Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jul 9;15(7):e0235437. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235437

Descriptive Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) in adults with imported severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria: A 10 year-study in a Portuguese tertiary care hospital

Luísa Graça 1,2, Isabel Gomes Abreu 1,2, Ana Sofia Santos 1,2,*, Luís Graça 3,4, Paulo Figueiredo Dias 1,2, Maria Lurdes Santos 1,2
Editor: Luzia Helena Carvalho5
PMCID: PMC7347120  PMID: 32645025

Abstract

Background

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a severe complication of malaria that remains largely unstudied. We aim to describe the development of ARDS associated with severe P. falciparum malaria, its management and impact on clinical outcome.

Methods

Retrospective observational study of adult patients admitted with severe P. falciparum malaria in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a tertiary care hospital from Portugal from 2008 to 2018. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with the development of ARDS, defined according to Berlin Criteria. Prognosis was assessed by case-fatality ratio, nosocomial infection and length of stay.

Results

98 patients were enrolled, of which 32 (33%) developed ARDS, a median of 2 days after starting antimalarial medication (IQR 0–4, range 0–6). Length of stay in ICU and in hospital were significantly longer in patients who developed ARDS: 13 days (IQR 10–18) vs 3 days (IQR 2–5) and 21 days (IQR 15–30.5) vs 7 days (IQR 6–10), respectively. Overall case-fatality ratio in ICU was 4.1% and did not differ between groups. The risk of ARDS development is difficult to establish.

Conclusion

ARDS is a hard to predict late complication of severe malaria. A low threshold for ICU admission and monitoring should be used. Ideally patients should be managed in a centre with experience and access to advanced techniques.

Introduction

Malaria is still a frequent and potentially fatal disease that affects millions of people worldwide [1]. Although public health efforts are focused on reducing the incidence of infection and mortality in endemic countries, cases acquired through travelling that are diagnosed and treated in non-endemic countries also have its challenges. Due to its relatively low frequency the diagnosis of malaria may not be considered at first glance resulting in delayed diagnosis and treatment with an overall worse prognosis [2].

Severe cases of malaria are frequently caused by Plasmodium falciparum, although geographically dependent, and are associated with a plethora of complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [3]. Data on incidence, risk factors and outcome of ARDS in the context of malaria are largely unknown. This is related to a multitude of factors: there is limited access to intensive supportive care in places with high incidence of malaria (and its complications) [4]; non-endemic countries have less accumulated experience in dealing with severe malaria and the concept/definitions of ARDS vary largely between studies[5,6]. Nonetheless, ARDS has been reported in 5 to 25% of adult patients with severe P. falciparum malaria [79], with a directly related mortality ranging from 20% to 95% in developing countries [1012].

The present study describes the development of ARDS associated with imported severe P. falciparum malaria its management and impact on clinical outcome.

Methods

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the institutional ethics committee (Comissão de Ética para a Saúde do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, approval number 98/19) and was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent by participants was waived by the ethics committee.

Study design and population

This is a retrospective observational study. We included all patients older than 18 years of age with a diagnosis of malaria due to Plasmodium falciparum who were treated in the Infectious Diseases Intensive Care Unit (ID-ICU) of Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, a tertiary teaching hospital from Porto, Portugal, between January 2008 and December 2018. Admissions to the ID-ICU for reasons unrelated to malaria diagnosis were excluded.

Patients were identified using the institutional electronic database and paper clinical records and data was collected retrospectively using a chart report form.

Definitions and diagnosis criteria

Malaria diagnosis was made by immunochromatographic assay (Malaria Now-Binax®) and thin smear. Parasitaemia quantification was done whenever possible.

Patients were classified as having ARDS according to the Berlin Definition Criteria for ARDS [13]. Briefly, this classification implies that the following criteria are met: 1) ARDS occurs within 1 week of the onset of clinical symptoms or there are new or worsening respiratory symptoms; 2) Bilateral pulmonary opacities (visible on chest x-ray) are not completely explained by pleural effusion, lung collapse or nodules; 3) the cause of respiratory failure is not completely explained by cardiac failure or volume overload. Patients that meet these criteria can be further classified as having: mild ARDS, if partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2/FiO2) is ≤ 300 mmHg but > 200mmHg with a minimum positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 cm H2O; moderate ARDS if PaO2/FiO2 was ≤ 200mmHg but > 100mmHg with a PEEP ≥ 5 cm H2O or severe ARDS if PaO2/FiO2 was ≤ 100mmHg with a PEEP of ≥ 5 cm H2O.

Besides the 2015 World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for severe malaria cases [14], we assessed clinical severity on ICU admission using the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score [15], Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II [16] and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score [17].

Bacterial coinfections were defined based in clinical criteria and microbiologic cultures (blood cultures, urinary antigen) performed routinely at admission and whenever justified. According to epidemiology virus, such as zoonotic and influenza, were also investigated. Community-acquired co-infections were defined as any bacterial infection occurring within the first two days of hospitalization. Infections diagnosed later were classified as nosocomial.

Patient’s outcome was evaluated as development of nosocomial infection during ICU stay, length of stay in ICU and total hospital time and all cause ICU and hospital mortality.

Subgroup analysis of these parameters between patients with and without ARDS was made.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were compared among groups using the t test or Mann-Whitney test and categorical variables using the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test. Pearson’s correlation was used to test for variables related to the duration of mechanical ventilation. SPSS 25® was used for these evaluations. To identify independently associated variables with the development of ARDS we fitted a stepwise logistic regression model, using STATA 15.0 (StataCorp LP, Texas, USA).

Results

Patient demographics and clinical and laboratory characteristics

Between January 2008 and December 2018, 98 adult patients were admitted to the ID-ICU with severe malaria due to P. falciparum.

Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of these patients. The two groups (ARDS and no ARDS) were similar concerning age, gender and comorbidities. The mean age was 43 ± 11 years old ranging from 18 to 68 years of age. Eighty-six patients (87.8%) were males.

Table 1. Demographic data for 98 patients with severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria admitted to the ID-ICU, with and without ARDS.

No ARDS (n = 66) ARDS (n = 32) All (n = 98) P value
Demographics
Age in years 41.98 ± 10.61 45.30 ± 11.54 43.06 ± 10.97 0.161
Male gender 58/66 (87.9%) 28/32 (87.5%) 86/98 (87.8%) 0.957
Reason for travel
Immigration 25/66 (37.9%) 18/32 (56.3%) 43/98 (43.9%)
Business 34/66 (51.5%) 13/32 (40.6%) 47/98 (48.0%)
Tourism and VFR 7/66 (10.6%) 1/32 (3.1%) 8/98 (8.2%)
Previous contact with malaria
Previous diagnosis of malaria 25/66 (37.9%) 11/32 (34.4%) 36/98 (36.7%) 0.736
Living in endemic area 25/66 (37.9%) 18/30 (60.6%) 43/96 (44.8%) 0.043
Comorbidities
Respiratory disease 26/66 (39.4%) 13/32 (40.6%) 39/98 (39.8%) 0.907
Alcohol abuse 6/66 (9.1%) 1/32 (3.1%) 7/98 (7.1%) 0.282
Immunosuppression 3/66 (4.5%) 1/32 (3.1%) 7/98 (7.1%) 0.282
Obesity 4/66 (6.1%) 1/32 (3.1%) 5/98 (5.1%) > 0.9995
Diabetes 4/66 (6.1%) 1/32 (3.1%) 5/98 (5.1%) > 0.9995
Pregnancy 1/66 (1.5%) 0/32 (0%) 1/98 (1%) > 0.9995
Number of comorbidities 1(0–1) 0 (0–1) 1 (0–1) 0.252

Data are number (%), median (IQR) and mean ± SD

ARDS–acute respiratory distress syndrome; VFR–Visiting friends and relatives

†Thirty-nine (39.8%) patients had probable respiratory disease: 26 (26.5%) were current smokers, 10 (10.2%) were previous smokers, 2 (2%) had obstructive sleep apnea, 1 (1%) had Kartagener syndrome and 1 (1%) had asthma.

‡Four patients (4%) were immunocompromised: 2 (2%) had psoriasis; one (1%) had Still’s disease under immunosuppressors, and 1 (1%) had chronic kidney disease under dialysis and previous history of cervical cancer.

Almost all patients were Portuguese (95; 96.9%) and 3 were from Angola (3.1%). About half the patients (43; 43.9%) were Portuguese emigrants working in Africa or on short businesses trips (47; 48%). The main country of acquisition was Angola (62; 63.2%) followed by Mozambique (15; 15%), Côte d’Ivoire (7; 7.1%), Democratic Republic of the Congo (3; 3.1%), Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Malawi (2 each; 2%) and Gabon, Benim, Ruanda, Senegal and Togo with 1 patient each (1%).

More than half the patients (59; 60.2%) had previous contact with P. falciparum: 43 (44.8%) had been living in an endemic area of malaria for at least two years at the time of the diagnosis and 36 (36.7%) had a former episode of malaria. Only four patients were taking chemoprophylaxis and all but one were taking it incorrectly.

Table 2 shows the clinical findings, laboratory characteristics and severity scores of these patients. Symptoms were reported for a median of 4.5 days (IQR 3–7), ranging from one to 15 days before diagnosis was made. Parasitaemia data was quantified in 93 patients (94.9%): the median parasitaemia was 8% (IQR 3–15), with a minimum of 1% and maximum of 50%. On admission, patients fulfilled a median of one (IQR 0–2, range 0–6) WHO criteria for severe P. falciparum malaria.

Table 2. Clinical symptoms, laboratory parameters and severity scores for 98 patients with severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria, with and without ARDS.

No ARDS (n = 66) ARDS (n = 32) All (n = 98) p value
Clinical symptoms
Days of symptoms 5 (3–7) 4 (3–6) 4.5 (3–7) 0.595
Cough 14/66 (21.2%) 12/32 (37.5%) 26/98 (26.5%) 0.087
Respiratory rate >30 bpm 6/53 (11.3%) 8/25 (32%) 14/78 (17.9%) 0.026
SatO2 < 96% 9/55 (16.4%) 8/25 (32%) 17/80 (21.3%) 0.113
SAP < 90 mmHg 3/62 (4.8%) 7/29 (24.1%) 10/91 (11%) 0.006
Arterial blood gas test at admission
PaCO2 < 35 mmHg 51/59 (86.4%) 25/32 (78.1%) 76/91 (83.5%) 0.976
PaO2 < 60 mmHg 4/59 (6.8%) 2/32 (6.2%) 6/91 (6.6%) > 0.9995
FiO2 ≥ 35% 6/59 (10.2%) 9/32 (28.1%) 15/91 (16.5%) 0.014
Ratio PaO2/FiO2 < 300 10/59 (16.9%) 13/32 (40.6%) 23/91 (25.2%) 0.002
Arterial pH < 7.35 13/57 (5.3%) 2/32 (6.2%) 15/89 (16.8%) > 0.9995
Lactate > 2 20/59 (33.9%) 15/32 (46.8%) 31/91 (34%) 0.108
Laboratory parameters
Parasitaemia 0.981
<2% 6/63 (9.5%) 3/30 (10%) 9/93 (9.7%)
2 to 4% 13/63 (20.6%) 6/30 (20%) 19/93 (20.4%)
4 to 10% 17/63 (27%) 7/30 (23.3%) 24/93 (25.8%)
≥10% 27/63 (42.9%) 14/30 (46.7%) 41/93 (44.1%)
Leukocytes > 11x109/L 5/66 (7.6%) 4/32 (12.5%) 9/98 (9.2%) 0.429
Albumin < 3 g/dL 30/65 (46.2%) 24/31 (77.4%) 54/96 (56.3%) 0.004
LDH > 300 U/L 51/63 (81.0%) 27/29 (93.1%) 78/92 (84.8%) 0.132
C-RP > 100 mg/L 48/66 (72.7%) 29/32 (90.6%) 77/98 (78.6%) 0.043
Platelets (x 109/L) 45.5 (25–80.5) 34 (23–47.5) 40 (25–69.25) 0.002
Severity scores
WHO criteria
    Impaired consciousness 5/66 (7.6%) 4/32 (12.5%) 9/98 (9.2%) 0.429
    Multiple convulsions 0/66 (0%) 0/32 (0%) 0/98 (0%)
    Acidosis 13/57 (5.3%) 2/32 (6.2%) 15/89 (16.8%) > 0.9995
    Hypoglycaemia 0/66 (0%) 1/32 (3.1%) 1/98 (1%) 0.149
    Severe anaemia 3/66 (4.5%) 0/32 (0%) 3/98 (3.1%) 0.549
    Renal impairment 5/66 (7.6%) 4/32 (12.5%) 9/98 (9.2%) 0.429
    Jaundice 29/66 (43.9%) 15/32 (46.9%) 44/98 (44.9%) 0.784
    Pulmonary oedema 6/53 (11.3%) 8/25 (32%) 14/78 (17.9%) 0.026
    Significant bleeding 4/66 (6.1%) 1/32 (3.1%) 5/98 (5.1%) 0.536
    Shock 0/66 (0%) 1/32 (3.1%) 1/98 (1%) 0.327
    Hyperparasitaemia 27/63 (42.9%) 14/30 (46.7%) 41/93 (44.1%) 0.729
    Number of WHO criteria 1 (0–2) 1 (0.25–2) 1 (0–2) 0.212
SAPS II 20.5 (16–31.5) 37.5 (26–53.5) 26 (18–40) < 0.0005
APACHE II 10 (7–15) 15 (11–23) 13 (8–17) 0.001
SOFA 7 (5–10) 12 (8–17) 8 (6–12) <0.0005

Data are number (%), median (IQR) and mean ± SD

ARDS–acute respiratory distress syndrome; bpm–breath per minute; SatO2 –peripheral oxygen saturation; SAP–systolic arterial pressure; PaCO2 –partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood; PaO2 –partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood; FiO2 –fraction of inspired oxygen; LDH–lactate dehydrogenase; C-RP–C- reactive protein; SAPS II–simplified acute physiology score II; APACHE II–acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II; SOFA–sequential organ failure assessment.

† Pulmonary oedema was defined radiologically or by bronchoalveolar lavage

Arterial blood gases on admission were with a mean (±SD) PaO2 of 80.59 mmHg ± 15.87, range 46.4–120.4, and required a median FiO2 of 27% (IQR 21–45, range 21–100), resulting in a median ratio PaO2/FiO2 of 310.32 (IQR 174.53–369.05, range 83.7–429.05).

Description of ARDS development

Thirty-two patients (33%) developed ARDS, all under antimalarial treatment, a median of 2 days after starting medication (IQR 0–4, range 0–6). Nineteen (59.4%) of these patients fulfilled ARDS criteria on admission to the ICU (mean time 1 day, IQR 0–3, range 0–5). At the moment of ARDS diagnosis, 24 patients (75%) still had a positive smear.

Clinical and analytical variables associated with the development of ARDS were: patients living in an endemic area (OR 2.46; CI 95% 1.02–5.95); respiratory rate >30 bpm (OR 2.87; CI 95% 1.00–8.24); albumin <3g/dL (OR4; CI95% 1.51–10.58); C-reactive protein >100mg/L (OR 3.63; CI95% 0.98–13.39); platelet count <50x109/L (OR 2.98; CI95% 1.13–7.84); need for supplemental oxygen with a FiO2≥35% (OR 3.97; CI95% 1.25–12.60) and systolic arterial pressure (SAP) <90 mmHg (OR 6.26; CI95% 1.48–26.37).

Overall management of patients with severe malaria in the ICU

Regarding anti-malarial medication, 15 (15.3%) patients were treated with intravenous artesunate while the remaining were treated with quinine dihydrochloride plus doxycycline (73) or clindamycin (10). The treatment scheme and days until negative smear did not differ between the ARDS and non-ARDS groups (Table 3).

Table 3. Treatment of 98 patients with severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria admitted to the ID-ICU, with and without ARDS.

No ARDS (n = 66) ARDS (n = 32) All (n = 98) p value
IV artesunate 11/66 (16.7%) 4/32 (12.5%) 15/98 (15.3%) 0.593
Days to negative smear 3 (2–4) 3 (3–4) 3 (3–4) 0.378
Empirical antibiotics <48h from admission 19/66 (28.8%) 14/32 (43.8%) 33/98 (33.7%) 0.142
Days of antibiotic therapy 7 (6.75–7) 7 (7–7) 7 (7–7) 0.066
Vasopressors 12/66 (18.2%) 28/32 (87.5%) 40/98 (40.8%) < 0.0005
CRRT 6/66 (9.1%) 9/32 (28.1%) 15/98 (15.3%) 0.014

Data are number (%), median (IQR) and mean ± SD

ARDS–acute respiratory distress syndrome; IV–intravenous; CRRT–continuous renal replacement therapy

† Vasopressors were started to maintain mean arterial blood pressure above 65 mmHg

Empirical antibiotics for presumed community acquired infections were started in 33 (33.7%) patients but only one had microbiologic confirmation: an urinary tract infection due to E. coli in ARDS group. The median duration of antibiotics was 7 days in both groups.

Eight patients in the no-ARDS group required mechanical ventilation for other reasons than respiratory failure. They all presented multiorgan disfunction with neurologic impairment.

Management of respiratory failure

Of the 32 patients with ARDS, three (9.3%) required solely non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for a mean duration of 3 days.

Ten (32.3%) patients that were initially treated with NIV required intubation after a mean of 1.5 days (IQR 1–2.25) on NIV and needed a mean duration of IMV of 9.5 days (IQR 5.75–15.25).

In 19 (59.4%) patients the ventilatory support was only with invasive ventilation. Ten patients were intubated on ICU admission and the other 9 between day 1 and day 5. The median duration of support was 10 days (IQR 6–14).

Thirteen (40.6%) patients needed curarization. Three patient (9.4%) required prone positioning and 4 (12.5%) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for 6, 7, 15 and 45 days.

An initial period of NIV was not associated with longer IMV (p = 0.890), higher PEEP (p = 0.697), higher FiO2 (p = 0.294) nor need for curarization (p = 0.705), prone positioning (p = 0.267) or ECMO (p = 0.592).

Another eight patients included in the no-ARDS group required invasive mechanical ventilation for other reasons rather than respiratory failure.

Outcome

Table 4 shows the outcome of patients with and without ARDS. The median time of ICU stay was of 4.5 days (IQR 2–11.5, range 1–53) and the median length of hospitalization was 9 days (IQR 7–18.5, range 1–69). Both were significantly longer in patients who developed ARDS: 13 days (IQR 10–18) vs 3 days (IQR 2–5) and 21 days (IQR 15–30.5) vs 7 days (IQR 6–10), respectively.

Table 4. Outcome for 98 patients with severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria admitted to the ID-ICU, with and without ARDS.

No ARDS (n = 66) ARDS (n = 32) All (n = 98) p value
Length of stay
Days in ICU 3 (2–5) 13 (10–18) 4.5 (2–11.25) < 0.0005
Days in hospital 7 (6–10) 21 (15–30.50) 9 (7–18.5) < 0.0005
Nosocomial infection
    Empirical antibiotics 7/66 (10.6%) 17/32 (53.1%) 24/98 (24.5%) < 0.0005
    Agent identified 2/66 (3%) 8/32 (25%) 10/98 (10.2%) 0.001
    Days of antibiotic 7 (7–7) 7 (7–10.75) 7 (7–10) 0.844
VAP
    Empirical antibiotics 4/66 (6.1%) 11/32 (34.4%) 15/98 (15.3%) < 0.0005
    Pathogen identified 0/66 (0%) 6/32 (18.8%) 6/98 (6.1%) 0.001
Case-fatality ratio 2/66 (3%) 2/32 (6.3%) 4/98 (4.1%) 0.595

Data are number (%) and median (IQR)

ARDS–acute respiratory distress syndrome; ICU–intensive care unit; VAP–ventilator associated pneumonia.

Nosocomial infection was more common among patients with ARDS as well as the use of empirical antibiotics (OR 9.55; CI95% 3.35–27.21), ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) (OR 8.12; CI95% 2.33–28.45) and identification of the etiologic agent for all infections (OR 10.67; CI95% 2.11–53.84).

Four patients died while being treated in the ICU, which corresponds to an overall case-fatality ratio in the ICU of 4.1%. Of these patients, three (3.1%) died shortly (1 to 2 days) after admission due to cerebral malaria. The other patient died 55 days after admission due to septic shock secondary to VAP. There were no in-hospital deaths following ICU discharge.

Discussion

This cohort describes ARDS in severe P. falciparum malaria. One third of our patients met the criteria for ARDS, which is in accordance with the overall reported frequency in other studies [7,8,18]. Ten patients were included in non-ARDS group although with a PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 300 mmHg due to other malaria associated pulmonary pathology such as oedema or infection.

The risk of ARDS development is difficult to establish. The most cited score for ARDS prediction is the LIPS score (Lung Injury Prediction Score) [19,20]. However, this score does not consider malaria as a possible predisposing factor.

Predisposing risk factors previously described for ARDS, such as immunosuppression or pregnancy [2123], did not arise in our cohort. However, this is most likely due to those characteristics being underrepresented among the travellers who caught malaria.

Although our experience is about ARDS in Plasmodium falciparum malaria it is known that, though rare, P. vivax malaria can also cause severe disease and P. knowlesi can cause severe forms in a particular geographic distribution with rare connection with our country.

Living in an endemic area or a previous episode of malaria didn’t protect from ARDS in our cohort.

Clinical criteria also described as predictors of ARDS in LIPS score and in previous studies [2426], such as a high respiratory rate (above 30 bpm), thrombocytopenia or hypoalbuminemia we didn't observe that association.

We could not find a correlation between duration of symptoms until initiation of antimalarial treatment or time until a negative smear and the development of ARDS. This may highlight the physiopathology of ARDS in malaria, where some of the pulmonary damage occurs as a consequence of the inflammatory cytokines and persistent inflammatory response of the host to infection, rather than a direct effect of high parasitaemia [27]. This can also explain why the use of intravenous artesunate did not have an apparent impact on the development of ARDS. Studies that led to the approval of intravenous artesunate in severe malaria also did not find such benefit [28].

The ability to define early clinical predictors of ARDS may be limited by our sample size. However, our experience suggests that patients with cough, respiratory rate > 30 bpm and in need of supplemental oxygen should be admitted in ICU and be monitored closely as a way of detecting early deterioration and development of ARDS.

In our cohort ARDS presented later in the course of the disease: it was diagnosed in a median of 2 days after starting antimalarial medication and severe ARDS occurred in a median of 2 days later than moderate ARDS. This most likely reflects the natural evolution of ARDS in malaria, which seems to be a late event in the course of the disease [7].

Patients with severe ARDS were intubated later which we believe reflects the longer time for the development of severe ARDS rather than missing the early signs of respiratory failure that led to more severe disease.

Even though patients scored low on WHO criteria, had a life threatening infection, evident by the high mortality risk scores at admission (estimated mortality of 25%, 37,5% and 92,5% for APACHE 2, SAPS II and SOFA, respectively) and presence of multiple organ dysfunctions besides ARDS. A threshold of 10% as parasitaemia criterion for severe malaria excludes many of the patients described above. Lowering the limit to 2% would identify 90.3% of our cohort as having severe malaria. Hence, in line with WHO treatment guidelines [14], we consider 2% parasitaemia as a criterion for complicated malaria in non-endemic settings and closely monitor all patients that fulfill this.

Regarding the management of respiratory failure, a non-invasive trial seems possible and can prevent unnecessary mechanical ventilation (and consequent complications) in these patients as long as it doesn't delay invasive ventilation.

Three patients were treated solely with NIV. The remaining ten patients required IMV after a NIV and did not have a worse outcome than those that were immediately intubated. Previous studies in severe malaria cases in patients with early ARDS development after antimalarial treatment also had positive results with a NIV trial [29].

Conversely, four patients with ARDS were put on ECMO due to severe refractory hypoxemia with a favourable outcome. Although the data on ECMO use on severe malaria is scarce, most case reports show a positive impact on the clinical evolution of these patients [30,31].

Patients with ARDS had a longer ICU and hospital stay and were more likely to have organ dysfunctions, such as renal or cardiovascular, and nosocomial infections including ventilator-associated pneumonia, which could contributed to the prolonged hospitalization.

Overall, ARDS mortality is described around 40 to 50% [6,32] and malaria associated ARDS mortality ranged from 20 to 95% in developing countries [1012]. In our study, in-hospital case-fatality ratio was 6.3% in the ARDS group. Given that the primary cause for respiratory failure influences the prognosis of ARDS [19,20] it is possible that ARDS related malaria carries a better outcome. Nevertheless, young age and low comorbidity of our patients, timely recognition of respiratory distress, availability of an ICU inside the Infectious Diseases department and access to advanced techniques of invasive support probably justify the differences found between our results and what is overall described. Mortality did not differ between groups but the low number of deaths undermines our capacity to discriminate the impact of ARDS on outcome. The importance of new ventilatory approaches in ARDS such as protective ventilation and, more recently, access to ECMO, probably explaining the reduced mortality comparing to our previous study [33].

In conclusion, ARDS in the context of malaria is a poorly understood subject, with several caveats regarding diagnosis, useful clinical predictors and overall optimal management. It is wise to closely monitor patients with subtle signs of respiratory distress, hypoxemia and/or a parasitaemia of at least 2%. The availability of a specialized Infectious Diseases ICU and current approaches to ARDS, including ECMO, influences the prognosis and clinical outcome of these patients and contributed to our low (4.1%) case fatality ratio.

The weakness of our study needs to be acknowledged. This is a retrospective study with a limited number of patients which could contribute to some unconclusive findings. Even so, it seems important to describe our experience in this subset of patients.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. World Malaria Report 2019. Geneva. 2019.
  • 2.Tatem AJ, Jia P, Ordanovich D, Falkner M, Huang Z, Howes R, et al. The geography of imported malaria to non-endemic countries: a meta-analysis of nationally reported statistics. Lancet Infect Dis [Internet]. 2017;17(1):98–107. Available from: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30326-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Elzein F, Mohammed N, Ali N, Bahloul A, Albadani A, Alsherbeeni N. Pulmonary manifestation of Plasmodium falciparum malaria: Case reports and review of the literature. Respir Med Case Reports [Internet]. 2017;22:83–6. Available from: 10.1016/j.rmcr.2017.06.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Buregeya E, Fowler RA, Talmor DS, Twagirumugabe T, Kiviri W, Riviello ED. Acute respiratory distress syndrome in the global context. Glob Heart [Internet]. 2014;9(3):289–95. Available from: 10.1016/j.gheart.2014.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Riviello ED, Kiviri W, Twagirumugabe T, Banner-goodspeed VM, Officer L, Novack V, et al. Hospital incidence and outcomes of ARDS using the Kigali modification of the Berlin definition. Am J Respir Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2015;193(1):52–59. Available from: 10.1164/rccm.201503-0584OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, Fan E, Brochard L, Esteban A, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA—J Am Med Assoc. 2016;315(8):788–800. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Taylor WRJ, Hanson J, Turner GDH, White NJ, Dondorp AM. Respiratory manifestations of malaria. Vol. 142, Chest. American College of Chest Physicians; 2012. p. 492–505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Antinori S, Corona A, Castelli A, Rech R, Borghi B, Giannotti C, et al. Severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria in the intensive care unit: A 6-year experience in Milano, Italy. Travel Med Infect Dis [Internet]. 2017;17:43–9. Available from: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2017.05.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Marks M, Armstrong M, Walker D, Doherty T. Imported falciparum malaria among adults requiring intensive care: Analysis of the literature. Malar J. 2014;13(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Losert H, Schmid K, Wilfing A, Winkler S, Staudinger T, Kletzmayr J, et al. Experiences with severe P. falciparum malaria in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med [Internet]. 2000;26(2):195–201. Available from: 10.1007/s001340050045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Salord F, Allaouchiche B, Gaussorgues P, Boibieux A, Sirodot M, Gerard-Boncompain M, et al. Severe falciparum malaria (21 cases). Intensive Care Med. 1991;17(8):449–54. 10.1007/BF01690765 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Krishnan A, Karnad DR. Severe falciparum malaria: An important cause of multiple organ failure in Indian intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(9):2278–84. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000079603.82822.69 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, Thompson BT, Ferguson ND, Caldwell E, Fan E, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: The Berlin definition. JAMA—J Am Med Assoc. 2012. June 13;307(23):2526–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.World Health Organization Guidelines for the Treatment of Malaria. World Health Organization; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985. Oct;13(10):818–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F. A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA [Internet]. 1993. December 22;270(24):2957–63. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8254858 10.1001/jama.270.24.2957 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonca A, Bruining H, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Vol. 22, Intensive care medicine. United States; 1996. p. 707–10. 10.1007/BF01709751 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Marks M, Gupta-Wright A, Doherty JF, Singer M, Walker D. Managing malaria in the intensive care unit. Vol. 113, British Journal of Anaesthesia. Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 910–21. 10.1093/bja/aeu157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gajic O, Dabbagh O, Park PK, Adesanya A, Chang SY, Hou P, et al. Early identification of patients at risk of acute lung injury: Evaluation of lung injury prediction score in a multicenter cohort study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(4):462–70. 10.1164/rccm.201004-0549OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Trillo-Alvarez C, Cartin-Ceba R, Kor DJ, Kojicic M, Kashyap R, Thakur S, et al. Acute lung injury prediction score: Derivation and validation in a population-based sample. Eur Respir J. 2011;37(3):604–9. 10.1183/09031936.00036810 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Confalonieri M, Salton F, Fabiano F. Acute respiratory distress syndrome. Eur Respir Rev [Internet]. 2017. June 30;26(144):160116 Available from: 10.1183/16000617.0116-2016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cortegiani A, Madotto F, Gregoretti C, Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, et al. Immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: Secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE database. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):1–15. 10.1186/s13054-017-1923-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cole DE, Taylor TL, McCullough DM, Shoff CT, Derdak S. Acute respiratory distress syndrome in pregnancy. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(10 SUPPL):269–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Pepe, Paul E.; Potkin, Ralph T.; Reus, Diane Hoffman; Hudson, Leonard D.; Carrico CJ. Clinical Predictors of the Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Am J Surg. 1982;144(1):124–30. 10.1016/0002-9610(82)90612-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gong MN, Thompson BT, Williams P, Pothier L, Boyce PD, Christiani DC. Clinical predictors of and mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome: Potential role of red cell transfusion. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(6):1191–8. 10.1097/01.ccm.0000165566.82925.14 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bruneel F et al. Imported falciparum malaria in adults: host- and parasite-related factors assocoated with severety. The Franch prospective mulcicenter PALUREA cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1588–96. 10.1007/s00134-016-4356-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mohan A, Sharma SK, Bollineni S. Acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome in malaria. J Vector Borne Dis. 2008;45:179–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.White NJ. Artesunate versus quinine for treatment of severe falciparum malaria: A randomised trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9487):717–25. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67176-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Agarwal R, Nath A, Gupta D. Noninvasive Ventilation in Plasmodium vivax Related ALI/ARDS. Intern Med. 2007;46(24):2007–12. 10.2169/internalmedicine.46.0401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Alves C, Chen J-T, Patel N, Abrams D, Figueiredo P, Santos L, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory acute respiratory distress syndrome in severe malaria. Malar J [Internet]. 2013. August 31;12:306 Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24127739 10.1186/1475-2875-12-306 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Griffiths MJD, McAuley DF, Perkins GD, Barrett N, Blackwood B, Boyle A, et al. Guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2019;6(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sharma SK, Gupta A, Biswas A, Sharma A, Malhotra A, Prasad KT, et al. Aetiology, outcomes & predictors of mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome from a tertiary care centre in North India. Indian J Med Res. 2016. June 1;143(JUNE):782–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Santos LC, Abreu CF, Xerinda SM, Tavares M, Lucas R, Sarmento AC. Severe imported malaria in an intensive care unit: A review of 59 cases. Vol. 11, Malaria Journal. 2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Luzia Helena Carvalho

27 Feb 2020

PONE-D-20-02362

Predictors of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) in adults with imported severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a 10 years study in a Portuguese tertiary care hospital

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Santos,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLoS ONE. After careful consideration, we felt that your manuscript requires revision, following which it can possibly be reconsidered. Although your manuscript was of interest to the three reviewers, major concerns were related to study design and data interpretation.  A methodological concern raised by the reviewers was related to   sample size as it may have compromised the conclusion.    Also, the authors should revise some distorted definitions; for example, the definition of semi-immunity.   Given the study limitations, it has been suggested that the purpose of the study should be adjusted from a “predictive” to a “descriptive” of ARDS among patients with severe imported malaria. Therefore, it seems to be a consensus that the word "predictors" should be removed from the title. For your guidance, a copy of the   reviewers' comments was included below

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by March 30. 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,

Luzia Helena Carvalho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

3. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page.

4. Please upload a copy of Figure 1, to which you refer in your text on page 5. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: The manuscript entitled “Predictors of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) in adults with imported severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a 10 years study in a Portuguese tertiary care hospital” presents an interesting set of data from malaria-associated ARDS patients, which contributes a great deal and are, in fact, very scarce in literature in this area. The work shows clinical, laboratory, hypoxemia and parasitemia data, comorbidities, treatments, among others. On the other hand, no substantial early predictive marker of ARDS has been identified, because PaO2/ FiO2 ratio <300 mmHg (already well established and known for ARDS) and SAP <90 mmHg, as the authors themselves reported in their conclusion “the absence of early predictors”. Therefore, I believe the word "predictors" should be removed from the title, as being overinterpretation, suggests a false idea of research presented to the reader.

I suggest MINOR REVISION.

Main points:

1- Flow diagram of cohort study detailing ARDS, no ARDS and exclusion criteria and also some data forest plot of the odds ratios should be used as it would be more interesting and attractive.

2- The authors should describe the results more clearly, following the format x% (y/z), as similar to data presented in the tables.

3- The authors could discuss a little about C-reactive protein, albumin, and platelets once these laboratory parameters as they appear differently between ARDS and non-ARDS patients.

4- Considering the fact that a greater number of ARDS-developing patients are semi-immune, it is interesting that the results be better discussed.

5- It is known the reported mortality in literature is very high concerning ARDS cases, but it is not shown in this manuscript. The authors could suggest (hypothesize) the reason why there was no difference in ARDS and non-ARDS cases, as well regarding SAP.

Minor points

1- “10 years study” must be written “10-year study”

2- What do “NIV” and “NIV trial” mean? The meaning of this acronym must appear when quoted for the first time, not in the end.

3- The acronym ECMO must be described in full when it appears first in the text.

4- What does UTI mean? Is it ICU?

5- Antibiotic treatment lasted 7 days in all groups. How do you explain p-value of 0.006 (table 3)?

6- “Nosocomial infections” and “Any infection” are shown in table 4. It is not clear if “any infection” means any nosocomial infection. Do the cases of community-acquired infections (<48h after admission) not appear in this table?

7- The tables should contain the type of statistical test used in each row or in legend.

Reviewer #2: Graca and coworkers examining retrospectively 98 patients with severe P. falciparum malaria admitted to their ID-ICU in Portugal between 2008-2018, aimed to identify “predictors” of ARDS development. However, their final conclusion is “ARDS is a hard to predict late complication of severe malaria”. I think that this study is flawed by two main issues: 1) the retrospective enrolment of patients; 2) the limited number of patients. Both contributed to their negative findings.

In their multivariate model only two variables were independently associated with development of ARDS: 1) PaO2/FIO2 < 300 mmHg); 2)SAP < 90 mmHg. However, the first one is now part of the ARDS Berlin definition (previous ALI , now mild ARDS) therefore should not be considered a risk factor for development of ARDS, and the second is, more properly, an indicator of severe malaria.

Given the above mentioned limitations I will suggest to change the purpose of the study from a “predictive” to a “descriptive” of ARDS among patients with severe imported malaria.

Results:

Subheadings

-(Patient demographic and clinical and laboratory characteristics):nationality of patients should be indicated and the area of acquisition of malaria specified. Former Portuguese colonies (either in results and table 1) is ambiguous and the reader is not required to know what they were.

- (Prediction of ARDS development): table 2 shows patients admitted to ID-ICU with (=32) and without ARDS (=66); however , as stated in the text “thirteen of these patients already fulfilled ARDS criteria on admission to the ICU”. The majority of pts developed ARDS during ICU stay (as reported in the literature and also in my experience) and therefore table should be changed accordingly.

It would be interesting to know parasitaemia value at the time of ARDS occurrence in comparison with other criteria (see the article by Marks ME et al. BMC Infect Dis 2013; 13:118).

Also in table 2 there is a discrepancy between “acidosis” (5/57, 0/28) and arterial pH < 7.35 (13/57, 2/29); a pH < 7,35 encompass the definition of acidosis (metabolic acidosis= plasma bicarbonate < 15 mmol /litre or pH < 7.35. WHO Guidelines for the treatment of malaria, 2nd Edition).

-(Management of respiratory failure): this is a descriptive paragraph difficult to follow; I suggest to try to summarize main messages in a table.

Discussion: It would be important to discuss the role of albumin level (high risk factor for both severe malaria and ARDS) (see article Bruneel F et al. Intensive Care Med 2016;42:1588-96)and malaria semi-immunity. Moreover, ARDS is (together with shock and acidosis) one of the factor associated with malaria death but in the present experience none of the patients died with/for ARDS. In a previous article from the same group (Malaria J 2012) regarding 59 pts with severe malaria admitted in the ICU from 2000-2011, 8/9 patients who died with malaria had ARDS. Can you comment on?

Although , your experience is about ARDS in P. falciparum malaria, it should be mentioned the role of this complication in P. vivax and P. knowlesi severe malaria.

Minor:

“Immunochromatogenic” change to ” immunochromatographic”

Reference 12 refers to India, actually to be considered an endemic country for malaria.

Table 1: seven patients were immunocompromised: 3 had HIV infection; I do not agree that HIV “per se” should be considered immunocompromission.

Reviewer #3: The paper by Graca et al is a retrospective study of ARDS in malaria patients, indicating that it is difficult to identify predictors for the development of this complication. It is very descriptive, the conclusions are not really novel, and some inaccuracies need to be corrected. Still the topic is important and it is useful to have a study on this complication from a well-equipped center.

Major comments:

1. The authors state that more ARDS is observed in semi-immune patients than in non-semi-immune. This is most likely wrong and based on a fairly misleading definition of semi-immunity in the methods section. What is meant by 'endemic area'? Semi-immunity only occurs in areas of high-exposure. Semi-immunity refers to protection from severe malaria, as a consequence of high exposure. I would suggest to use the terminology of 'semi-immunity' only if significant antimalarial immunity can be shown (e.g. antimalarial antibodies). If this cannot be proven, it is better to indicate that these patients were living for at least 2 years in an endemic area, without using the term semi-immunity. In fact, real semi-immunity might be supposed to protect from malaria ARDS, just like it does for other malaria complications.

2. It is surprising to note that several patients with PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mmHg are classified in the non-ARDS group. A better discussion of these patients is required. Do these patients correspond to those in the same group that have pulmonary edema (see table 2)? What was the cause of this pulmonary edema? Most likely these patients have also pulmonary pathology caused by malaria? It would be preferable to identify these patients as having malaria-associated pulmonary pathology, although they do not correspond perfectly to the Berlin definition of ARDS. I would suggest to discriminate these patients in a separate column in the tables and to discuss whether the Berlin criteria are or are not appropriate for malaria-related ARDS.

3. Result section: please indicate how many patients did develop ARDS before the start of antimalarial treatment.

4. Discussion: the first sentence is not correct. There are several studies in the literature available describing malaria patients developing ARDS. This has also been reviewed, e.g. Taylor et al. Chest 2012, Van den Steen et al. Trends Parasitol 2013, Mohan et al. J Vector Borne Dis 2008.

Minor comments:

Introduction: it is not true to state that severe malaria is almost universally caused by P. falciparum. This is geographically dependent; it is true in Africa but in other parts of the world P. vivax can also be a cause, and in some parts of South-East Asia (e.g. Borneo), P. knowlesi is the most important cause. The latter is particularly relevant for malaria-associated ARDS.

Introduction: it is wrong to state that ARDS has been reported in 5 to 25% of patients with severe Pf malaria. The great majority of severe malaria patients are children, who do not develop ARDS. This statement is only true for adult patients (and this study also includes only adults). This should be better stated.

Materials and methods: how were bacterial coinfections defined? Cultures of blood, bronchoalveolar lavages? Please define the methodology. Were viral co-infections (e.g. influenza, …) excluded or not? This should be mentioned.

Why are 87.8% of the patients males? Why this huge gender imbalance?

Some abbreviations should be defined, e.g. UTI, ECMO, EI

Result section: Eight patients in the no-ARDS required mechanical ventilation for other reasons than respiratory failure. Please define which other reasons.

Table 1: former Portuguese colonies in Africa: the countries should be named, not all biomedical scientists know all the details of Portuguese history.

Table 1. P value of 0.160 for reason to travel: what does this P value refers to? Comparison of which parameters?

Table 1: Previous diagnosis of malaria: indicate within which time frame

Table 1: smokers are classified as ‘respiratory disease’. While it is obvious that smoking contributes to respiratory disease, it might be better to differentiate the smokers from other respiratory diseases in a separate row in this table.

Table 2: How was pulmonary edema defined? Radiologically? Please define.

Table 3: use of vasopressors in the treatment: it would be preferable to indicate the number of patients with low blood pressure, or what were the thresholds or indications to start vasopressor therapy?

Define how volume overload was defined?

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files 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: PONE-D-20-02362.docx

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 9;15(7):e0235437. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235437.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Apr 2020

We wish to thank you for the review to our manuscript now entitled “Descriptive Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) in adults with imported severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a 10 years study in a Portuguese tertiary care hospital”.

The authors agree with the points raised by the reviewers:

- The title and the purpose of the study was changed from "predictive" to "descriptive";

- The nationality of the patients was described as well as the area of acquisition of malaria;

- Data on Table 2 was corrected;

- We added the parasitemia value at the time of the ARDS occurence but we were not able to compare it with other criteria;

- The information described on the "Management of respiratory failure" paragraph was simplified for a better understanding;

- Discussion: we considered all the points suggested by the reviewers and changed the text accordantly;

- We excluded HIV "per se" as a immunocompromission.

Decision Letter 1

Luzia Helena Carvalho

12 May 2020

PONE-D-20-02362R1

Descriptive Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) in adults with imported severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a 10 years study in a Portuguese tertiary care hospital

PLOS ONE

Dear  Dr. Santos,

Thank you for resubmitting your manuscript to PLoS ONE. Although the data from this study has potential to be informative, relevant topics raised by the reviewer #3 during the peer review process remain to be addressed by the authors. Unfortunately, the authors did not submit a rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the reviewers as required by the publication policy of PLoS journals. More Specifically, the authors should take into account relevant concerns such as  (i) comments on semi-immunity, including criteria to define immune status of their patients; (ii) the unreliable statement about the incidence of ARDS. At this time, we strongly suggest the authors to proper address all topics raised by the reviewers.  For your guidance, a copy of the reviewer’s comments was included below. 

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by  June 10. 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,

Luzia Helena Carvalho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (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 #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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: The authors have adequately addressed most of the comments by the reviewers and I am satisfied with the quality of the paper in its present form.

Reviewer #3: Major comments:

1. The authors have to provide a decent point-by-point rebuttal to all of the referee comments, thereby copy-pasting each comment of each reviewer, with addition of their reply, including indication of the precise changes that were performed with page and line numbers. The referees are putting time and efforts in providing comments, the authors are requested to take the time and effort to provide a decent reply.

2. The authors have not taken our comment on semi-immunity seriously. Semi-immunity may easily take 5 years to develop, and is supposed to protect against severe malaria (=definition of semi-immunity). They should rephrase and remove this term from their manuscript. Also their new statement on partial immunity in the discussion is not correct. The authors did not provide any measurement on the antimalarial-immune status of these patients.

3. I don’t see any response to my second comment.

4. The erratic statement about the incidence of ARDS in malaria patients (my second minor comment) has not been corrected. See e.g. abstract of reference 7, ARDS is rare in children with malaria, and children are >90% of severe malaria patients. Children with severe malaria may develop respiratory distress due to completely different etiologies, e.g. acidosis, but this is not ARDS.

5. In addition to the problems indicated above, several of the other minor comments were also not addressed at all. This is chiefly unacceptable.

**********

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 #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files 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 Jul 9;15(7):e0235437. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235437.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


29 May 2020

Ana Sofia Santos

Infectious Diseases Department, Hospital de São João, Porto, Portugal

asfaustino@gmail.com

29/05/2020

We wish to thank you for the review to our manuscript now entitled “Descriptive Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) in adults with imported severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a 10 year-study in a Portuguese tertiary care hospital”.

We would like to present our excuses because in the first review we haven’t respond to all points raised by the reviewers. In the mail sent with the revision we printed the word document attached and answered those questions but it was incomplete. We only realized that when we received the second mail.

We now believe we have addressed all the comments addressed.

The title and the purpose of the study was changed from "predictive" to "descriptive" considering that the paper wasn’t able to identify substantial early predictive marker of ARDS.

The nationality of the patients was described as well as the area of acquisition of malaria. The concept of the Former Portuguese colonies was removed.

The paragraph “Management of respiratory failure” was simplified for a better understanding.

The type of statistical test used is described in methods.

On Table 4 any infection was related to any nosocomial infection but it wasn’t clear. This line was removed.

P value on antibiotic treatment is 0.066 and not 0.006, and so, there is no difference between groups.

Table 2 data on patients with p/F < 300 on admission was corrected as well as patients with acidosis.

Even though we have patient albumin levels we weren’t able to relate it to malaria semi-immunity, as suggested by reviewer #2.

In this review none on the patients died with ARDS in severe malaria and a question was raised because in a previous study of our group 8/9 patients died. We think the new ventilatory approaches in ARDS such as protective ventilation and access to ECMO may explain the reduced mortality.

We make a brief mention on the role of ARDS in P. vivax and knowlesi malaria in our description.

HIV "per se" as a immunocompromission was excluded considering the count of T CD4+ lymphocytes was above 500 cells/mm3 in all three HIV patients.

The definition of semi-immunity was removed from the manuscript as we couldn’t prove antimalarial immunity. As so, the conclusion that ARDS is more observed in semi-immune patients rather than in non-semi-immune patients was withdrawn because it could lead to misleading interpretations. Instead we considered a subgroup of patients living in endemic areas for at least 2 years.

We included 10 patients with PaO2/fiO2 < 300 in the non-ARDS group because they didn’t meet all the criteria for ARDS namely the exclusion of volume overload or concomitant infection as cause of respiratory failure.

All patients developed ARDS under antimalarial treatment.

We added the parasitemia value at the time of the ARDS occurence but we were not able to compare it with other criteria.

The first sentence of the Discussion was corrected because it was inaccurate.

In Introduction we changed the sentence that stated that P. falciparum was responsible for almost every cases of severe malaria. Our experience is only with P. falciparum. The incidence of 5-25% of patients with severe P. falciparum malaria is in adult patients, the statement was corrected.

Bacterial coinfections were defined based in clinical criteria and microbiologic cultures performed routinely at admission and whenever justified. According to epidemiology, virus, such as zoonotic and influenza, were also investigated.

There was a gender imbalance (87.8% males) justified by the reason of travel: Portuguese emigrants working in Africa or on short businesses trips.

The abbreviations were defined.

Eight patients in the no-ARDS group required mechanical ventilation for other reasons than respiratory failure. They all presented multiorgan disfunction with neurologic impairment.

P value for reason to travel was removed on table 1. Under the table is the description of the smokers and other respiratory diseases.

On table 2 was added how pulmonary oedema was defined: radiologically or by bronchoalveolar lavage.

The threshold to start vasopressor therapy was mean arterial pressure of 65 mmHg. It is defined on the legend of Table 3.

Volume overload was defined based on clinical manifestations, echocardiography and radiologically.

We didn’t have data available on the time frame of the previous diagnosis of malaria.

We appreciate your time and look forward to your response. Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to me at asfaustino@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

Ana Sofia Santos

Decision Letter 2

Luzia Helena Carvalho

16 Jun 2020

Descriptive Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) in adults with imported severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a 10 year-study in a Portuguese tertiary care hospital

PONE-D-20-02362R2

Dear Dr.  Santos,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Luzia Helena Carvalho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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: The authors have adequately addressed most of the comments by the reviewers and I am satisfied with the quality of the paper in its present form.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: No

Acceptance letter

Luzia Helena Carvalho

25 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-02362R2

Descriptive Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) in adults with imported severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a 10 year-study in a Portuguese tertiary care hospital 

Dear Dr. Santos:

I'm 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 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 plosone@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. Luzia Helena Carvalho

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-02362.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES