Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Apr 28;15(4):e0231329. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231329

Inpatient morbidity and mortality of measles in the United States

Raj Chovatiya 1, Jonathan I Silverberg 2,*
Editor: Ka Chun Chong3
PMCID: PMC7188204  PMID: 32343688

Abstract

Background

Measles is an extremely contagious, vaccine-preventable infection that was officially declared eradicated in the US in 2000. However, measles outbreaks are increasingly occurring in the US. Measles cases have considerable morbidity requiring hospitalization, yet little is known about hospitalization and complications from measles in recent years.

Objectives

To analyze the frequency, predictors, costs and other outcomes of hospitalization for measles in the US.

Methods

The 2002–2016 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, containing a 20% sample of US hospitalizations (n = 96,568,625), was analyzed. Measles and comorbidities were defined by International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) or ICD-10-CM codes. Multivariable survey logistic regression and linear regression models controlling for sociodemographic demographic factors were constructed to understand associations with organ-specific complications, and cost of care and length of stay, respectively.

Results

Overall, 1,018 measles hospitalizations occurred in 2002–2016, and hospitalizations increased over time. In multivariable logistic regression models, measles was associated with higher odds of gastrointestinal, hematologic, infectious, neurologic, ophthalmologic, pulmonary, and renal complications, with the strongest association observed with encephalitis (39.84 [16.51–96.12], P<0.0001). Increased length of stay (LOS) and similar cost of care (mean [95% CI]; 4.8 [4.4–5.4]; $7,438 [$6,446-$8,582]) were observed versus (vs.) all other admissions (4.5 [4.4–4.5]; P<0.01; $7,854 [$7,774-$7,935], P>0.05). There were 34 deaths in hospitalized measles patients; inpatient mortality was numerically higher in those with vs. without measles (proportion ± SEM: 3.3±1.2% vs. 2.3±0.01%, P = 0.333).

Limitations

Lack of outpatient or prescription data.

Conclusions

Measles continues to pose a substantial and preventable health care burden, with serious complications, hospitalization and inpatient mortality. Further studies are needed to improve the prevention and management of measles.

Introduction

Measles is a highly contagious and potentially life-threatening, airborne disease characterized by high fever, cough, coryza, conjunctivitis, and morbilliform rash. Measles can cause numerous organ-specific complications that may lead to inpatient hospitalization and even death, including gastrointestinal [13], neurologic [49], pulmonary [1013], ophthalmologic [1416], hematologic [17], renal [18], and dermatologic complications [19].

Prior to the introduction of measles vaccination in 1963, there were >100 million measles cases resulting in 6 million deaths worldwide, with 4 million cases and 450 deaths in the US annually [20]. Despite major strides in vaccine coverage, measles is still a leading cause of vaccine-preventable death, especially in children, with more than 20 million new cases and 100,000 deaths worldwide annually [21,22]. In the US, due to a highly successful public health campaign based on universal vaccination, measles was officially declared eliminated (i.e., absence of endemic transmission for ≥12 months) in 2000 [23,24]. However, the US has faced a resurgence of measles outbreaks in recent years, driven largely by travel-related exposures and communities with low rates of vaccination [25]. According to the Centers of the Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 1,282 confirmed cases of measles in 31 states with 128 hospitalizations from January to December 2019, the highest yearly total since the year 1992; this trend that has been mirrored worldwide.

Severe cases of measles require hospitalization. Based on historical data, the CDC has estimated that approximately 1 in 4 of cases of measles in the US result in hospitalization, and 1 in 1000 cases results in death. Hospitalizations for measles precipitously declined with widespread measles vaccination [26,27]. Without vaccination, there would be 400,000 hospitalizations costing >$3 billion USD and >1,800 deaths annually [27,28]. However, few studies examined the occurrence of complications, hospitalization, and mortality secondary to measles since its resurgence in the US. This study sought to analyze the frequency, predictors, costs and other outcomes of hospitalization for measles in the US.

Materials and methods

The 2002–2016 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was analyzed. The NIS is sponsored by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov). Each year of the NIS contains an approximately 20% stratified representative sample of all hospitalizations in the US (e.g. general, specialty, academic, children’s, etc.). The hospitals are stratified by ownership/control, bed size, teaching status, urban/rural location, and the nine U.S. census divisions. A systematic sampling system utilizing a self-weighted sample design is used to draw a sample of discharges from all hospitals that is representative of the US population based on the following factors: de-unidentified hospital number, census division of hospital, hospital ownership, urban-rural location of hospital (ranging from micropolitan to metropolitan areas), hospital teaching status, number of beds in the hospital, diagnosis-related group for the hospital stay, and admission month of the hospital stay. This large sample size allows for analyses of uncommon conditions and highly specific patient populations. Sample weights are created by the NIS that factor in the study sampling design to allow for representative estimates of hospital discharges across the US and are determined by the ratio of universe discharges (based on births and admission) to sampled discharges within a specific stratum. The NIS does not include inpatient laboratory or treatment data. All data were de-identified, and no attempts were made to identify any of the individuals in the database. Patient consent was not obtained because the databases were received de-identified. All parties with access to the HCUP were compliant with the HCUP’s formal data use agreement. This study was approved by the institutional review board at Northwestern University.

The NIS lists one primary diagnosis and up to 24 secondary diagnoses. The databases were searched for a primary or secondary diagnosis of measles and complications using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) or ICD-10-CM codes (S1 Table). Diagnoses for complications were selected based on previous associations in the literature or to explore for novel associations.

To control for readmitted cases that may be counted as unique encounters in the NIS, we excluded patients who were transferred to short-term hospitals with planned readmission (4.8% of measles cases in the cohort).

Data analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using survey procedures adjusting for sample weighting, clustering, and strata in SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Baseline characteristics of inpatients with and without a measles diagnosis were determined. The cost for inpatient care was calculated based on the total charge of the hospitalization and the cost-to-charge ratio estimated by HCUP. Costs were adjusted for inflation to the year 2018 according to the Consumer Price Index from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Weighted t-tests and Rao-Scott chi-square tests compared the characteristics of mean and categorical variables, respectively.

Associations of measles hospitalization were examined including age, number of chronic conditions (defined as lasting ≥ 12 months and meeting criteria regarding limitations on independence and/or need for ongoing care), discharge quarter, sex, health insurance coverage (including Medicare, a federally-funded program primarily for those ≥65 years, and Medicaid, a means-tested, state and federally-funded program for those with low income), hospital location, race/ethnicity, median annual income of the hospital zip code, and year. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed with measles diagnosis as the independent variable (yes/no) and various complications (yes/no) as the dependent variables. Multivariable linear regression models were constructed with measles diagnosis as the independent variable (yes/no), and log-transformed cost or LOS as the dependent variables (continuous). Cost and LOS were log-transformed because model residuals were not normally distributed for the untransformed variables. Complete case-analysis was performed. Post-hoc correction for multiple dependent tests was performed by minimizing the false discovery rate with the approach of Benjamini and Hochberg [29]. Two-sided, corrected P-values ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Population characteristics

There were 96,568,625 discharges (weighted frequency: 466,712,770) analyzed in the NIS between 2002 and 2016, including 1,018 weighted cases of hospitalization for measles. The estimated incidence of measles hospitalizations was 2.2 per ten million persons [ptm] and increased between 2002 and 2016 (Fig 1A).

Fig 1. Frequency of measles hospitalizations.

Fig 1

Measles hospitalizations by year (A), age (B), age stratified by ICD code (C), and ICD code stratified by age (D).

The mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) age of measles inpatients was 32.0 ± 1.9 years, with a majority being <10 and ≥40 years (32.0% and 41.3%) and male (56.1%) (Table 1). Of the measles inpatients <10 years of age, 64.5% were 0–1 year, 25.1% were 2–5 years, and 10.4% were 6–9 years. The incidence of hospitalization decreased with age (0–9 years: 5.4 ptm; ≥40 years: 2.0 ptm) (Fig 1B). Most patients were healthy at baseline with ≤1 chronic comorbid condition (51.8%) and presented to hospital in a metropolitan area with population ≥ 1 million (62.9%). Private insurance (39.6%) and Medicaid (28.5%) were the most common payment sources. Inpatients with vs. without measles were significantly more likely to have non-white race/ethnicity overall (44.4% vs. 31.3%), including Hispanics (18.3% vs. 10.7%), and Asians/Pacific Islanders (9.0% vs. 2.3%). There were no significant differences in discharge season and income quartile in patients with vs. without measles.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of inpatients with and without measles.

Variable Measles
No Yes P-value
Age–mean (SEM) 54.6 (0.1) 32.0 (1.9) <0.0001
Age–wtd freq (%)
 0–9 34,914,571 (7.5%) 325 (32.0%) <0.0001
 10–19 14,718,915 (3.2%) 53 (5.2%)
 20–39 71,217,494 (15.3%) 219 (21.5%)
 ≥40 345,466,299 (74.1%) 421 (41.1%)
Sex–wtd freq (%)
 Male 208,835,843 (44.8%) 571 (56.1%) 0.001
 Female 256,996,879 (55.2%) 447 (43.9%)
Chronic Conditions–wtd freq (%)
 0–1 87,270,795 (20.7%) 460 (51.8%) <0.0001
 2–5 185,504,649 (44.0%) 296 (33.4%)
 ≥6 149,220,170 (35.3%) 132 (14.9%)
Died–wtd freq (%)
 No 455,483,562 (97.7%) 984 (96.7%) 0.333
 Yes 107,88,277 (2.3%) 34 (3.3%)
Discharge Quarter–wtd freq (%)
 Jan-Mar 119,003,074 (25.5%) 271 (26.8%) 0.379
 Apr-Jun 116,383,379 (25.0%) 294 (29.0%)
 Jul-Sep 115,217,670 (24.7%) 220 (21.7%)
 Oct-Dec 115,644,962 (24.8%) 228 (22.5%)
Hospital Location–wtd freq (%)
 Metropolitan ≥ 1 Million 230,781,973 (53.4%) 593 (62.9%) 0.021
 Metropolitan < 1 Million 121,268,896 (28.0%) 233 (24.8%)
 Micropolitan 47,133,884 (10.9%) 82 (8.7%)
 Not Metropolitan or Micropolitan 33,157,800 (7.7%) 34 (3.7%)
Income quartile–wtd freq (%)
 1st 127,041,374 (29.7%) 243 (26.2%) 0.472
 2nd 111,244,640 (26.0%) 247 (26.6%)
 3rd 101,120,717 (23.6%) 208 (22.5%)
 4th 88,357,189 (20.7%) 230 (24.8%)
Primary Payer–wtd freq (%)
 Medicare 209,457,726 (45.0%) 179 (17.6%) <0.0001
 Medicaid 75,330,911 (16.2%) 290 (28.5%)
 Private insurance 140,036,817 (30.1%) 403 (39.6%)
 Self-Pay / No Charge 25,579,210 (5.5%) 121 (11.9%)
 Other 15,433,769 (3.3%) 24 (2.4%)
Race/Ethnicity–wtd freq (%)
 White 269,191,673 (68.7%) 510 (55.6%) <0.0001
 Black 57,304,804 (14.6%) 88 (9.6%)
 Hispanic 42,076,891 (10.7%) 168 (18.3%)
 Asian/Pacific Islander 9,051,815 (2.3%) 83 (9.0%)
 Native American 2,360,698 (0.6%) ≤10 (0.6%)
 Other 12,095,380 (3.1%) 63 (6.9%)

Factors associated with hospitalization for measles

Hospitalization for measles was associated with male sex (survey logistic regression: adjusted OR [95% CI]: 1.48 [1.27–1.72]) compared with females, Medicaid (1.29 [1.06–1.55]) or no insurance (1.64 [1.31–2.06]) compared with private, and Asian/Pacific Islander (3.24 [2.45–4.29]), Hispanic (1.35 [1.10–1.67]), or Native American/other (2.12 [1.62–2.77]) race/ethnicity compared with whites. Demographic factors inversely associated with measles hospitalization included increasing age (≥20 years: 0.38 [0.32–0.46] compared to 0–19 years), increasing number of chronic comorbid conditions (≥2: 0.57 [0.48–0.69] compared to ≤1), and decreasing urban population (small metropolitan/micropolitan: 0.78 [0.67–0.92]; non-metropolitan/non-micropolitan: 0.51 [0.34–0.78] compared to metropolitan areas with ≥1 million population).

Complications of measles hospitalization

Across all ages, the majority of measles inpatients were diagnosed as measles without mention of complications (82.1%) (Fig 1C). Diagnoses of measles with various specified complications, including encephalitis, pneumonia, and keratoconjunctivitis, generally had higher prevalence with increasing age, while measles without mention of complications was diagnosed more commonly in younger age (Fig 1D).

The most frequent complications observed with measles were: dehydration (weighted frequency [%]: 161 [15.8%]), hyponatremia (145 [14.3%]), pneumonia (127 [12.5%]), acute renal failure (106 [10.4%]), diarrhea (97 [9.5%]), thrombocytopenia (97 [9.5%]), conjunctivitis (87 [8.5%]), septicemia (84 [8.3%]), fever (73 [7.2%]), sepsis/SIRS (64 [6.3%]), bronchitis (49 [4.8%]), pleurisy (38 [3.8%]), otitis media (37 [3.7%]), and pancytopenia (35 [3.4%]) (Fig 2). Even among inpatients who were diagnosed as measles without mention of complications, 15.7% had dehydration, 14.5% had hyponatremia, 13.4% had pneumonia, 10.5% had diarrhea, 9.9% had thrombocytopenia, 9.3% had acute renal failure, 8.1% had fever, 8.1% had conjunctivitis, 7.6% had septicemia, and 5.2% had sepsis.

Fig 2. Association of measles with organ-specific complications.

Fig 2

Frequencies and multivariable logistic regression models showing association of measles with gastrointestinal, hematologic, infectious, neurologic, ophthalmologic, pulmonary, and renal complications.

In multivariable survey logistic regression models including age, race/ethnicity, and sex as covariables, measles was associated with numerous organ-specific complications: gastrointestinal (aOR [95% CI] for dehydration: 3.96 [2.63–5.96]; diarrhea: 8.18 [5.12–13.05]; hepatitis: 4.37 [1.65–11.55]), hematologic (pancytopenia: 5.98 [2.64–13.57]; thrombocytopenia: 3.88 [2.32–6.51]), infectious (fever: 2.29 [1.13–4.65]; sepsis/SIRS: 2.73 [1.51–4.92]; septicemia 3.15 [1.88–5.28]), neurologic (encephalitis: 39.84 [16.51–96.12]; meningitis: 4.11 [1.32–12.80]), ophthalmologic (conjunctivitis: 27.20 [10.90–50.14]; keratitis: 34.86 [5.19–234.24]), pulmonary (otitis media: 3.17 [1.43–7.02]; pleurisy: 3.01 [1.41–6.44]; pneumonia of any cause: 2.27 [1.43–3.58]; bacterial pneumonia: 3.06 [1.73–5.42]; viral pneumonia: 3.83 [1.01–14.67]), and renal (acute renal failure: 2.65 [1.64–4.26]; hypocalcemia: 5.17 [2.15–12.41]; hyponatremia: 4.75 [2.59–8.72]) (Fig 2). Enterocolitis (2.21 [1.02–4.82]) and bronchitis (4.33 [2.30–8.14]) showed higher odds only in bivariable models.

Length of stay, admission, disposition and mortality

The mean [95% CI] LOS was significantly higher in patients with vs. without measles (4.8 [4.4–5.4] vs. 4.5 [4.4–4.5], P<0.01). Mean LOS increased slightly over time (Fig 3A) and was generally higher in older patients (Fig 3B). The strongest association with increased LOS was ≥2 chronic conditions (linear regression; adjusted beta [95% CI]: 0.76 [0.46–1.06], P<0.0001) (S2 Table).

Fig 3. Length of stay and cost of care.

Fig 3

Length of stay by year (A) and age (B) and cost of care by year (C) and age (D) for hospitalized patients with and without measles.

Inpatients with measles most frequently were admitted from the emergency room (51.6% [39.7–63.6%]) or referral from a physician, outpatient center or clinic (41.4% [31.2–55.6%]). When stratified by race/ethnicity, a lower proportion of whites vs. non-whites were admitted from the emergency room (white: 50.2%; black: 100.0%; Hispanic: 66.7%; Asian/Pacific Islander: 61.7%), while a higher proportion of whites vs. non-whites were admitted from referral from a physician, outpatient center or clinic (white: 49.8%; black: 0.0%; Hispanic: 33.3%; Asian/Pacific Islander: 38.3%). When stratified by age, admission from the emergency room was generally higher with increasing age (0–9: 40.2%; 10–19: 50.0%; 20–39: 79.8%; ≥40: 51.7%) and admission from referral by a physician, outpatient center or clinic was generally lower with increasing age (0–9: 55.7%; 10–19: 0.0%; 20–39: 20.2%; ≥40: 44.0%).

Inpatients with measles were most frequently routinely discharged to home or other self-care (84.3% [79.3–89.2%]), followed by transfer to other facilities (e.g. skilled nursing facilities, immediate care facilities) (8.5% [4.7–12.3%]). Inpatient mortality was not significantly higher in those with vs. without measles (proportion ± SEM: 3.3±1.2% vs. 2.3±0.01%, P = 0.333).

Cost of inpatient care

The mean [95% CI] inflation-adjusted cost of inpatient care was not significantly different for those with vs. without a diagnosis of measles $7,438 [$6,446-$ 8,582] vs. $7,854 [$7,774-$7,935], P>0.05) and increased over time (Fig 3C). Mean costs generally increased with age in inpatients with and without measles (Fig 3D). The annual mean cost of measles hospitalization was $1,131,586 (range: $207,249 -$3,444,708) resulting in a total cost of $16,973,795 [$11,628,652-$22,318,934] from 2002–2016. Positive predictors of cost included ≥2 chronic conditions (linear regression; adjusted beta [95% CI], P-value; 0.73 [0.34, 1.12], P = 0.0003) and increasing length of stay (2 days: 0.58 [0.01–1.14], P = 0.046; ≥3 days: 1.23 [0.72–1.74], P<0.0001), while negative predictors of cost included decreasing urban population (not metropolitan or micropolitan: -1.11 [-2.07, -0.15], P = 0.021) (S3 Table).

Discussion

This study found increasing hospitalizations for measles in the US between 2002–2016, with prolonged and costly hospitalizations. The estimated total number of measles hospitalizations in the US from 1977–1984 was 13,710 [26], which increased from 1985–1996 to 28,047, driven largely by the 1989–1991 epidemic [27]. From 1996 to 2002 measles hospitalizations were at an all-time low in US history with an estimated ≤23 cases annually [27]. While more recent data is lacking, an analysis of measles hospitalizations in a single children’s hospital in Minnesota from 2011–2017 showed 33 total cases, driven largely by a 2017 outbreak in the Somali-American community [30]. Despite measles being officially declared eliminated from the US in 2000 [23,24], this study found 1,018 weighted hospitalizations for measles (mean of 68 cases per year) and rising number of measles hospitalizations from 2002–2016.

Increasing measles hospitalization mirrors a resurgence in measles cases nationwide. The frequency of documented measles cases from 2001–2015 was estimated to be 1,789, resulting in a low (<1 per million persons) but climbing incidence over time [31]. Based on official case reporting to the CDC and its National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS), from 2001–2008 there were 557 cases of measles resulting in an estimated 126 hospitalizations, which increased in 2009–2014 with 1,264 cases and an estimated 211 hospitalizations [32]. From 2002–2016, publicly available data from NNDSS showed a total of 1,985 confirmed (i.e., laboratory-confirmed or epidemiologically linked cases) measles cases nationwide. Our analysis of the NIS during the same time period showed 1,014 weighted hospitalizations–a higher proportion of hospitalizations to cases than the CDC has estimated based on historical data (1 in 4 cases). The NNDSS is a passive reporting system that receives voluntary reports from state public health departments. Whereas, the NIS relies on discharge diagnoses coded as ICD-9 and ICD-10 data. Due to the passive nature of NNDSS reporting, previous studies suggested that reporting may be incomplete [32], particularly with hospitalized patients, as has been observed in past outbreaks [33]. Similar findings were seen internationally with other passive reporting systems [34]. Conversely, weighted discharge diagnoses using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes may slightly overestimate measles cases in inpatients, as some cases with a measles diagnosis may have been rule-out diagnoses or misdiagnoses. Though, this is less likely since they are diagnoses provided at discharge that report the final diagnoses of those hospitalizations. Regardless, our results suggest there is increasing hospitalization for measles in the US over time.

A common finding in post-elimination years was that >80% of cases were in persons who were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status, and >60% of cases with philosophical or religious objection to vaccination [32], a theme echoed in other studies [35,36]. Decreasing incidence with age and decreasing proportion of imported and vaccinated cases suggests failure to vaccinate, rather than vaccine failure, was the driving force for the rising cases of measles in the US [31].

Measles can be perceived as a benign illness with no major consequences. However, as measles cases reemerge in the US, so do disease complications requiring hospitalization. We found gastrointestinal, hematologic, infectious, neurologic, ophthalmologic, pulmonary, and renal complications in inpatients with measles. From 1977–1984, the most common complications among hospitalized patients included pneumonia or other respiratory complications (34%), otitis media (8.5%), and encephalitis/convulsions/coma (3.4%); while pneumonia and otitis media frequency decreased with age, neurologic complications increased [26]. From 1987–2000, among all cases of measles, diarrhea (8.2%), otitis media (7.3%), pneumonia (5.9%), and encephalitis (0.1%) were the most prevalent [37]. From 2009–2014 complications were seen in 9% of cases, most commonly diarrhea (38%), pneumonia (33%), dehydration (25%), otitis media (16%), thrombocytopenia (10%), encephalitis (3%), pancytopenia (1%), and hepatitis (1%) [32]. We similarly found increased frequencies of these conditions, with dehydration, hyponatremia, pneumonia (primary or secondary bacterial/viral), acute renal failure, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia showing highest prevalence among inpatients. Interestingly, keratitis was extremely rare. The rarity of keratoconjunctivitis may be explained by low rates of vitamin A deficiency in the US. Encephalitis showed the strongest positive association for measles diagnosis, with nearly 40-fold increased odds. Neurologic complications are associated with the most chronic morbidity. Post-measles encephalomyelitis can occur in 1 per 1,000 cases. Less commonly, measles inclusion body encephalitis or subacute sclerosing panencephalitis can present years after acute measles infection [22]. Previous studies showed that risk factors for severe illness include age <5 years and adults >20 years, immunodeficiency, pregnancy, malnutrition, crowding, and vitamin A deficiency [38].

Inpatient mortality was 3.3% (34 deaths) among measles inpatients, which was numerically higher than other inpatients (2.3%) and nearly 10-fold higher than overall mortality estimates of all cases of measles in the US (1 in 1,000). Hospitalized patients likely had more severe measles with complications and worse outcomes. The inpatient deaths observed in NIS are higher than reports of either no verified deaths from measles in NNDSS from 2009–2014 or one verified measles-related death in 1993–2002 from state death certificate data and the National Immunization Project that relies on direct reporting of states to the CDC [39]. Each of these reporting systems is limited by guidelines for measles case reporting (e.g. laboratory confirmation for CDC reporting), coding of death certificate diagnoses (limited to an acute and/or single direct cause of death), and state to federal communication. These limitations may result in underestimates of the true mortality of measles in the US [39].

Measles hospitalizations were more likely in non-white race/ethnicity, including Asians/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, and Native American/others. Racial/ethnic disparities in measles vaccine coverage were thought to be reduced and/or potentially eliminated following targeted interventions by the CDC after the US measles epidemic of 1989–1991 [40]. However, there may be ongoing racial/ethnic differences in access to care, health literacy, and socioeconomic status driving the increased hospitalization observed in this study. This is supported by the finding that Asians/Pacific Islanders and Hispanics who were hospitalized with measles were more likely to present to the ED than whites. Hospitalization for measles was inversely associated with increasing age, which mirrored ours and others findings of decreased incidence with increased age [31]. While measles is thought to affect males and females similarly, our NIS data and nationwide CDC measles prevalence data from 2001–2015 (52.9% male) suggest a slight male predilection in the US [31]. While some have observed higher complication and mortality rates in females vs. males [41], others have found no significant difference [42].

The average cost per measles-related hospitalization was $7,438 with total cost from 2002–2016 of $16,973,795. There was an estimated $10,000 cost per hospitalization during the 1989–1991 US measles outbreak [11], and while recent cost estimates are limited, the median cost per measles hospitalization in a single children’s hospital from 2011–2017 was $5,291 [30]. Measles hospitalization costs include infection control required to stop nosocomial spread, such as isolation precautions, testing of exposed individuals, vaccine/immunoglobulin administration, tracing of cases, and the personnel hours required to carry out these tasks [43,44]. These represent the direct costs incurred in the inpatient setting, but do not capture indirect patient- and family-costs of measles hospitalizations. These costs also do not reflect the broader public health costs of measles, related to thorough case investigation, tracing of contacts to ascertain an index case, communication with the public, coordination between local, state, and federal health organizations, isolation and testing of exposed individuals, and post-exposure prophylaxis, which have been estimated to cost as high as $181,679 [45,46]. The public health cost of 16 measles outbreaks with 107 confirmed cases in the US in 2011 was estimated to be $2.7-$5.3 million [47]. Vaccination is both the most effective and cost-effective solution to prevent the spread of measles [48].

Study strengths include analysis of a nationally representative sample of all-payer data over a period of 15 years with over 96 million records. These results depict the serious and debilitating complications of measles infections resulting in hospitalization. However, milder measles cases are likely not captured in NIS. Limitations of this study include the lack of data on vaccination, serology or severity for measles, or inpatient treatment. Rare encephalitic complications can present years after measles and may be difficult to dissociate from more acute measles presentations. Identification of measles was performed using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes and not verified by review of the health record or cross-referencing with measles registries. This could result in overestimation of the frequency and mortality rate of measles hospitalizations compared to expected estimates. However, recent studies suggest that ICD codes are effective in capturing several reportable diseases including measles and have improved over time [49].

The measles vaccine is inexpensive, extremely effective, and potentially lifesaving. The CDC estimates that among US children born from 1994–2013, the measles vaccine will prevent 322 million cases, 21 million hospitalizations, and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, resulting in a savings of $295 billion in direct costs and $1.38 trillion in societal costs. More research and nationwide vaccination campaigns are needed to address measles resurgence in the US.

Supporting information

S1 Table. ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes used to identify measles and complications.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Predictors of length of stay in patients with measles.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Predictors of cost of care in patients with measles.

(DOCX)

Abbreviations used

ICD-9-CM

International Classification of Disease 9th edition Clinical Modification

ICD-10-CM

International Classification of Disease 10th edition Clinical Modification

NIS

Nationwide Inpatient Sample

HCUP

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project

CDC

Centers of the Disease Control and Prevention

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This publication was made possible with support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) (JIS), the Dermatology Foundation (JIS), NIH K12 HS023011 (JIS), and NIH T32 AR060710 (RC). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Gavish D, Kleinman Y, Morag A, Chajek-Shaul T (1983) Hepatitis and jaundice associated with measles in young adults. An analysis of 65 cases. Archives of internal medicine 143: 674–677. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Varavithya W, Aswasuwana S, Phuapradit P, Louisirirotchanakul S, Supavej S, et al. (1989) Etiology of diarrhea in measles. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet 72 Suppl 1: 151–154. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wong RD, Goetz MB (1993) Clinical and laboratory features of measles in hospitalized adults. The American journal of medicine 95: 377–383. 10.1016/0002-9343(93)90306-a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Halsey NA, Modlin JF, Jabbour JT, Dubey L, Eddins DL, et al. (1980) Risk factors in subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: a case-control study. American journal of epidemiology 111: 415–424. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112916 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Detels R, Brody JA, McNew J, Edgar AH (1973) Further epidemiological studies of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis. Lancet 2: 11–14. 10.1016/s0140-6736(73)91946-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gibbons JL, Miller HG, Stanton JB (1956) Para-infectious encephalomyelitis and related syndromes; a critical review of the neurological complications of certain specific fevers. The Quarterly journal of medicine 25: 427–505. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Aicardi J, Goutieres F, Arsenio-Nunes ML, Lebon P (1977) Acute measles encephalitis in children with immunosuppression. Pediatrics 59: 232–239. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Miller DL (1964) Frequency of complications of measles, 1963. Report on a national inquiry by the public health laboratory service in collaboration with the society of medical officers of health. British medical journal 2: 75–78. 10.1136/bmj.2.5401.75 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Makhene MK, Diaz PS (1993) Clinical presentations and complications of suspected measles in hospitalized children. The Pediatric infectious disease journal 12: 836–840. 10.1097/00006454-199310000-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Henneman PL, Birnbaumer DM, Cairns CB (1995) Measles pneumonitis. Annals of emergency medicine 26: 278–282. 10.1016/s0196-0644(95)70072-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mason WH, Ross LA, Lanson J, Wright HT (1993) Epidemic measles in the postvaccine era: evaluation of epidemiology, clinical presentation and complications during an urban outbreak. The Pediatric infectious disease journal 12: 42–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hussey GD, Clements CJ (1996) Clinical problems in measles case management. Annals of tropical paediatrics 16: 307–317. 10.1080/02724936.1996.11747843 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Markowitz LE, Nieburg P (1991) The burden of acute respiratory infection due to measles in developing countries and the potential impact of measles vaccine. Reviews of infectious diseases 13 Suppl 6: S555–561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sommer A (1990) Xerophthalmia, keratomalacia and nutritional blindness. International ophthalmology 14: 195–199. 10.1007/bf00158318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Foster A, Sommer A (1986) Childhood blindness from corneal ulceration in Africa: causes, prevention, and treatment. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 64: 619–623. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Foster A, Sommer A (1987) Corneal ulceration, measles, and childhood blindness in Tanzania. The British journal of ophthalmology 71: 331–343. 10.1136/bjo.71.5.331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hudson JB, Weinstein L, Chang TW (1956) Thrombocytopenic purpura in measles. The Journal of pediatrics 48: 48–56. 10.1016/s0022-3476(56)80116-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wairagkar NS, Gandhi BV, Katrak SM, Shaikh NJ, Parikh PR, et al. (1999) Acute renal failure with neurological involvement in adults associated with measles virus isolation. Lancet 354: 992–995. 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)10101-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kambarami RA, Nathoo KJ, Nkrumah FK, Pirie DJ (1991) Measles epidemic in Harare, Zimbabwe, despite high measles immunization coverage rates. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 69: 213–219. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Goodson JL, Seward JF (2015) Measles 50 Years After Use of Measles Vaccine. Infectious disease clinics of North America 29: 725–743. 10.1016/j.idc.2015.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Clemmons NS, Gastañaduy PA, Fiebelkorn AP, Redd SB, Wallace GS, et al. (2015) Measles—United States, January 4-April 2, 2015. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report 64: 373–376. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Moss WJ, Griffin DE (2012) Measles. Lancet 379: 153–164. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62352-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Papania MJ, Wallace GS, Rota PA, Icenogle JP, Fiebelkorn AP, et al. (2014) Elimination of endemic measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome from the Western hemisphere: the US experience. JAMA pediatrics 168: 148–155. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4342 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Katz SL, Hinman AR (2004) Summary and conclusions: measles elimination meeting, 16–17 March 2000. The Journal of infectious diseases 189 Suppl 1: S43–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Paules CI, Marston HD, Fauci AS (2019) Measles in 2019—Going Backward. The New England journal of medicine: NEJM p1905099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Markowitz LE, Tomasi A, Sirotkin BI, Carr RW, Davis RM, et al. (1987) Measles hospitalizations, United States, 1977–84: comparison with national surveillance data. American journal of public health 77: 866–868. 10.2105/ajph.77.7.866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lee B, Ying M, Papania MJ, Stevenson J, Seward JF, et al. (2004) Measles hospitalizations, United States, 1985–2002. The Journal of infectious diseases 189 Suppl 1: S210–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zhou F, Reef S, Massoudi M, Papania MJ, Yusuf HR, et al. (2004) An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States. The Journal of infectious diseases 189 Suppl 1: S131–145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (2018) Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 57: 289–300. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hester G, Nickel A, LeBlanc J, Carlson R, Spaulding AB, et al. (2019) Measles Hospitalizations at a United States Children&apos;s Hospital 2011–2017. The Pediatric infectious disease journal 38: 547–552. 10.1097/INF.0000000000002221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Clemmons NS, Wallace GS, Patel M, Gastañaduy PA (2017) Incidence of Measles in the United States, 2001–2015. JAMA 318: 1279–1281. 10.1001/jama.2017.9984 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Fiebelkorn AP, Redd SB, Gastañaduy PA, Clemmons N, Rota PA, et al. (2017) A Comparison of Postelimination Measles Epidemiology in the United States, 2009–2014 Versus 2001–2008. Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society 6: 40–48. 10.1093/jpids/piv080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Davis SF, Strebel PM, Atkinson WL, Markowitz LE, Sutter RW, et al. (1993) Reporting efficiency during a measles outbreak in New York City, 1991. American journal of public health 83: 1011–1015. 10.2105/ajph.83.7.1011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Van Den Hof S, Smit C, Van Steenbergen JE, De Melker HE (2002) Hospitalizations during a measles epidemic in the Netherlands, 1999 to 2000. The Pediatric infectious disease journal 21: 1146–1150. 10.1097/00006454-200212000-00012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Parker AA, Staggs W, Dayan GH, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Rota PA, et al. (2006) Implications of a 2005 measles outbreak in Indiana for sustained elimination of measles in the United States. The New England journal of medicine 355: 447–455. 10.1056/NEJMoa060775 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Phadke VK, Bednarczyk RA, Salmon DA, Omer SB (2016) Association Between Vaccine Refusal and Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States: A Review of Measles and Pertussis. JAMA 315: 1149–1158. 10.1001/jama.2016.1353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Perry RT, Halsey NA (2004) The clinical significance of measles: a review. The Journal of infectious diseases 189 Suppl 1: S4–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Butler JC, Havens PL, Sowell AL, Huff DL, Peterson DE, et al. (1993) Measles severity and serum retinol (vitamin A) concentration among children in the United States. Pediatrics 91: 1176–1181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gindler J, Tinker S, Markowitz L, Atkinson W, Dales L, et al. (2004) Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987–2002. The Journal of infectious diseases 189 Suppl 1: S69–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Walker AT, Smith PJ, Kolasa M, (CDC) CfDCaP (2014) Reduction of racial/ethnic disparities in vaccination coverage, 1995–2011. MMWR supplements 63: 7–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Organization WH (2007) Addressing sex and gender in epidemic-prone infectious diseases.
  • 42.Barkin RM (1975) Measles mortality: a retrospective look at the vaccine era. American journal of epidemiology 102: 341–349. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112170 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wendorf KA, Kay M, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Munn M, Duchin J (2015) Cost of measles containment in an ambulatory pediatric clinic. The Pediatric infectious disease journal 34: 589–593. 10.1097/INF.0000000000000682 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Stuart RL, Bradford J, Leszkiewicz P, Wilson J, Gillespie EE (2010) The costs of containing measles within a health care service. Healthcare infection 15: 43–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Dayan GH, Ortega-Sanchez IR, LeBaron CW, Quinlisk MP, Team IMR (2005) The cost of containing one case of measles: the economic impact on the public health infrastructure—Iowa, 2004. Pediatrics 116: e1–4. 10.1542/peds.2004-2512 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Marx GE, Chase J, Jasperse J, Stinson K, McDonald CE, et al. (2017) Public Health Economic Burden Associated with Two Single Measles Case Investigations—Colorado, 2016–2017. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report 66: 1272–1275. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6646a3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ortega-Sanchez IR, Vijayaraghavan M, Barskey AE, Wallace GS (2014) The economic burden of sixteen measles outbreaks on United States public health departments in 2011. Vaccine 32: 1311–1317. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.10.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ghebrehewet S, Thorrington D, Farmer S, Kearney J, Blissett D, et al. (2016) The economic cost of measles: Healthcare, public health and societal costs of the 2012–13 outbreak in Merseyside, UK. Vaccine 34: 1823–1831. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.02.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Watzlaf VJM, Garvin JH, Moeini S, Anania-Firouzan P (2007) The effectiveness of ICD-10-CM in capturing public health diseases. Perspectives in health information management 4: 6 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ka Chun Chong

22 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-30745

Inpatient morbidity and mortality of measles in the United States

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Silverberg,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 07 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ka Chun Chong

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[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: I Don't Know

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: REVIEWERS COMMENTS PLOSONE JANUARY 2020

(PONE-D-19-307-45)

Reviewer’s Report

Title: Inpatient Morbidity and Mortality of Measles in the United States

Date: 11.01.2020

Version 1

General comments: Topic is of relevance and global interest. Reads well but introduction and methodology do not contain sufficient detail to appreciate study and anticipate results.

Title: Title seems appropriate. Suggest adding source of data (discretionary)

Abstract:

Page 3 line 48-49, 52-53: A concise summary but more information on background and analysis would be useful.

Page 3: Line 62; suggest writing defining vs by also writing it in full and defining other abbreviations when first mentioned.

Introduction:

Page 4 line 84: suggest removing “that”

Introduction

Suggest adding additional information such as - Information on the epidemiology of the most recent outbreaks in the US, any changes in predictors of hospitalisation in the US over the years or experience from other developed countries - useful for understanding of the context surrounding this study and changes to expect.

Methods:

Study area: No detail. It would be useful to know the geographic distribution of hospitals included in the sample, rural -urban differences etc whether it cover high risk locations e.g. migrant populations?

Page 6 line 97- Sampling: Suggest more detail is provided on the sampling procedure – what criteria informs the weighting? How many hospitals were represented in this sample? What types of hospitals were included, how many were children’s hospital’s?

Did the sample include hospitals from communities that had an outbreak during the period and were these populations targeted?

Study Population: What were the inclusion criteria- ICD 9/10 criteria alone? What proportion had laboratory confirmation? The age of patients was not specified? Were there any other exclusion criteria?

Data collection

Page 6: line 103- 10: What information was collected from the database? Though some is reported with the statistical analysis, but this aspect is not clear. It will be helpful to know the information collected on patient level characteristics, hospital level characteristics and outcome measures? Was there collection of data on immunisation status?

Page 6 line 106-7: Provide more detail on the co-morbidities studied especially those known to be associated with hospitalisations from measles what proportion had chronic respiratory conditions? Was it a risk factor for hospitalisations and longer duration of stay? Was this analysis done?

Results

Page 9 line Table 1 what chronic conditions?

Page 10 line 153 – suggest “Factors associated with hospitalization for measles”

Page 10: line 164 – “complications” kindly rephrase and make it clearer .

Page 10 line 169 - any sex differences?

Page 13 line 192 and 217 also need to be rephrased.

Page13 line 208; Define abbreviation ED

Why were children <5 years not considered as a separate group in the analysis?

Discussion

Extensive and covers findings

Page 17 line 287: contains mortality data not seen in results

Limitation Page 19 lines 331 and 332 should have also been in the methods section.

Conclusion

Section for conclusion not highlighted and should relate to objectives and findings of study as done in the abstract.

Graphs: some graphs do not have titles

References:

Page 29 line 366-369 in capitals – any reason?

Suggest including more recent articles.

Reviewer #2: This MS captures topical and relevant data from a nationwide sample in US. Although it does not cover the most recent period, it should be of use to policy makers and program managers to make informed decisions about impact of renewed measles transmission in US.

The analysis is straightforward and logical. And the language easy to follow. I have made a coupe of minor comments to sharpen some points.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Anindya Sekhar Bose

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: REVIEWERS COMMENT PLOSONE JANUARY 2020.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Chovatiya_Measles_Paper_V10_PLOSOne (Cmnt ASB).docx

PLoS One. 2020 Apr 28;15(4):e0231329. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231329.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


31 Jan 2020

To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you very much for the helpful reviewers’ comments for our manuscript. We have addressed these comments as follows.

Reviewer #1:

• Page 3 line 48-49, 52-53: A concise summary but more information on background and analysis would be useful.

o We have updated the background and methods section of our abstract to provide further detail for the reader.

• Page 3: Line 62; suggest writing defining vs by also writing it in full and defining other abbreviations when first mentioned.

o We have updated the abstract to define any abbreviations

• Page 4 line 84: suggest removing “that”

o We have incorporated this suggestion into the manuscript

• Introduction: Suggest adding additional information such as - Information on the epidemiology of the most recent outbreaks in the US, any changes in predictors of hospitalisation in the US over the years or experience from other developed countries - useful for understanding of the context surrounding this study and changes to expect.

o We appreciate the suggestion to further discuss the epidemiology of outbreaks in the US, as well as predictors of hospitalizations for further context. For the sake of brevity and clarity, this information is already discussed in detail in the Discussion section and compared with the data gathered in this study. In particular, we discuss the estimated numbers of measles hospitalizations in the preceding decades, estimated numbers of measles cases and hospitalizations since US elimination, complications associated with measles hospitalizations in the preceding decades, and previously characterized risk factors for hospitalization. There is limited demographic data available in previous studies to compare with some of our findings as shown in Table 1. We have limited our main focus to inpatient measles hospitalizations as opposed to measles outbreaks in general, as this is an equally important but distinct topic from our focus. Nevertheless, since measles elimination in the US, as mentioned in the Introduction, US outbreaks have resulted from travel-related exposures and communities with low rates of vaccination, and the number of hospitalized patients have correlated with the total number of cases in any given year.

• Methods:

Study area: No detail. It would be useful to know the geographic distribution of hospitals included in the sample, rural -urban differences etc whether it cover high risk locations e.g. migrant populations?

Page 6 line 97- Sampling: Suggest more detail is provided on the sampling procedure – what criteria informs the weighting? How many hospitals were represented in this sample? What types of hospitals were included, how many were children’s hospital’s?

Did the sample include hospitals from communities that had an outbreak during the period and were these populations targeted?

o We have added additional information about the NIS dataset and sampling procedure to the Methods section. The NIS provides a 20% cross-sectional sample of all hospitals in the US, regardless of rural/urban, childrens/general, etc.

• Study Population: What were the inclusion criteria- ICD 9/10 criteria alone? What proportion had laboratory confirmation? The age of patients was not specified? Were there any other exclusion criteria?

o As discussed in the Methods section, measles and various comorbidities were specified with ICD9 and ICD10 criteria. As the NIS is a nationwide cross-sectional database, it does not include information regarding treatment, lab testing, vaccination, and other specific data found in the patient medical record. This is listed as a limitation of the study in the discussion section. The NIS includes patients of all ages without any exclusions criteria, as previously explained, and age breakdowns for measles patients are further discussed in the Results section.

• Page 6: line 103- 10: What information was collected from the database? Though some is reported with the statistical analysis, but this aspect is not clear. It will be helpful to know the information collected on patient level characteristics, hospital level characteristics and outcome measures? Was there collection of data on immunisation status?

o Baseline characteristics about patient demographics and hospital information obtained from the NIS are summarized in Table 1. Further details about outcomes including death and discharge are discussed in the Length of Stay, Admission, Course, Disposition and Mortality subsection in the Results. As previously mentioned, the NIS is a weighted cross-sectional database that does not include laboratory, treatment, or immunization data.

• Page 6 line 106-7: Provide more detail on the co-morbidities studied especially those known to be associated with hospitalizations from measles what proportion had chronic respiratory conditions? Was it a risk factor for hospitalisations and longer duration of stay? Was this analysis done?

o The wording of the Methods section was updated to reflect our analysis of complications rather than comorbidities. An important aim of the study was to better understand measles-related complications in inpatients. Table 2, Supplementary Table 1, and the Complications subsection of Results summarize the complications associated with measles hospitalizations. Specific long-standing comorbidities can be more difficult to accurately assess in the NIS if they are not directly relevant to the specific encounter. However, a variable that measures the overall number of chronic comorbid conditions is included in the NIS as mentioned in the Methods section. We discuss in the Results section that increasing number of chronic conditions was inversely associated with measles hospitalization but positively associated with length of stay.

• Page 9 line Table 1 what chronic conditions?

o The NIS includes a data entry that contains the number of chronic diagnoses (condition ≥ 12 months) that meets specific criteria regarding limitations on independence and need for ongoing care. Additional clarification has been provided in the Methods section.

• Page 10 line 153 – suggest “Factors associated with hospitalization for measles”

o We appreciate the suggestion and have updated the wording.

• Page 10: line 164 – “complications” kindly rephrase and make it clearer .

o We appreciate the suggestion and have updated the wording.

• Page 10 line 169 - any sex differences?

o No sex differences were seen. This was not a focus of this particular analysis for the manuscript.

• Page 13 line 192 and 217 also need to be rephrased.

o We appreciate the suggestion and have updated the wording

• Page13 line 208; Define abbreviation ED

o We appreciate the suggestion and have updated the wording

• Why were children <5 years not considered as a separate group in the analysis?

o Our purpose in stratifying admission source (emergency room, physician’s office) by age was to show broad trends among children, adolescents, young adults, and older adults. The cutoffs of age selected for the younger age groups corresponded to WHO definitions of childhood (under 10 years) and adolescence (over 10 years)

• Page 17 line 287: contains mortality data not seen in results

o We kindly refer to you Table 1 and the last section of the Results which discuss both the number of deaths among measles inpatients as well as the mortality rate.

• Limitation Page 19 lines 331 and 332 should have also been in the methods section.

o We have updated the methods section with this information

• Graphs: some graphs do not have titles

o We appreciate the suggestion and have updated the titles.

• Page 29 line 366-369 in capitals – any reason?

o Capitols have been removed as this was a formatting error from the citation software.

Reviewer #2

• Overall comments: This MS captures topical and relevant data from a nationwide sample in US. Although it does not cover the most recent period, it should be of use to policy makers and program managers to make informed decisions about impact of renewed measles transmission in US. The analysis is straightforward and logical. And the language easy to follow. I have made a couple of minor comments to sharpen some points.

o We appreciate the reviewer’s comment.

• Pg 8 line 148 - Implications of different forms of medical/health insurance in the US should be added for an international audience

o We have clarified the definitions of Medicare and Medicaid in the methods section in order to better explain US insurance options for a foreign population.

• Pg 17 line 289 - This is not a valid comparison as hospitalized cases of measles are usually more severe and tend to have higher mortality than non-hospitalized cases.

o We understand that the inpatient mortality rate is not the same as overall mortality rate and will likely be higher based more severe cases. This is why the next sentence in this section explains that hospitalized patients likely had more severe cases of measles with worse outcomes, thus suggesting that you indeed cannot exactly equate inpatient mortality rate to overall mortality rate. However, this estimate of overall mortality (1 in 1,000) is one of the only estimates of mortality related to measles that has been published by the CDC, and this figure is routinely used by public health officials and the scientific community in the US. Our comparison here was simply to show that (1) our inpatient mortality rate appears higher than the overall measles mortality rate, (2) this is likely related to more severe inpatient cases with worse outcomes, and (3) there is a lack mortality data (both inpatient and in general) for measles in the US, particularly after elimination.

Thank you again for considering our manuscript for publication in PLOS One. All authors have read and approved the manuscript, its contents, and its submission to PLOS One.

Thank you very much.

Decision Letter 1

Ka Chun Chong

13 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-30745R1

Inpatient morbidity and mortality of measles in the United States

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Silverberg,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 27 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ka Chun Chong

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

This revised manuscript have addressed most of the reviewers' comments. Please address the last comments from the reviewers before a formal acceptance.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: I Don't Know

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: No

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: Reviewer’s Report version 2

Title: Inpatient Morbidity and Mortality of Measles in the United States

Date: 06.03.2020

Comments

The responses provided by the authors have largely addressed my comments. I have noted that the graphs are still not labelled, I mean, they do not have titles. I wonder if this can be addressed if the paper is to be published?

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed most of the comments in the revised version. However, my earlier comments about inappropriate comparison between measles CFR has not been addressed.

The way the authors state this is as, "Inpatient mortality was 3.3% (34 deaths) among measles inpatients, which was numerically higher than other inpatients (2.3%) and nearly 10-fold higher than previous mortality estimates of all cases of measles in the US (1 in 1,000)." Stating that this estimate of measles related mortality is ten fold higher than "earlier estimates" seems to indicate that the authors have identified a new estimate measles CFR and is misleading as the two rates apply to different at risk populations.

Replacing 'previous' with 'overall' in quoted sentence should allow the reader to draw the correct conclusions about measles mortality. Barring this issue, I recommend that the MS should be accepted.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Anindya Sekhar Bose

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Apr 28;15(4):e0231329. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231329.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Mar 2020

To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you very much for the helpful reviewers’ comments for our manuscript. We have addressed these comments as follows.

Reviewer #1:

• The responses provided by the authors have largely addressed my comments. I have noted that the graphs are still not labelled, I mean, they do not have titles. I wonder if this can be addressed if the paper is to be published?

o Each figure panel now has a label in the image, in addition to a figure title for each caption in the text

Reviewer #2

• The authors have addressed most of the comments in the revised version. However, my earlier comments about inappropriate comparison between measles CFR has not been addressed. The way the authors state this is as, "Inpatient mortality was 3.3% (34 deaths) among measles inpatients, which was numerically higher than other inpatients (2.3%) and nearly 10-fold higher than previous mortality estimates of all cases of measles in the US (1 in 1,000)." Stating that this estimate of measles related mortality is ten fold higher than "earlier estimates" seems to indicate that the authors have identified a new estimate measles CFR and is misleading as the two rates apply to different at risk populations. Replacing 'previous' with 'overall' in quoted sentence should allow the reader to draw the correct conclusions about measles mortality. Barring this issue, I recommend that the MS should be accepted.

o We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We have updated the wording to reflect the more accurate comparison

• 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.

o We have added a data availability statement

Decision Letter 2

Ka Chun Chong

23 Mar 2020

Inpatient morbidity and mortality of measles in the United States

PONE-D-19-30745R2

Dear Dr. Silverberg,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Ka Chun Chong

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ka Chun Chong

9 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-30745R2

Inpatient morbidity and mortality of measles in the United States

Dear Dr. Silverberg:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ka Chun Chong

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes used to identify measles and complications.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Predictors of length of stay in patients with measles.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Predictors of cost of care in patients with measles.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: REVIEWERS COMMENT PLOSONE JANUARY 2020.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Chovatiya_Measles_Paper_V10_PLOSOne (Cmnt ASB).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