj. 2008;336(7634):36–40. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39409.673657.AE [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mount HR, Boyle SD. Aseptic and Bacterial Meningitis: Evaluation, Treatment, and Prevention. Am Fam Physician. 2017;96(5):314–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sáez-Llorens X, McCracken GHJ. Bacterial meningitis in neonates and children. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1990. Dec;4(4):623–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sáez-Llorens X, McCracken GH. Bacterial meningitis in children. Lancet. 2003;361(9375):2139–48. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13693-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Furyk JS, Swann O, Molyneux E. Systematic review: Neonatal meningitis in the developing world. Tropical Medicine and International Health. 2011;16(6):672–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02750.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bill F, Foundation MG. Global, regional, and national burden of meningitis and its aetiologies, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. 2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zunt JR, Kassebaum NJ, Blake N, Glennie L, Wright C, Nichols E, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of meningitis, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(12):1061–82. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30387-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hsu MH, Hsu JF, Kuo HC, Lai MY, Chiang MC, Lin YJ, et al. Neurological complications in young infants with acute bacterial meningitis. Front Neurol. 2018;9(OCT):1–10. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Svendsen MB, Ring Kofoed I, Nielsen H, Schønheyder HC, Bodilsen J. Neurological sequelae remain frequent after bacterial meningitis in children. Acta Paediatr. 2020. Feb;109(2):361–7. doi: 10.1111/apa.14942 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Agrawal S, Nadel S. Acute bacterial meningitis in infants and children: Epidemiology and management. Pediatric Drugs [Internet]. 2011;13(6):385–400. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=emed10&NEWS=N&AN=2011577682 doi: 10.2165/11593340-000000000-00000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lukšić I, Mulić R, Falconer R, Orban M, Sidhu S, Rudan I. Estimating global and regional morbidity from acute bacterial meningitis in children: Assessment of the evidence. Croat Med J. 2013;54(6):510–8. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2013.54.510 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mashau RC, Meiring ST, Dramowski A, Magobo RE, Quan VC, Perovic O, et al. Culture-confirmed neonatal bloodstream infections and meningitis in South Africa, 2014–19: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Glob Health [Internet]. 2022;10(8):e1170–8. Available from: doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00246-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Oordt-Speets AM, Bolijn R, van Hoorn RC, Bhavsar A, Kyaw MH. Global etiology of bacterial meningitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Brouwer MC, Tunkel AR, Van De Beek D. Epidemiology, diagnosis, and antimicrobial treatment of acute bacterial meningitis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010;23(3):467–92. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00070-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Boyles TH, Bamford C, Bateman K, Blumberg L, Dramowski A, Karstaedt A, et al. Guidelines for the management of acute meningitis in children and adults in South Africa. Southern African Journal of Epidemiology and Infection. 2013;28(1):5–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Madhi SA, Cohen C, von Gottberg A. Introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine into the public immunization program in South Africa: Translating research into policy. Vaccine. 2012;30(SUPPL.3):C21–7. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.05.055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.von Gottberg A, Cohen C, de Gouveia L, Meiring S, Quan V, Whitelaw A, et al. Epidemiology of invasive pneumococcal disease in the pre-conjugate vaccine era: South Africa, 2003–2008. Vaccine. 2013. Aug 28;31(38):4200–8. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.04.077 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Quan V, Mccarthy K. Communicable diseases surveillance and outbreak investigation in South Africa 10. 2005;87–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.von Gottberg A. Bacterial meningitis in the era of paediatric vaccination against the encapsulated pathogens. Continuing Medical Education. 2010;28(6):252. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Meiring S, Hussey G, Jeena P, Parker S, Von Gottberg A. Recommendations for the use of meningococcal vaccines in South Africa. S Afr J Infect Dis. 2017;32(3):82–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.A S S. Stats SA Mid-year population estimates 2017. 2018;(July):1–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.YNational Health Laboratory Service [Internet]. [cited 2019 Oct 17]. Available from: http://www.nhls.ac.za/
  • 23.STATS SA [Internet]. Available from: http://www.statssa.gov.za/
  • 24.Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36(5):309–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.van der Walt AJ, Fitchett JM. Statistical classification of South African seasonal divisions on the basis of daily temperature data. S Afr J Sci. 2020;116(9–10). [Google Scholar]
  • 26.StasSA. Statistical release- Mid-year population estimates. Africa [Internet]. 2012;P0302(July):1–8. Available from: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022011.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Britz E, Perovic O, von Mollendorf C, von Gottberg A, Iyaloo S, Quan V, et al. The epidemiology of meningitis among adults in a south African province with a high HIV prevalence, 2009–2012. PLoS One [Internet]. 2016;11(9):2009–12. Available from: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wong CH, Duque JR, Wong JSC, Chan C man V, Lam CSI, Fu YM, et al. Epidemiology and Trends of Infective Meningitis in Neonates and Infants Less than 3 Months Old in Hong Kong. International Journal of Infectious Diseases [Internet]. 2021; 111:288–94. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.06.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Chapoutot AG, Dessein R, Guilluy O, Lagrée M, Wallet F, Varon E, et al. Impact of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on the incidence of pneumococcal meningitis in children. Epidemiol Infect. 2016. Feb;144(3):607–11. doi: 10.1017/S095026881500179X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kleynhans J., Cohen C., McMorrow M., Tempia S., Crowther-Gibson P., Quan V., et al. (2019). Can pneumococcal meningitis surveillance be used to assess the impact of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on total invasive pneumococcal disease? A case-study from South Africa, 2005–2016. Vaccine, 37 (38), 5724–5730. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.04.090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Meiring S. Declining Incidence of I nvasive Meningococcal Disease in South Africa. Clinical Infectious Diseases [Internet]. 2018; Available from: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-abstract/69/3/495/5142640 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.von Gottberg A, de Gouveia L, Madhi SA, du Plessis M, Quan V, Soma K, et al. Impact of conjugate Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine introduction in South Africa. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84(10):811–8. doi: 10.2471/blt.06.030361 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Makamba-Mutevedzi PC, Madhi S, Burnett R. Expanded programme on immunisation (EPI) national coverage survey report. 2020; [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Heath PT, Yusoff NKN, Baker CJ. Neonatal meningitis. 2003;(September 2002):173–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Dramowski A, Whitelaw A, Cotton MF. Burden, spectrum, and impact of healthcare-associated infection at a South African children’s hospital. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2016;94(4):364–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2016.08.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Khan HA, Baig FK, Mehboob R. Nosocomial infections: Epidemiology, prevention, control and surveillance. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2017;7(5):478–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zaidi AKM, Thaver D, Ali SA, Khan TA. Pathogens associated with sepsis in newborns and young infants in developing countries. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 2009;28(SUPPL. 1):10–8. doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e3181958769 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Dash N, Panigrahi D, Al Khusaiby S, Al Awaidy S, Bawikar S. Acute bacterial meningitis among children under 5 years of age in Oman: a retrospective study during 2000–2005. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries. 2008;2(02). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mengistu A, Gaeseb J, Uaaka G, Ndjavera C, Kambyambya K, Indongo L, et al. Antimicrobial sensitivity patterns of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) isolates in Namibia: implications for empirical antibiotic treatment of meningitis. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2013;6:4. doi: 10.1186/2052-3211-6-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Coulson GB, Von Gottberg A, Du Plessis M, Smith AM, De Gouveia L, Klugman KP. Meningococcal disease in South Africa, 1999–2002. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13(2):273–81. doi: 10.3201/eid1302.051553 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Stevens W. NHLS Data Strategy. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Clinton Moodley

8 Apr 2024

PONE-D-24-04693Demographic and pathogen characteristics of incident bacterial meningitis in infants in South

Africa: A Cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kiakuvue,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 23 2024 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,

Clinton Moodley, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1208882)"

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that "We can provide details of access."

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

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

Additional Editor Comments:

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

Dear Authors,  The reviewers have both indicated minor shortcomings in the original manuscript. Please address these and submit a revised manuscript for consideration. 

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

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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: Major comments:

• This is a nice and informative analysis of the pathogens detected in culture-positive bacterial meningitis in children aged <1 year in South Africa. The findings are very interesting, but could be made even more useful with some exploration of potential biases in the data source as well as by adding some additional information to the manuscript.

More detailed comments:

Title:

• I wouldn’t call this a cross-sectional study, as you have data over 5 years and even data on repeat cultures within the same child.

Abstract:

• Line 45: unclear what ‘and the one in the post-neonatal….’ means

Introduction:

• Line 101: could clarify that the 2.8 million cases were estimated, not actually recorded

Methods:

• Why was only data through 2018 included, instead of expanding the dataset to more recent years?

• Should mention in the methods that TB was excluded.

• Did all of the labs across the network have the same capacity for culture for the same set of pathogens?

• Does the livebirths data also come from Stats SA?

• How accurate is the census data for each year, as interpreting changes in incidence over time is heavily dependent on accurate population denominators

• Line 216: only the SIX most commonly detected pathogens were included, correct?

• Lines 224-225: do you think that infants who use public facilities differ from infants who don’t use public facilities – if so, do you think this could be biasing your incidence estimates?

• Is the 80% of the population who uses public facilities consistent across all provinces? I’m wondering if the 0.8 correction is equally applicable across every province, or if this might bias the province-specific estimates? Also, is the 80% consistent across all years 2014 through 2018?

Results

• Is it possible to include a supplemental table on which serogroups/serotypes of N. meningitidis, S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae and GBS were detected, if any of that data is available?

• Could the results of the poisson regression be presented in a supplemental table and/or the 95 CIs be added to the Figures?

Discussion:

• Lines 346-347: a potential increase in the number of samples tested is an important point. As this analysis is limited to culture-positive cases only, it’s hard to understand the surveillance performance context over time. Are any cases also tested by PCR? Did testing practices change during the study period? Did the % culture-positive change over time?

• Line 358: do you have data on which infants in this analysis were born prematurely, to better explore the disease burden/distribution in premature infants?

• Lines 361-378: I’m guessing that the pathogen distribution varies geographically, but also according to lumbar puncture practices by age group, and what pathogens labs are equipped to test for.

• Lines 395-400: do you have data on which cases received antibiotic treatment prior to lumbar puncture?

Figures

• Figures 1: There are a number of spelling errors in Figure 1

• Figure 4: are there are any notable differences in the distribution of pathogens within smaller age bands in the 28-365 day age group?

Reviewer #2: Authors should attempt to explain the reasons for the rise in incidence during the time period after 2016. The authors have summarily dwelt with above issues in discussion by mentioning in lines 344-347:

“It could be also explained by increases in transmission of bacterial infections especially in premature neonates, outbreaks in specific facilities in later years, improvements in laboratory technique and the quality of NHLS CDW data collection and data treatment, as well as an increase in the number of samples tested.”

This is one issue stands out while reading the paper, and will pique the reader’s curiosity.

The laboratory, particularly microbiology services available and its limitations/strengths could be outlined.

The authors could explore the possibility of any improvement in culture facilities of this period or was there any focussed effort to improve collection during this phase?

Did the no of csf samples generated each year change from 2014 till 2018? Was this rise because of greater sampling, better culture methods or better collection methods?

Did the number of surviving preterm neonates increase during the above period due to improvements in neonatal care? Surely, data on number of preterms delivered in the Hospitals could be available.

Did HIV positivity among the admitted patients during the period have an impact? Even though, the authors mention lack of HIV data, the HIV prevalence of the provinces could be brought out. Moreover, antenatal testing of HIV must be routine and prevalence data there could be brought out.

The percentages and figures for H. influenzae and N. meningitidis in lines 275-279 seem to be inconsistent. Please correct.

**********

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: Heidi M. Soeters

Reviewer #2: Yes: Rama Krishna Sanjeev

**********

[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 Sep 25;19(9):e0310528. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310528.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


22 May 2024

All questions and comments from the editor and reviewers have been addressed and uploaded in a file titled "Response to Reviewers."

Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”)

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

Response: We have now incorporated additional details and have also clarified whether all data underwent full anonymization before being accessed in the manuscript.

We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Response:We have ensured that the grant numbers provided in the 'Funding Information' section matched the awards received for our study when we resubmitted.

Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1208882)"

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response:We have added to the manuscript the correct grant number as well as the fact that the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

In the online submission form, you indicated that "We can provide details of access."

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval

Response:We have added that the data are available from the National Health Laboratory Service Corporate Data Warehouse (NHLS-CDW). Institutional Data Access for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

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

Response:We have thoroughly reviewed our reference list to ensure its completeness and accuracy. Any references that were retracted have been updated accordingly.

Reviewer #1:

I wouldn’t call this a cross-sectional study, as you have data over 5 years and even data on repeat cultures within the same child.

Response:Our study, while spanning five years and including probable repeat cultures within the same child, remains a cross-sectional study. This classification is due to our focus on analysing data at a specific point in time or within a short timeframe, rather than tracking individuals longitudinally. We defined an episode of illness as all positive CSF samples within a 14-day period, considering samples testing positive after this period as new episodes therefore a new case. This method helps manage repeat cultures while maintaining the study's cross-sectional nature.

Line 45: unclear what ‘and the one in the post-neonatal….’ Means

Response:We have revised the text to enhance clarity.

Cause-specific Incidence risks were calculated by dividing the age-group, year of the specimen and the number of positive specimens by the appropriate mid-year population for children under 1 year old and the one in the post-neonatal period (≥ 28 days to 365 days old), while the annual numbers of registered livebirths were used for children under 28 days old.

Line 101: could clarify that the 2.8 million cases were estimated, not actually recorded

Response:We have made the modification as requested to clarify that the 2.8 million cases were estimated, not actually recorded.

Why was only data through 2018 included, instead of expanding the dataset to more recent years?

Response: The dataset included in the research only extends until 2018 because the manuscript is a transcription of a master research report, the writing of which commenced in 2019. Therefore, data beyond 2018 were not available for inclusion in the analysis at that time.

Should mention in the methods that TB was excluded.

Response: A sentence specifying that cases of TB were not included in the study has been added to the methods section as requested.

Did all of the labs across the network have the same capacity for culture for the same set of pathogens?

Response: While efforts are made to standardize procedures and protocols, disparities in resources and capabilities among laboratories across the network of public sector laboratories in South Africa are not uncommon, there may be variations in capacity for culture among different labs, particularly concerning the same set of pathogens. Factors such as infrastructure, equipment availability, staffing levels, and funding may influence the laboratory's capacity to perform culture for specific pathogens. However, the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS) microbiology laboratories used standardised diagnostic methods.

Does the livebirths data also come from Stats SA?

Response: Yes, the livebirths data also comes from Stats SA

How accurate is the census data for each year, as interpreting changes in incidence over time is heavily dependent on accurate population denominators.

Response: The accuracy of our census data for each year is crucial for interpreting changes in incidence over time, and we took great care to ensure its reliability. All the denominator data were obtained from Statistics South Africa (STATSA) or estimated using the STATSA Sprague tool, which is widely recognized for its accuracy and reliability. STATSA is a leading authority in data collection in South Africa, known for its comprehensive and meticulous approach to gathering demographic information. Therefore, we are confident in the accuracy and validity of the population denominators used in our study.

Line 216: only the SIX most commonly detected pathogens were included, correct?

Response: Only the six most commonly detected pathogens were included for the calculation of the distribution. More information has been added in the manuscript.

Lines 224-225: do you think that infants who use public facilities differ from infants who don’t use public facilities – if so, do you think this could be biasing your incidence estimates?

Response: Yes, there might be disparities between infants using public and private healthcare facilities. However, our study used data from South Africa's largest pathology diagnostic service, which offers excellent facilities for microbiological testing and procedures and serves 80% of the total population. While this helps mitigate potential biases, we acknowledge the risk of disparity and have included this as a limitation in our study's limitations section

Is the 80% of the population who uses public facilities consistent across all provinces? I’m wondering if the 0.8 correction is equally applicable across every province, or if this might bias the province-specific estimates? Also, is the 80% consistent across all years 2014 through 2018

Response: The 80% figure represents an average rate provided by Statistics South Africa (Stats SA); a renowned institution known for its comprehensive data collection efforts. While this correction factor is widely used in our analysis to adjust for the proportion of the population utilizing public facilities, it's essential to consider potential variations across provinces and years. Stats SA employs rigorous methodologies to ensure data accuracy and reliability, but variations in healthcare infrastructure and utilization patterns may exist between provinces and over time.

Is it possible to include a supplemental table on which serogroups/serotypes of N. meningitidis, S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae and GBS were detected, if any of that data is available?

Response: Our study focused solely on the pathogen groups rather than individual serogroups/serotypes of N. meningitidis, S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and GBS. Therefore, we do not have data available on specific serogroups/serotypes for inclusion in a supplemental table

Could the results of the poisson regression be presented in a supplemental table and/or the 95 CIs be added to the Figures

Response: A supplemental table presenting the results of the Poisson regression analysis has been added as requested. Additionally, we have incorporated the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to the figures for enhanced clarity and completeness of the results.

Lines 346-347: a potential increase in the number of samples tested is an important point. As this analysis is limited to culture-positive cases only, it’s hard to understand the surveillance performance context over time. Are any cases also tested by PCR? Did testing practices change during the study period? Did the % culture-positive change over time

Response; Our study specifically focused on culture samples as per our request, and we obtained the data from the NHLS CDW. Regarding your inquiries about potential changes in surveillance performance over time, it's important to note that our analysis is limited to culture-positive cases only. We did not include cases tested by PCR in our analysis. However, it's worth mentioning that there was an increase in the number of samples tested over the duration of the study, which may have contributed to the observed trends in incidence rates.

Line 358: do you have data on which infants in this analysis were born prematurely, to better explore the disease burden/distribution in premature infants?

Response:Unfortunately, we do not have data specifically identifying which infants in this analysis were born prematurely. This limitation has been noted in the study's limitations section.

Lines 361-378: I’m guessing that the pathogen distribution varies geographically, but also according to lumbar puncture practices by age group, and what pathogens labs are equipped to test for.

Response:Indeed, it's likely that the pathogen distribution varies geographically, but also according to lumbar puncture practices by age group, and what pathogens labs are equipped to test for. However, we think that the variations are less likely to be due to laboratory detection methods because the NHLS microbiology laboratories used standardised diagnostic methods and laboratories with no or limited microbiological capacity referred specimens to larger central laboratories for processing microbiology laboratories used standardised diagnostic methods.

Lines 395-400: do you have data on which cases received antibiotic treatment prior to lumbar puncture?

Response: No, we do not have data regarding which cases received antibiotic treatment prior to lumbar puncture

Figures 1: There are a number of spelling errors in Figure 1

Response: We have thoroughly reviewed Figure 1 and addressed all identified spelling errors.

Figure 4: are there are any notable differences in the distribution of pathogens within smaller age bands in the 28-365 day age group

Response: Thank you for your inquiry regarding Figure 4. Indeed, there are notable differences in the distribution of pathogens within smaller age bands in the 28-365 day age group. Specifically, in children under 28 days old in 2018, A. baumannii exhibited the highest incidence risk calculated over the study period in these two age groups. Conversely, in children aged 28 days and above (post-neonatal period), S. pneumoniae displayed the highest incidence risk, recorded at 9.8 per 100,000 persons (95% CI 7.3 – 12.7).

We have incorporated this information into our revised manuscript, and to provide further elucidation on the incidence risk across different age groups, we have included an additional table detailing incidences in various age bands. The table offers comprehensive insights into the distribution of pathogens within smaller age cohorts, enhancing the clarity and depth of our analysis.

Reviewer #2:

Authors should attempt to explain the reasons for the rise in incidence during the time period after 2016. The authors have summarily dwelt with above issues in discussion by mentioning in lines 344-347:

“It could be also explained by increases in transmission of bacterial infections especially in premature neonates, outbreaks in specific facilities in later years, improvements in laboratory technique and the quality of NHLS CDW data collection and data treatment, as well as an increase in the number of samples tested.”

This is one issue stands out while reading the paper and will pique the reader’s curiosity.

Response:We have taken note of your suggestion and have enhanced the discussion section of the paper to provide a more comprehensive explanation for the rise in incidence of bacterial meningitis cases after 2016. In addition to the factors previously mentioned, we have incorporated additional reasons, including the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains, changes in healthcare practices, and social determinants of health. These additions aim to provide a more nuanced understanding of the observed trend and its underlying factors.

The laboratory, particularly microbiology services available and its limitations/strengths could be outlined.

The authors could explore the possibility of any improvement in culture facilities of this period or was there any focussed effort to improve collection during this phase?

Did the no of csf samples generated each year change from 2014 till 2018? Was this rise because of greater sampling, better culture methods or better collection methods?

Response: We have now included the laboratory's strengths and limitations in our manuscript. It is important to note that from December 2014, under the leadership of a new team, many efforts were made to improve microbiology services, including culture facilities and sample collection methods at the NHLS. These enhancements likely contributed to an increase in the number of CSF samples generated each year from 2014 to 2018, reflecting greater sampling efforts, improved culture techniques, and better collect

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0310528.s001.docx (25.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Miquel Vall-llosera Camps

30 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-04693R1Demographic and pathogen characteristics of incident bacterial meningitis in infants in South Africa: A Cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kiakuvue,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 13 2024 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,

Miquel Vall-llosera Camps

Senior Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Major comments:

• This is a nice and informative analysis of the pathogens detected in culture-positive bacterial meningitis in children aged <1 year in South Africa. The findings are very interesting, and the revisions have improved the clarity and utility of the manuscript. Only a few minor considerations for improvement remain.

Title:

• I respectfully disagree with this study being classified as a cross-sectional study. Incidence calculations are reported in this manuscript, and incidence cannot be calculated from cross-sectional studies.

Abstract:

• Line 49: would be helpful to specify: We identified 3575 (1.5) CASES of culture-confirmed bacterial meningitis…

Introduction:

• Line 122: should say ‘a quadrivalent protein-polysaccharide meningococcal VACCINE…’

Methods:

• In the Source of Data section, should mention that the livebirths data also come from Stats SA

• Line 207: only the SIX most commonly detected pathogens were included in the distribution calculations, correct? The text in this one sentence currently says seven.

Results

• Lines 290-292: it is unclear what the denominator is for these reported proportions for H. influenzae and N. meningitidis.

Reviewer #2: The authors have done due diligence in improving the manuscript. They have answered my comments satisfactorily.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Heidi M Soeters

Reviewer #2: Yes: Rama Krishna Sanjeev

**********

[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 Sep 25;19(9):e0310528. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310528.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


3 Aug 2024

Thank you for your detailed feedback and suggestions on our manuscript. Below, we address each of your comments and outline the changes made accordingly:

Study Design:

Original Comment: "I respectfully disagree with this study being classified as a cross-sectional study. Incidence calculations are reported in this manuscript, and incidence cannot be calculated from cross-sectional studies."

Response: As requested, the study design has been updated and is now described as a retrospective cohort study, which is more appropriate for the methods and analyses conducted.

Original Comment: "would be helpful to specify: We identified 3575 (1.5) CASES of culture-confirmed bacterial meningitis…"

Response: This has been corrected as requested.

Meningococcal Vaccine:

Original Comment: "Line 122: should say ‘a quadrivalent protein-polysaccharide meningococcal VACCINE"

Response: The text has been revised to state ‘a quadrivalent protein-polysaccharide meningococcal vaccine’ as requested.

Source of Data:

Original Comment: "In the Source of Data section, should mention that the livebirths data also come from Stats SA."

Response: This has been done. We have now mentioned that the live births data also come from Stats SA.

Pathogen Distribution Calculations:

Original Comment: "Line 207: only the SIX most commonly detected pathogens were included in the distribution calculations, correct? The text in this one sentence currently says seven."

Response: This has been corrected to accurately reflect that only the six most commonly detected pathogens were included in the distribution calculations.

Proportions Denominator:

Original Comment: "Lines 290-292: it is unclear what the denominator is for these reported proportions for H. influenzae and N. meningitidis."

Response: More clear sentences have been added to the manuscript to clarify the denominator used for these reported proportions.

We hope these revisions address your concerns effectively. Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has greatly improved the clarity and accuracy of our manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

pone.0310528.s002.docx (15.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

D William Cameron

4 Sep 2024

Demographic and pathogen characteristics of

incident bacterial meningitis in infants in South

Africa: A cohort study

PONE-D-24-04693R2

Dear Dr. Kiakuvue,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

D. William Cameron, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed my concerns in the present iteration. The work adequately addresses the research question.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Heidi M. Soeters

Reviewer #2: Yes: Rama Krishna Sanjeev

**********

Acceptance letter

D William Cameron

15 Sep 2024

PONE-D-24-04693R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kiakuvue,

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

Professor D. William Cameron

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0310528.s001.docx (25.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

    pone.0310528.s002.docx (15.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are available from the National Health Laboratory Service Corporate Data Warehouse (NHLS-CDW) Institutional Data Access for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES