Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Nov 5;19(11):e0310493. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310493

Adopting a model of antimicrobial stewardship program to anti-tubercular treatment stewardship: A single-centre experience from a private tertiary care hospital in South India

Swathy S Samban 1,#, Akhilesh Kunoor 2,#, Preetha Prasanna 3, Malavika Krishnakumar 4, Nandita Shashindran 5, Chithira V Nair 1, Abhinandh Babu 1, Ananth Ram K J 1, Sivapriya G Nair 1, Subhash Chandra 6, Kiran G Kulirankal 1, Georg Gutjahr 7, Rakesh P S 8, Dipu T Sathyapalan 1,*, Merlin Moni 1
Editor: Arghya Das9
PMCID: PMC11537384  PMID: 39499716

Abstract

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a significant public health challenge in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC). Inappropriate use of Anti-Tubercular Treatment (ATT) undermines treatment efficacy and could contribute to drug resistance. While antimicrobial stewardship programs (AMSP) are well established, anti-tubercular treatment stewardship programs (ATTSP) in private hospitals do not have an established model. An AMSP model in a private tertiary care hospital in South India was repurposed to monitor the prescription appropriateness of ATT. A multidisciplinary team evaluated the ATT prescription appropriateness among inpatients over a one-year period with the 4R’s criteria: Right Indication, Right Drug, Right Dose, and Right Frequency. The ATTSP team filed recommendations for inappropriate prescriptions to the primary clinical care team, and compliance to the recommendations was documented within 48 hours. During the study period, 172 ATT prescriptions were evaluated. Inappropriate dose and drug prescriptions were found in 16% and 7%, respectively. The primary clinical care teams complied with 83% of the recommendations within 48 hours. The potential impact of implementing the ATTSP model nationwide was assessed using published data, suggesting that the opportunities to correct inappropriate prescriptions could reach a quarter million. The study provides a proof of concept that an ATTSP can be successfully implemented in a TB endemic, resource-constrained setting. Extrapolation for implementing ATTSP across the country has the potential for huge public health benefits.

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) continues to be a major global health issue, with India experiencing a disproportionate share of new cases and deaths [1]. More than one-fourth of the world’s new TB cases are estimated to be in India, and 32% of estimated TB deaths worldwide occur in India [2, 3]. In the new National Strategic Plan (NSP), India has pledged to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) related to ending TB by 2025, five years ahead of the global targets [4, 5].

The private health sector is massive but heterogeneous, and more than half the TB patients in India seek care from the private sector [6, 7]. Data on anti-TB medicine sales in India indicated that the majority of Anti-Tubercular Treatment (ATT) prescriptions are made from the private healthcare sector [8]. The suboptimal quality of TB care in the private sector is concerning, owing to non-standardised diagnosis and treatment protocols. Numerous efforts have been made to improve the quality of TB care in the private sector—System for TB Elimination in Private Sector (STEPS), being one such initiative. STEPS is a private-sector-led initiative to ensure uniform high standards of TB care for all the clients reaching them. It has streamlined TB-treatment notification, surveillance, contact tracing and TB Preventive Therapy, besides also ensuring patient access to social welfare services [9]. However, concerns remain regarding the quality of ATT prescriptions in the private sector [6]. Inappropriate ATT prescriptions worsen patient outcomes, in addition to implications for patient safety. Furthermore, they lead to the emergence of drug-resistant TB, [10] which further complicates TB care and efforts to end TB, especially in the context where India harbours the highest rates of multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) in the world [11, 12].

Inappropriate prescriptions result from multiple causes, including considerable heterogeneity of ATT prescribers [13] with varying competence ranging from broad specialists, super-specialists and surgeons, frequent changes in TB-treatment guidelines, [14] increasing complexity of TB cases due to the associated comorbidities, [15, 16] an increasing burden of extrapulmonary TB, [17] paucity of continuous training of prescribers and the like [18].

For the related problem of antimicrobial prescriptions, a formal framework for measuring the appropriateness of antimicrobial prescriptions by 5R’s is well established and validated. The 5R’s encompass the Right indication, Right drug, Right dose, Right frequency and Right duration of the antimicrobials. Antimicrobial stewardship models have been accepted worldwide and have been shown to improve patient outcomes [1921]. However, similar models do not exist for optimising ATT prescriptions.

While the awareness of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is widespread and the mandatory need for having Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (AMSP), [22] is well accepted, a similar issue in the setting of TB field is vastly neglected. One reason could be that while the majority of the patients monitored by the AMSP are inpatients, TB patients are mostly outpatients. Furthermore, the optimal ATT prescriptions are not static and patients have to be monitored throughout the treatment period to account for the weight-based dose modifications [23] and the adverse drug reactions [24].

We hypothesise that the existing antimicrobial stewardship models can be successfully repurposed for the Anti-Tubercular Treatment Stewardship Program (ATTSP) and their implementation would improve the appropriateness of the ATT prescriptions, lead to better patient outcomes, reduce costs and the MDR-TB risk. This paper describes the feasibility and impact of implementing ATTSP over a one-year period in a tertiary care hospital in South India.

Materials and methods

Study design and population

This prospective observational study was conducted at the Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Kochi, Kerala, South India. This hospital is a 1300-bed tertiary care hospital with a structured clinical-pharmacist-driven antimicrobial stewardship program since 2016 [25]. Inpatients initiated on ATT drugs from November 2022 to December 2023 were included in the study. The process was implemented for ATT prescriptions of inpatients. Those treated on an outpatient basis and MDR-TB prescriptions were excluded.

Patient consent statement

Ethics approval was duly obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC-AIMS-2018-GENMED-097). Written informed consent was taken from all the study participants and for the 9 minor participants written consent was obtained from parents or guardians.

Team and workflow of ATTSP

The ATTSP model (Fig 1) is repurposed from the existing AMSP protocol of the institution [25]. The AMSP methodology centres around a clinical-pharmacist-driven post-prescriptive audit of reserve antimicrobial prescriptions, in which daily reviews of patient data on restricted antibiotics are conducted to assess the appropriateness of therapy. This evaluation of appropriateness is grounded in the "5R’s", adhering to guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), The Society of Health Care Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S. CDC). The multidisciplinary committee reviews prescriptions and suggests modifications based on the 5R’s. Recommendations are recorded in the patient’s file, and compliance with them is subsequently assessed to measure the program’s effectiveness and the impact on antimicrobial use within the hospital [26].

Fig 1. ATT stewardship workflow.

Fig 1

ID Physician/Pulmonologist: Evaluation of appropriateness. Administrative champion: Putting together the team and facilitating the operational activities. Clinical Microbiologist: Identification and reporting of the TB cases. IT Professional: Running the report daily to identify reported TB cases and handing over the generated report to the ATTSP clinical pharmacist. Clinical Pharmacist: ATTSP tracking in Inpatients, post-prescriptive audit, tracking of compliance and patient follow-up till discharge. Infection Control Nurse (ICN): Ensuring appropriate isolation precautions.

A similar strategy of post-prescriptive audit and feedback was employed for the ATTSP. For this study, the "5R’s" are tailored to "4R’s" by exempting "Right duration", as the scope of the process did not encompass monitoring the entire treatment duration. The core team for ATTSP consisted of an Infectious Disease (ID) physician, a pulmonologist, an administrative champion, a clinical microbiologist, an Information Technology (IT) professional, a clinical pharmacist and an Infection Control Nurse(ICN) [27]. ATT prescriptions were identified from the pharmacy consumption records. The patient details were collected from the electronic medical records and bedside patient visits. Twice a week, the core team met to review the ATT prescriptions. Inappropriate prescriptions were notified to the primary clinical care team, and the recommendations from the ATTSP team were filed in a specially designed ATTSP recommendation form. The primary clinical care team was informed via telephone or in person, and the files were audited for compliance by the clinical pharmacist within the next 24–48 hours and up till the time of discharge.

Study measurements

Demographic details, department at the time of admission, and comorbidities of the patients were collected from electronic case records and patient files. The TB cases were classified as pulmonary/extrapulmonary, based on the site of the infection. The TB was also classified into microbiologically confirmed cases, alongside histopathological and/or radiological suspected cases. New cases/recurrence/ relapse and reinfection were defined as per the technical and operational guidelines (TOG) guidelines of National Tuberculosis Elimination Programme (NTEP) [28]. The rightness of indication, drug, dose and frequency has been assessed based on the Standards of TB Care in India, NTEP guidelines and INDEX TB guidelines [29].

Statistical methods

Baseline characteristics are summarised by counts and percentages and stratified by the type of TB. The TB patient distribution is presented for the different medical and surgical departments. For each department, the proportion of inappropriate prescriptions along with recommendations and compliance is reported. The numbers of inappropriate cases and recommendations are stratified according to the 4R’s. The results of the microbiological tests are also expressed in proportions. To extrapolate the findings to the private health sector in India, TB incidence and patient number estimates were obtained from NTEP.

Results

In total, 172 patients met the inclusion criteria of the study. The median age of the patients was 54 years ((IQR) Inter Quartile Range 40 to 65). The median length of hospital stay was 10 days (IQR 6 to 15). Extrapulmonary TB constituted 65.12%. Table 1 shows the distribution of the baseline characteristics. The most common comorbidities were diabetes, followed by hypertension and Coronary Artery Disease(CAD). Most TB cases were "new cases," with recurrent TB amounting to only 6.40%.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study patients stratified by the type of TB.

Characteristics Overall Extra Pulmonary Pulmonary
n % n % n %
Total 172 100 112 65.12 60 34.88
Age > 60 68 39.53 47 69.12 21 30.88
Female 61 35.47 51 83.61 10 16.39
Weight > 60kg 89 51.74 53 59.55 36 40.45
Length of stay > 7Da 113 65.7 84 74.34 29 25.66
Diabetes 66 38.37 38 57.58 28 42.42
Hypertension 57 33.14 37 64.91 20 35.09
CADb 20 11.63 10 50 10 50
CKDc 17 9.88 10 58.82 7 41.18
CLDd 4 2.33 2 50 2 50
Dyslipidemia 14 8.14 9 64.29 5 35.71
Hypothyroidism 8 4.65 7 87.5 1 12.5
Malignancy 5 2.91 3 60 2 40
Asthma 4 2.33 2 50 2 50
Other comorbiditiese 15 8.72 9 60 6 40
History of COVID-19f 22 12.79 13 59.09 9 40.91
Recurrent TB cases 11 6.4 6 54.55 5 45.45

aDays

bCoronary Artery Disease

cChronic Kidney Disease

dChronic Liver Disease

eChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Cerebral Vascular Accident (CVA), seizure disorder, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), and rheumatoid arthritis

fCoronaVirus Disease of 2019

Table 2 shows the primary admission departments of TB patients. Of the total 172 patients, 42 had inappropriate prescriptions. Among the 42 cases with inappropriate prescriptions, recommendations were filed for 36, whereas for six, no recommendations were filed as three patients were discharged early and three expired in-hospital. As filing of recommendations for the patients who were discharged early or who expired were not feasible, feed back to the clinicians were given by the team over the phone or in person. Compliance with the recommendation was 83.33% checked within 48 hours.

Table 2. Department-wise distribution of patients in each department along with inappropriate prescriptions and the recommendations filed.

Department Overall Inappropriate Recommendations
n % n % n %
General Medicine 43 25 12 27.91 12 100
Respiratory Medicine 26 15.12 6 23.08 5 83.33
Surgery 25 14.53 5 20 4 80
Pulmonary Medicine 20 11.63 3 15 3 100
Neurology 10 5.81 5 50 4 80
Cardiology 9 5.23 3 33.33 2 66.67
Nephrology 9 5.23 3 33.33 2 66.67
Gastroenterology 7 4.07 2 28.57 2 100
Orthopedics 6 3.49 2 33.33 1 50
Othersa 17 9.88 1 5.88 1 100

aUrology, Haematology, Rheumatology, Psychiatry, Cardio Vascular and Thoracic Surgery (CVTS), and Medical Oncology

Table 3 shows the proportion of inappropriateness in accordance with the 4 R’s. The most common recommendation was optimising the ATT dose. Among the 27 recommendations filed for dose adjustment, 15 were for inappropriately high doses and 12 for inappropriately low doses.

Table 3. Distribution of 4 R’s (Right Dose, Right Drug, Right Frequency, and Right Indication) with the frequency of inappropriateness and recommendations filed for each R.

Characteristics Inappropriate Recommendations Compliances
n % n % n %
Dose 27* 15.70 23 85.19 19 82.61
Drug 12 6.98 11 91.67 7 63.64
Frequency 3 1.74 3 100.00 3 100.00
Indication 3 1.74 2 66.67 1 50.00

17 patients developed Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) during in hospital stay and, the most observed ADR was ATT induced hepatitis (threefold increase in Serum Glutamic Oxaloacetic Transaminase (SGOT) and Serum Glutamate Pyruvate Transaminase (SGPT) values) S1 Table.

It was observed that an increase in age was associated with a higher likelihood of dosing errors S2 Table.

Table 4 shows the three microbiological tests, namely GeneXpert, acid-fast bacilli culture, and AFB smear and the positivity rate of individual tests and their combinations.

Table 4. Microbiological test for diagnosis of TB for each test and combination of tests: The total number along with the positive and negative cases are shown.

Microbiological tests Overall Pulmonary TB Extra Pulmonary TB
Tested Positive Tested Positive Tested Positive
n % n % n % n % n % n %
GeneXpert 160 93.02 100 62.50 58 96.67 50 86.21 102 91.07 50 49.02
Culture 118 68.60 41 34.75 38 63.33 18 47.37 80 71.43 23 28.75
Smear 145 84.30 26 17.93 54 90.00 20 37.04 91 81.25 6 6.59
GeneXpert or Culture or Smear 165 95.93 111 67.27 59 98.33 53 89.83 106 94.64 58 54.72

Discussion

Our prospective observational study shows how an AMSP model can be effectively repurposed to monitor the prescription appropriateness of ATT. It provides a proof of concept that an ATTSP can be successfully implemented in a TB endemic, resource-constrained Low- and Middle-Income Country (LMIC) setting. It also demonstrates how the plan for a prescription audit envisioned in the NSP for ending TB in India could be materialised. While AMSP has gained traction globally as a means to improve patient outcomes and curb resistance, [20] no similar programs existed for ATT prescriptions; to our knowledge, this is the first work that proposes a formal model for ATTSP.

By focusing on the “4R’s”—Right Indication, Right Drug, Right Dose and Right Frequency—through the ATTSP model, the study highlights the potential for identifying inappropriate prescriptions. Although the primary strategy involves prospective audit of the prescriptions, feedback to the primary prescribers is ensured through filing of recommendation form or direct feedback via in person or over the phone. The compliance to the recommendations will be followed up within 24 to 48-hour time period. In the public sector, the standardisation of ATT prescriptions is facilitated by programs such as NTEP and the use of Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs). However, in the private sector, prescriptions are more personalised due to comorbidities and adverse drug reactions, complicating standardisation. This complexity is amplified in the current study by the high number of extrapulmonary TB cases, as it functions as a tertiary care referral centre. Among the audited ATT prescriptions, dug induced hepatitis constituted the most common ADR during in hospital stay and adjustments to the dose and drug selection were the most frequent recommendations filed. The majority of dosing errors were attributed to incorrect dose calculations. Specific issues included doses exceeding the maximum recommended dose and instances of under dosing even in scenarios where patients show mildly deranged liver enzymes. Additionally, there were cases where frequency of administration of drug were not considered in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) S3 Table.

In India, the private sector manages half of the TB patients, [6] and extrapolation of the study findings to the NTEP data shows that scaling ATTSP across the private sector can potentially rectify a quarter million inappropriate prescriptions by 2025. The NTEP goal of ending TB requires the continuous engagement of the private sector, and the ATTSP could play a crucial role. The ATTSP potential is maximised when complemented by systemic initiatives like STEPS, which tackles the fragmentation of TB care and the issue of lost-to-follow-up patients.

To further reinforce the impact of ATTSP and STEPS initiatives, it is imperative to focus on enhancing care quality through strategic surveillance and feedback mechanisms. While efforts to bridge this gap through public-private partnerships, challenges persist in ensuring the delivery of quality TB care across the healthcare sectors. Hospital-crediting organisations could mandate private hospitals to implement quality initiatives like ATTSP for standardised TB management. This step could pave the way for excellence in TB care across the nation.

While this model could be easily scalable (Fig 2) to all super speciality private hospitals in the country, which may be around 6000 in number, it needs further customisation for smaller hospitals and individual practitioners.

Fig 2. Extrapolating the benefits of implementing ATT across the private hospitals in India.

Fig 2

A centralized IT-based platform for providing feedback could greatly benefit smaller hospitals and individual practitioners. An electronic consilium could enhance the management of TB by offering scientifically sound, evidence-based clinical advice through the internet. This approach, modelled after the ERS/WHO E-consilium initiative for drug resistant TB, could be adopted at the national level to optimize ATT in high TB burden countries like India [30].

This study lays the groundwork for future research aimed at optimising TB treatment and preventing the emergence of MDR-TB strains. Research exploring the scalability of ATTSP models across different healthcare contexts will provide valuable insights for TB control strategies within India and also in other LMIC settings with a high-TB burden.

Fig 2 shows the extrapolation for implementing ATTSP across the country. According to the NSP, the number of TB patients across the country will reach 2 million by 2025, with half of them being notified from the private health sector. On extrapolating the observed opportunities from this single-centre study to the potential number of patients who would seek TB treatment in private hospitals across the nation by the year 2025, the opportunities to correct inappropriate prescriptions would reach a minimum of a quarter million.

Limitations

Our study was a single-centre study from a tertiary care centre, and hence extrapulmonary cases constituted the majority of the cohort. Although the appropriateness of ATT duration was not included in the current model, Right duration can be included in future models if there is a robust system to follow up patients for extended periods. Similarly, expanding the model to include outpatients and Drug-resistant TB (DR-TB) would improve the rollout to bigger populations as well.

Conclusion

This study provides a proof of concept of the feasibility of repurposing the AMSP model for ATTSP. Scaling up this approach at a national level can potentially rectify a quarter million inappropriate prescriptions by 2025. Integrating ATTSP with current initiatives like STEPS in India’s private sector represents a forward-thinking approach to eliminate TB.

Supporting information

S1 File. Data collection form.

(PDF)

pone.0310493.s001.pdf (215.5KB, pdf)
S2 File. Recommendation form.

(PDF)

pone.0310493.s002.pdf (587KB, pdf)
S1 Table. Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs).

(DOCX)

pone.0310493.s003.docx (12.6KB, docx)
S2 Table. Age-dose relation.

(DOCX)

pone.0310493.s004.docx (15.5KB, docx)
S3 Table. Recommendations filed for 36 cases.

(DOCX)

pone.0310493.s005.docx (22.9KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all those who contributed to the successful completion of this study. We extend our heartfelt thanks to the Medical Administration for the valuable guidance and continuous support throughout this study which is a Quality improvement Initiative. Special thanks to the practitioners, clinical pharmacists, nursing staffs and all healthcare professionals at Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India for their collaboration and willingness to comply with the recommendation recognizing the value to the patient care, which played a crucial role in the implementation of the stewardship program. Lastly, we would like to acknowledge the patients and their families for their participation and cooperation in this study. Their willingness to contribute to this research is greatly appreciated.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tuberculosis
  • 2.Jain VK, Iyengar KP, Samy DA, Vaishya R. Tuberculosis in the era of COVID-19 in India. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. 2020. Sep 1;14(5):1439–43. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.07.034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.World Health Organisation Global TB Report 2022. WHO. 2022. [(accessed on 10 January 2023)]. https://www.who.int/teams/global-tuberculosis-programme/tb-reports.
  • 4.Khanna A, Saha R, Ahmad N. National TB elimination programme-What has changed. Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2023. Mar 1;42:103–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmmb.2022.10.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Government of India. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) Central TB Division. National Strategic Plan for Tuberculosis Elimination 2017–2025. MOHFW. [(accessed on 10 January 2023)];2017 https://tbcindia.gov.in/WriteReadData/NSP%20Draft%2020.02.2017%201.pdf
  • 6.Suseela RP, Shannawaz M. Engaging the Private Health Service Delivery Sector for TB Care in India—Miles to Go!. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease. 2023. May 4;8(5):265. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed8050265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Indian Council of Medical Research National TB Prevalence Survey 2019–2021. ICMR. [(accessed on 10 January 2022)];2022 https://tbcindia.gov.in/showfile.php?lid=3659. https://tbcindia.gov.in/WriteReadData/l892s/25032022161020NATBPSReport.pdf
  • 8.Arinaminpathy N, Batra D, Maheshwari N, Swaroop K, Sharma L, Sachdeva KS, et al. Tuberculosis treatment in the private healthcare sector in India: an analysis of recent trends and volumes using drug sales data. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2019. Dec;19:1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rakesh PS, Balakrishnan S, Sunilkumar M, Alexander KG, Vijayan S, Roddawar V, et al. STEPS–a patient centric and low-cost solution to ensure standards of TB care to patients reaching private sector in India. BMC Health Services Research. 2022. Dec;22:1–2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Law S, Piatek AS, Vincent C, Oxlade O, Menzies D. Emergence of drug resistance in patients with tuberculosis cared for by the Indian health-care system: a dynamic modelling study. The Lancet Public Health. 2017. Jan 1;2(1):e47–55. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(16)30035-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vishwakarma D, Gaidhane A, Sahu S, Rathod AS. Multi-drug resistance tuberculosis (MDR-TB) challenges in India: A review. Cureus. 2023. Dec 9;15(12). doi: 10.7759/cureus.50222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Cáceres G, Calderon R, Ugarte-Gil C. Tuberculosis and comorbidities: treatment challenges in patients with comorbid diabetes mellitus and depression. Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease. 2022. May;9:20499361221095831. doi: 10.1177/20499361221095831 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Malhotra A, Kumar V, Juyal D, Gautam D, Malhotra R. Knowledge, attitude, and practices of health-care providers toward antibiotic prescribing, antibiotic resistance, and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Perspectives in Clinical Research. 2021. Jul 1;12(3):146–52. doi: 10.4103/picr.PICR_122_19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Global Tuberculosis report. New treatment for drug resistant TB. Data https://www.who.int/teams/global-tuberculosis-programme/tb-reports/global-tuberculosis-report-2023/featured-topics/new-treatment-tb
  • 15.Salari N, Kanjoori AH, Hosseinian-Far A, Hasheminezhad R, Mansouri K, Mohammadi M. Global prevalence of drug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infectious Diseases of Poverty. 2023. May 25;12(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s40249-023-01107-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Devaleenal Daniel B, Ramachandran G, Swaminathan S. The challenges of pharmacokinetic variability of first-line anti-TB drugs. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology. 2017. Jan 2;10(1):47–58. doi: 10.1080/17512433.2017.1246179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jawed A, Tharwani ZH, Siddiqui A, Masood W, Qamar K, Islam Z, et al. Better understanding extrapulmonary tuberculosis: A scoping review of public health impact in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, and Bangladesh. Health Science Reports. 2023. Jun;6(6):e1357. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.1357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hsieh MJ, Huang YW, Tsai YH, Feng JY, Su WJ. Improved appropriateness of anti-tuberculosis prescription by the expert prescription review program in Taiwan. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association. 2020. Nov 1;119(11):1658–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2019.12.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Khadse SN, Ugemuge S, Singh C. Impact of antimicrobial stewardship on reducing antimicrobial resistance. Cureus. 2023. Dec 4;15(12). doi: 10.7759/cureus.49935 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Abdelsalam Elshenawy R, Umaru N, Aslanpour Z. Five Rights of Antibiotic Safety: Antimicrobial Stewardship at One NHS Foundation Trust in England Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice. 2023. Dec 1;31(Supplement_2):ii2-. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Doron S, Davidson LE. Antimicrobial stewardship. InMayo Clinic Proceedings 2011 Nov 1 (Vol. 86, No. 11, pp. 1113–1123). Elsevier. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 22.Walia K, Ohri VC, Madhumathi J, Ramasubramanian V. Policy document on antimicrobial stewardship practices in India. Indian Journal of Medical Research. 2019. Feb 1;149(2):180–4. doi: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_147_18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.World Health Organization. Guidelines for treatment of drug-susceptible tuberculosis and patient care.
  • 24.Alffenaar JW, Stocker SL, Forsman LD, Garcia-Prats A, Heysell SK, Aarnoutse RE, et al. Clinical standards for the dosing and management of TB drugs. The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. 2022. Jun 1;26(6):483–99. doi: 10.5588/ijtld.22.0188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Singh S, Menon VP, Mohamed ZU, Kumar VA, Nampoothiri V, Sudhir S, et al. Implementation and impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program at a tertiary care center in South India. InOpen forum infectious diseases 2019 Apr (Vol. 6, No. 4, p. ofy290). US: Oxford University Press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 26.Nampoothiri V, Sudhir AS, Joseph MV, Mohamed Z, Menon V, Charani E, et al. Mapping the implementation of a clinical pharmacist-driven antimicrobial stewardship programme at a tertiary care centre in South India. Antibiotics. 2021. Feb 23;10(2):220. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10020220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Shrestha J, Zahra F, Cannady P Jr. Antimicrobial stewardship. StatPearls. 2023. Jun 20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Technical and Operational Guidelines for TB Control in India 2016. https://tbcindia-wp.azurewebsites.net/technical-and-operational-guidelines-for-tb-control-in-india-2016/
  • 29.Standard Treatment Workflows. https://tbcindia.gov.in/showfile.php?lid=3681
  • 30.Khurana AK, Aggarwal D. ERS/WHO Tuberculosis Consilium assistance in extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. European Respiratory Journal. 2015. Jan 1;45(1):294–5. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00107814 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Arghya Das

16 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-23210Adopting a Model of Antimicrobial Stewardship Program to Anti-Tubercular Therapy Stewardship: A Single-CentreExperience from a Private Tertiary Care Hospital in South IndiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. T Sathyapalan,

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 Aug 30 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,

Arghya Das, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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 (a) whether consent was informed and (b) 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.

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

Additional Editor Comments:

Authors of the present manuscript presents a proof of concept for antimicrobial stewardship in tuberculosis which they have mentioned as Anti-Tubercular Therapy Stewardship (ATTSP). From the same institute, a previously published article mentioned the term "anti-tuberculosis treatment stewardship". As a new concept is being presented, it is advisable if the authors could use uniform terminologies to describe the concept.

Although the concept presented in the manuscript is new and pertinent in contemporary landscape of TB treatment (with special emphasis to private sector hospitals), it appears to be more of a prescription audit. The exclusion of one of the 5Rs 'Right Duration' from the assessment is justifiable due to lack of follow up data after discharge, consideration of few important aspects like monitoring adverse drug reactions during inpatient treatment could make the study more meaningful.

Please address the above in the revised version of the manuscript under DISCUSSION.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Line 101: This prospective cohort study was conducted.................

Comment: The study design does not seem to be that of a prospective cohort study. Please mention it as a descriptive observational study only.

Line 114: ...........Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Comment: Please mention the above as United States CDC

Line 143: Fig 2: Extrapolating the benefits of implementing ATT across the private hospitals in India

Comment: Figure 2 and its legends have been mentioned twice in the manuscript; once under MATERIALS AND METHODS and second time under DISCUSSION

Line 156-158: New cases/recurrence/ relapse..................................National Tuberculosis Elimination Programme (NTEP)

Comment: Please cite the suitable reference for the above sentence.

RESULTS

Lines 184-185: ..................no recommendations were filed as three patients were discharged early.

Comment: It is not understood why recommendations could not be filed for three patients who were discharged. In the event of detection of inappropriate prescription, it's a sine qua non to rectify the same to avoid further complications. Please explain.

Lines 193-196: The most common recommendation was optimising the ATT dose. Among the 27 recommendations filed for dose adjustment, 15 were for inappropriately high doses and 12 for inappropriately low doses.

Comment: The above statistics require more elaboration. Was there any effect of age-group (like children) on the high doses or low doses? That means, whether the wrong prescribed doses may be resulting from not-considering dose-adjustments or wrongly calculating the doses. If such instances are documented please include them in the revised manuscript.

In the same context, it is also advisable to add the demographic details, drugs prescribed including the inappropriate ones and inappropriate doses prescribed, inappropriate frequency and inappropriate indication in a tabular format for those 36 cases where recommendations were filed. Please upload this information as a Supplementary file.

Lines 237-239: ...................so an information-technology-enabled platform for providing................................associations or city consortiums of private providers may be developed.

Comment: One such IT-based platform ERS/WHO TB Consilium to provide rapid advice to clinicians already exists. Please consider adding it under the same paragraph adding suitable references.

TABLE 1: Tables should be self explanatory. Please expand all abbreviations in the footnote.

FIGURES: All figures should also be cited sequentially in the text.

Figure 2 seems to be reproduced from other sources. Please acknowledge the source and cite the reference accordingly.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: 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: 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: As TB is increasing burden in our country , we have to strengthen the treatment by implementing ATTSP. Drug therapy for TB take longer duration, so we need to titrate the treatment course well organised without have any misdirections. Proper drug therapy will enhance the treatment outcome.

Reviewer #2: its a novel concept especially for developing countries where rampant use of ATT drugs has happened leading to surge in MDR and XDR cases of TB. The article is well written and easy to understand. The workflow can be implemented at other places too.

**********

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: Dr M R Vasanthapriyan

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr VIKRAMJEET SINGH, MD, DNB Microbiology, Assistant Professor, SGPGI Lucknow

**********

[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 Nov 5;19(11):e0310493. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310493.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Aug 2024

Dear Reviewer’s,

We sincerely thank you for the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript. We are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has helped us enhance the quality and clarity of our work.

We have carefully addressed each of the points raised in your review and have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript. We have provided detailed responses to each comment, and added supplementary materials where appropriate.

Additionally, we have updated the author list to include Dr. Binny P. Prabhu and Dr. Nandita Shashindran acknowledging their significant contributions to the study.

We trust that these revisions meet your expectations and contribute to the overall improvement of our manuscript. We look forward to your further insights.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Journal Requirements:

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

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

Carefully reviewed and formatted the manuscript according to the PLOS ONE's style requirements

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 (a) whether consent was informed and (b) 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.

ANS: Thank you for your comments. In our study, written informed consent was obtained from all participants. For the nine paediatric participants included in the study, written consent was duly obtained from their parents or legal guardians. This has been clarified in the Methods section under the heading Patient Consent Statement. We will also ensure that this information is appropriately reflected in the online submission details. Line numbering: 117 - 120

This study was not a retrospective study. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants prospectively, prior to data collection.

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

ANS: Thank you for the careful review of the manuscript and insightful comments. The reference list as requested was reviewed and confirmed that none of the cited papers have been retracted. To enhance the manuscript, additional reference has been added that is highly relevant to the topic discussed:

Singh S, Menon VP, Mohamed ZU, Kumar VA, Nampoothiri V, Sudhir S, Moni M, Dipu TS, Dutt A, Edathadathil F, Keerthivasan G. Implementation and impact of an antimicrobial stewardship program at a tertiary care center in South India. In Open Forum Infectious Diseases 2019 Apr (Vol. 6, No. 4, p. ofy290). US: Oxford University Press.

This reference is particularly important as it details antimicrobial stewardship model implemented at the same institution, providing a comprehensive context and supporting the findings presented in the manuscript. All changes to the reference list have been reflected in the revised manuscript, as reference number 25.

Additional Editor Comments:

1. A) Authors of the present manuscript presents a proof of concept for antimicrobial stewardship in tuberculosis which they have mentioned as Anti-Tubercular Therapy Stewardship (ATTSP). From the same institute, a previously published article mentioned the term "anti-tuberculosis treatment stewardship". As a new concept is being presented, it is advisable if the authors could use uniform terminologies to describe the concept.

ANS 1.A) Thank you for your valuable feedback. We understand the importance of using uniform terminologies to describe the concept. In light of your suggestion, we have revised the terminology in our manuscript to "anti-tubercular treatment stewardship program (ATTSP)" to ensure consistency with previous publications from our institute, along with the fact that ATT is expanded as “Anti Tubercular Treatment” in RNTCP guidelines. We believe this will help maintain clarity and uniformity in the literature.

B) Although the concept presented in the manuscript is new and pertinent in contemporary landscape of TB treatment (with special emphasis to private sector hospitals), it appears to be more of a prescription audit.

ANS 1.B) Thank you for your feedback. While we understand that the concept may appear similar to a prescription audit, it is more accurately described as a stewardship model that was adopted. Specifically, it represents the widely accepted stewardship strategy of prospective audit and feedback. This approach includes a prospective audit and feedback mechanism, along with tracking compliance, which distinguishes it from a simple prescription audit. To ensure clarity, we have now added the explanation of this strategy to the discussion section of the manuscript. Line numbering 253-256.

C)The exclusion of one of the 5Rs 'Right Duration' from the assessment is justifiable due to lack of follow up data after discharge,

ANS 1.C) The exclusion of the 'Right Duration' from our assessment is indeed due to the lack of follow-up data post-discharge, as mentioned. We have already acknowledged this in the limitations section under the discussion section of the manuscript. Line numbering.310-311

D) Consideration of few important aspects like monitoring adverse drug reactions during inpatient treatment could make the study more meaningful.

Please address the above in the revised version of the manuscript under DISCUSSION.

ANS 1.D) Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding the inclusion of adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring. We have now addressed this in the revised manuscript. This information has been incorporated into both the results and discussion sections and has also been added as supporting information (S1 Table). Line numbering 228-230, 261-262

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Line 101: This prospective cohort study was conducted.................

Comment: The study design does not seem to be that of a prospective cohort study. Please mention it as a descriptive observational study only.

ANS 2: Thank you for the comment. We agree that the study design is more accurately described as an observational study. To reflect this, we have revised the manuscript to describe the study as a “prospective observational study”. Line numbering: 110,243

3. Line 114: ...........Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Comment: Please mention the above as United States CDC

ANS 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to specify "United States CDC" as requested. Line numbering: 129

4. Line 143: Fig 2: Extrapolating the benefits of implementing ATT across the private hospitals in India

Comment: Figure 2 and its legends have been mentioned twice in the manuscript; once under MATERIALS AND METHODS and second time under DISCUSSION

ANS: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will revise the manuscript to ensure Figure 2 and its legends are mentioned only once, under the DISCUSSION section.

5. Line 156-158: New cases/recurrence/ relapse..................................National Tuberculosis Elimination Programme (NTEP)

Comment: Please cite the suitable reference for the above sentence.

ANS: Thank you for pointing out the need for citation. Appropriate reference added to support the statement regarding new cases, recurrence, and relapse in the context of the National Tuberculosis Elimination Programme (NTEP). Ref number 28.

6. RESULTS

Lines 184-185: ..................no recommendations were filed as three patients were discharged early.

Comment: It is not understood why recommendations could not be filed for three patients who were discharged. In the event of detection of inappropriate prescription, it's a sine qua non to rectify the same to avoid further complications. Please explain.

ANS: Thank you for your comment. The filing of recommendations refers to documenting them directly in the patients' files, a process primarily conducted for inpatients. For the three patients who were discharged early, direct filing was not feasible. However, in these instances, the clinicians were promptly informed of the recommendations either in person or over the phone. This clarification has been addressed in the results section of the manuscript. Line numbering: 211-213

7. Lines 193-196: The most common recommendation was optimising the ATT dose. Among the 27 recommendations filed for dose adjustment, 15 were for inappropriately high doses and 12 for inappropriately low doses.

Comment: The above statistics require more elaboration. Was there any effect of age-group (like children) on the high doses or low doses? That means, whether the wrong prescribed doses may be resulting from not-considering dose-adjustments or wrongly calculating the doses. If such instances are documented please include them in the revised manuscript.

In the same context, it is also advisable to add the demographic details, drugs prescribed including the inappropriate ones and inappropriate doses prescribed, inappropriate frequency and inappropriate indication in a tabular format for those 36 cases where recommendations were filed. Please upload this information as a Supplementary file.

ANS: Effect of Age-Group on Dose Errors: In our analysis we observed that an increase in age was associated with a higher likelihood of dosing errors. This analysis has been detailed in the supporting information (S2 Table). Line numbering: 231-232

Causes of Incorrect Dosing: The majority of dosing errors were attributed to incorrect dose calculations. Specific issues included doses exceeding the maximum recommended dose and instances of underdosing even in scenarios where patients show mildly deranged liver enzymes. Additionally, there were cases where frequency of administration of drug were not considered in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). This is now included in the discussion section. Line numbering. Line numbering:263-267

We have added a supplementary table providing detailed demographic information, including the drugs prescribed (both appropriate and inappropriate), inappropriate doses, frequencies, and indications for the 36 cases where recommendations were filed. This table is now included as supplementary material to offer a comprehensive view of the dosing issues encountered. Added as supporting information (S3 Table).

8. Lines 237-239: ...................so an information-technology-enabled platform for providing................................associations or city consortiums of private providers may be developed.

Comment: One such IT-based platform ERS/WHO TB Consilium to provide rapid advice to clinicians already exists. Please consider adding it under the same paragraph adding suitable references.

ANS: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have incorporated it to the manuscript with suitable reference. Line numbering: 283-287. Reference number:30

9. TABLE 1: Tables should be self explanatory. Please expand all abbreviations in the footnote.

Thank you for the suggestion. The abbreviations in Table 1 have been expanded in the footnote to ensure the table is self-explanatory.

10. FIGURES: All figures should also be cited sequentially in the text.

Figure 2 seems to be reproduced from other sources. Please acknowledge the source and cite the reference accordingly.

ANS: Thank you for your feedback. The figures have been cited sequentially in the text. For Figure 2, the statistics used for extrapolation were taken from the National Strategic Plan, mentioned accordingly in the manuscript and the figure itself is an original creation.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0310493.s006.docx (21.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Arghya Das

2 Sep 2024

Adopting a model of antimicrobial stewardship program to anti-tubercular treatment stewardship: A single-centreexperience from a private tertiary care hospital in South India

PONE-D-24-23210R1

Dear Dr. T Sathyapalan,

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,

Arghya Das, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Arghya Das

16 Oct 2024

PONE-D-24-23210R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sathyapalan,

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. Arghya Das

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 File. Data collection form.

    (PDF)

    pone.0310493.s001.pdf (215.5KB, pdf)
    S2 File. Recommendation form.

    (PDF)

    pone.0310493.s002.pdf (587KB, pdf)
    S1 Table. Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0310493.s003.docx (12.6KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Age-dose relation.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0310493.s004.docx (15.5KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Recommendations filed for 36 cases.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0310493.s005.docx (22.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0310493.s006.docx (21.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES