Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jul 23;15(7):e0236041. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236041

A data driven clinical algorithm for differential diagnosis of pertussis and other respiratory infections in infants

Alberto Eugenio Tozzi 1, Francesco Gesualdo 1,*, Caterina Rizzo 1, Emanuela Carloni 1, Luisa Russo 1, Ilaria Campagna 1, Alberto Villani 2, Antonino Reale 3, Carlo Concato 4, Giulia Linardos 4, Elisabetta Pandolfi 1
Editor: Daniela Flavia Hozbor5
PMCID: PMC7377414  PMID: 32702054

Abstract

Background

Clinical criteria for pertussis diagnosis and clinical case definitions for surveillance are based on a cough lasting two or more weeks. As several pertussis cases seek care earlier, a clinical tool independent of cough duration may support earlier recognition. We developed a data-driven algorithm aimed at predicting a laboratory confirmed pertussis.

Methods

We enrolled children <12 months of age presenting with apnoea, paroxistic cough, whooping, or post-tussive vomiting, irrespective of the duration of cough. Patients underwent a RT-PCR test for pertussis and other viruses. Through a logistic regression model, we identified symptoms associated with laboratory confirmed pertussis. We then developed a predictive decision tree through Quinlan's C4.5 algorithm to predict laboratory confirmed pertussis.

Results

We enrolled 543 children, of which 160 had a positive RT-PCR for pertussis. A suspicion of pertussis by a physician (aOR 5.44) or a blood count showing leukocytosis and lymphocytosis (aOR 4.48) were highly predictive of lab confirmed pertussis. An algorithm including a suspicion of pertussis by a physician, whooping, cyanosis and absence of fever was accurate (79.9%) and specific (94.0%) and had high positive and negative predictive values (PPV 76.3% NPV 80.7%).

Conclusions

An algorithm based on clinical symptoms, not including the duration of cough, is accurate and has high predictive values for lab confirmed pertussis. Such a tool may be useful in low resource settings where lab confirmation is unavailable, to guide differential diagnosis and clinical decisions. Algorithms may also be useful to improve surveillance for pertussis and anticipating classification of cases.

Introduction

Pertussis, a highly contagious respiratory infection caused by Bordetella pertussis, represents a global public health issue [1,2]. Despite the availability of an efficacious vaccine against B pertussis, cases continue to occur widely: in 2014 alone, 24 million cases and 160,000 deaths have been estimated in children younger than 5 years [3]. Since the highest toll in terms of complications and deaths associated with pertussis is exacted on infants, prevention and early diagnosis in this age group are of paramount importance.

Cases of pertussis reported through surveillance systems are widely underestimated, as diagnosis is mainly based on varying levels of clinician’s suspicion, reporting practices are different in each country, and access to laboratory tests for confirmation is variable [49].

Pertussis is clinically diagnosed through a combination of cough and other symptoms. Studies have shown that a cough duration of 14 or more days is the most sensitive of the clinical characteristics, although cough attributes (e.g. paroxysms, whooping, post-tussive vomiting) may increase specificity of clinical diagnostic criteria [1013]. In fact, the hallmark of almost all clinical case definitions for surveillance is a cough lasting a minimum of two weeks [1416].

Pertussis symptoms in infants and young children, frequently leading to hospitalization, overlap with those of viral acute respiratory tract infections, whose differential diagnosis often requires a laboratory confirmation test. Although current evidence suggests to start antimicrobial therapy before laboratory confirmation test results are received if pertussis is suspected in infants [17], the early identification of patients at high risk of pertussis is crucial to appropriately prescribe a lab confirmation test and support clinical decisions about antibiotic therapy which may be unnecessary in cases of a viral infections [18,19].

Since recommendations for diagnosis [9,11,13] rely on a cough lasting two or more weeks in addition to other symptoms, we hypothesized that a data driven algorithm may support the differential diagnosis between pertussis and viral respiratory diseases even when the duration of cough is shorter than 2 weeks. To this aim, we performed a retrospective study in which, based on the review of a case series of pertussis and other respiratory infections, we developed a clinical algorithm to predict a laboratory confirmed pertussis in children < 12 months, and estimated its accuracy.

Methods

Study design, setting and population

This is a retrospective cohort study conducted between March 2016 and December 2019 in the Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital, a pediatric research hospital located in Rome, Italy. Italy has a universal, free of charge healthcare system, which includes primary pediatric care for all children. Family pediatricians are available for pediatric visits during office hours. Urgent clinical problems and clinical requests outside office hours or holidays are usually referred to hospitals where ambulatory of emergency room services are offered continuously. Children were enrolled in the study based on surveillance criteria set for a hospital based enhanced surveillance programme and a wide clinical case definition. We included in the study all children below 12 months of age presenting for outpatient care or at the emergency room with one or more apnoea episodes, or paroxistic cough, whooping, or post-tussive vomiting, irrespective of the duration of cough. Infants with a clinical diagnosis of pertussis by a physician or respiratory symptoms and epidemiological linkage to a confirmed pertussis case were also included. Children of parents not speaking Italian were excluded. Enrolled children underwent a nasopharyngeal aspirate. Samples were collected within 24 hours of hospital admission. Culture for B. pertussis was performed on all aspirates, using Regan-Lowe and Bordet-Gengou selective culture media. For cultures, samples were seeded immediately after collection.

For molecular investigations, samples were processed immediately, or stored at -70°C until performing the test. Nucleic acids were extracted from a 200 μl sample of rhinopharyngeal aspirates and purified, using the EZ1 Virus Mini Kit v. 2.0 on the EZ1 Advanced XL platform (Qiagen, GmbH, Hilden, Germany). Nucleic acid extracts were eluted into 90 μl of buffer and processed immediately.

The presence of B. pertussis was investigated using a Bordetella Real Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) kit, targeting IS481 (Bordetella R-gene™ assay (Argene, Biomerieux, Marcy l’Etoile, France), which tested pertussis together with 16 other respiratory viruses: Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) A and B, influenza virus A and B, human coronavirus OC43, 229E, NL-63 and HUK1, adenovirus, hRV, parainfluenza virus 1-2-3-4, human metapneumovirus-hMPV and human bocavirus-hBoV). The choice of this target is supported by our local epidemiology, where circulation of B. parapertussis or B. holmesii is negligible [6]. After signing an informed consent form, patients’ families were interviewed to collect sociodemographic variables (age, sex, gestational age, parent education and employment, patient immunization status against pertussis, date of onset of symptoms, type of feeding at symptom onset, number of households, presence of family members with respiratory symptoms), information on clinical symptoms, recent medical visits, ongoing therapy, and previous pertussis immunization. As most patients visited in the emergency room routinely underwent a full blood cell count, we reviewed the clinical records to extrapolate white blood cell and lymphocyte counts. All children with confirmed pertussis were followed up to monitor the duration of the cough.

The study was approved by the Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital Ethical Committee (protocol n.1064_OPBG_2016).

Definitions

For the purpose of this study we considered as pertussis cases those with RT-PCR or culture positive for B pertussis and at least one respiratory symptom among cough, paroxistic cough, whooping, apnoea, or post-tussive vomiting, irrespective of their duration. We also considered as pertussis cases those having a simultaneous positive RT-PCR test for a respiratory virus.

We defined a viral respiratory disease as the presence of one respiratory symptom among cough, paroxistic cough, whooping, apnoea, or post-tussive vomiting, irrespective of their duration, and a PCR positive for RSV A and B, influenza virus A and B, human coronavirus OC43, 229E, NL-63 and HUK1, adenovirus, hRV, parainfluenza virus 1-2-3-4, human metapneumovirus-hMPV and human bocavirus-hBoV.

To compare our results with surveillance standards, we used three common pertussis case definitions: 1) a diagnosis of pertussis made by a physician; OR cough ≥ 2 weeks AND paroxistic cough, OR whooping OR vomiting [14]; 2) cough ≥ 2 weeks AND paroxistic cough, OR whooping OR vomiting [15]; 3) a diagnosis of pertussis made by a physician; OR apnoea; OR cough ≥ 2 weeks AND paroxistic cough, OR whooping OR vomiting [16].

Statistical analysis and data mining

We studied the association between clinical symptoms included in pertussis clinical case definitions, duration of cough, fever, the simultaneous presence of leukocytosis and lymphocytosis, and a positive PCR for pertussis. We also included in the analysis other symptoms such as fever, petechiae and subconjunctival hemorrage, and season at the onset of symptoms. We also included in the analysis a dichotomous variable for identifying children with white blood cell count greater than the maximum value for age [20] and a lymphocyte percent greater than 50%.

For this purpose, we applied a logistic regression model in which we included only variables that showed a difference between the two groups with a p<0.3 at the univariate analysis. We did not test interactions between variables. We then preprocessed the data set to extract variables to be included in data mining. To this aim, we applied a linear discriminant analysis (LDA) in which we included the same independent variables considered in the logistic regression to calculate the canonical discriminant function. We selected as independent variables to be included in data mining those having an absolute value of correlation >0.1 within the discriminant function.

The variables identified through LDA as significantly associated with confirmed pertussis were used to create two decision tree algorithms, one including clinical symptoms only, and a second including white blood cell counts. We used a popular classification algorithm, the Quinlan’s C.4.5 algorithm [21], to develop decision trees for classification of pertussis cases based on clinical presentation. To this aim, we used WEKA 3.9 (Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis), a comprehensive open source Machine Learning toolkit, written in Java, which includes the J48 algorithm, the Java implementation of Quinlan’s C4.5 algorithm [21]. A stratified 10-fold cross-validation was performed to estimate the accuracy of the classification and the confusion matrix, by which we calculated sensitivity and specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios. We calculated for comparison the same parameters for clinical case definitions used in surveillance standard. Finally, we calculated the cumulative percentage of cases that satisfied the clinical case definitions at enrolment and after 14 days.

Results

Study population

We enrolled a total of 543 patients with respiratory symptoms, of whom 160 (29.5%) had a positive RT-PCR for pertussis. In the remaining 383 patients, 116 (21.4% of the total) had a negative PCR result for both pertussis and viral infections. Among the 267 patients with a viral infection, the following viruses were identified: 195 (35.9% of the total) rhinovirus, 80 (14.7%) respiratory syncytial virus, 39 (7.2%) adenovirus, 30 (5.5%) parainfluenza, 28 (5.1%) metapneumovirus, 17 (3.1%) bocavirus, 14 (2.6%) coronavirus, 13 (2.4%) influenza, and 11 (2.0%) enterovirus.

Cultures were performed on all aspirates, and showed growth of B. pertussis in 54 patients, which corresponds to 33.8% of patients that showed a positive RT-PCR for pertussis. All positive cultures showed a positive RT-PCR for B. pertussis. No B. holmesii or B. parapertussis were detected in cultures.

The general characteristics of patients and their symptoms by category of infection are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. General characteristics of children included in the study.

RT-PCR positive for pertussis RT-PCR negative for pertussis P-value
Number of patients 160 383
Females, number (percent) 68 (42.5%) 187 (48.8%) 0,178
Graduated mother, number (percent) 53 (33.8%) 138 (36.3%) 0,573
Graduated father, number (percent) 43 (27.9%) 100 (26.4%) 0,717
Age at onset of symptoms, months, median (range) 2.1 (0–11.0) 1.8 (0–11.9) 0,290
Season at onset of symptoms < 0.001
Spring 47 (29.4%) 125 (32.6%)
Summer 58 (36.3%) 68 (17.8%)
Autumn 32 (20.0%) 95 (24.8%)
Winter 23 (14.4%) 95 (24.8%)
Cough duration, days, mean (SD) 12.3 (15.7) 9.8 (21.5) < 0.001
Paroxism, number (percent) 123 (76.9%) 186 (48.6%) < 0.001
Whooping, number (percent) 78 (48.8%) 57 (14.9%) < 0.001
Cyanosis, number (percent) 85 (53.1%) 98 (25.6%) < 0.001
Post-tussive vomiting, number (percent) 68 (42.5%) 131 (34.2%) 0.067
Apnoea, number (percent) 111 (69.4%) 179 (46.7%) < 0.001
Subconjunctival hemorrage, number (percent) 15 (9.4%) 13 (3.4%) 0.004
Petechiae, number (percent) 15 (9.4%) 15 (4.0%) 0.012
Fever, number (percent) 41 (25.6%) 167 (43.6%) < 0.001
Pertussis suspected by a physician, number (percent) 53 (33.1%) 14 (3,7%) < 0.001
White cell count > max for age and lymphocites > 50%, number (percent) 48 (30.8%) 25 (6.8%) <0.001
Previous pertussis immunization, number (percent) 23 (15.0%) 43 (11.8%) 0.306

We did not observe differences in socio-demographic variables between patients with positive vs negative pertussis RT-PCR. Children with pertussis had more likely received a physician’s visit in the previous 7 days. Interestingly, a significant proportion of children with a negative RT-PCR for pertussis presented with symptoms that are typically associated with pertussis, i.e. paroxistic cough, post-tussive vomiting, cyanosis, whooping or apnoea. Fever was less frequent in pertussis cases, although more than 25% of them had this symptom. Petechiae and subconjuctival hemorrage were observed in a small number of cases and more frequently in pertussis. Pertussis was significantly more frequent in summer months.

The results of the logistic regression model to identify the variables most associated with a confirmed pertussis are illustrated in Table 2. Being visited by another physician who suspected pertussis or blood tests showing leukocytosis and lymphocytosis were highly predictive of a positive RT-PCR test for pertussis. Other typical symptoms such as cyanosis, paroxysm and whooping, and symptom onset during summer months were also significantly associated with confirmed pertussis. Interestingly, duration of cough, post-tussive vomiting, and apnoea were not significantly associated with a confirmed pertussis.

Table 2. Variables associated with positive RT-PCR for pertussis through multivariable logistic regression analysis (aOR; 95% CI).

aOR 95%CI P
Female 0,55 0.34–0.91 0.019
Age at onset of symptoms, months 1.89 0.38–9.35 0.434
Season at onset of symptoms (ref autumn)
    Spring 0.63 0.31–1.25 0.186
    Summer 2.14 1.08–4.25 0.029
    Winter 0.45 0.21–0.95 0.037
Cough duration, days 1.02 0.97–1.08 0.388
Paroxism 2.20 1.22–3.98 0.009
Whooping 2.53 1.45–4.40 0.001
Cyanosis 2.17 1.28–3.69 0.004
Post-tussive vomiting 1.10 0.66–1.84 0.725
Apnoea 1.38 0.81–2.32 0.233
Subconjunctival hemorrhage 1.21 0.43–3.47 0.717
Petechiae 1.44 0.49–4.26 0.509
Fever 1.07 0.62–1.85 0.796
Pertussis suspected by a physician 5.44 2.46–12.03 <0.001
White cell count > max for age and lymphocytes>50% 4.48 2.19–9.17 <0.001
Pertussis immunization 2.64 0.93–7.45 0.067

aOR: adjusted Odds Ratio.

CI: Confidence Interval

The standardized coefficients of the discriminant function in LDA are shown in Table 3 together with the correlations between each discriminating variable and the standardized canonical discriminant function (structure matrix) which represent the loading of the variable in the discriminant function. In this Table, variables are listed by the absolute size of correlation within function.

Table 3. Identification of variables to feed the algorithm through linear discriminant analysis.

LDA Standardized coefficients Structure matrix Variable included in the algorithm
Pertussis suspected by a physician 0.479 0.661 Yes
Whooping 0.373 0.577 Yes
White cell count > max for age and lymphocytes>50% 0.328 0.512 Yes
Cyanosis 0.244 0.42 Yes
Paroxysm 0.209 0.395 Yes
Apnoea 0.142 0.333 Yes
Fever -0.05 -0.251 Yes
Post-tussive vomiting 0.041 0.125 Yes
Season at symptom onset (summer vs others) -0.102 -0.141 Yes
Cough duration (days) 0.176 0.091 No
Female -0.172 -0.08 No
Previous pertussis immunization 0.101 0.014 No
Age at onset of symptoms. Months 0.509 0,003 No
Subconjunctival hemorrhage 0.035 0.181 No
Petechiae 0.044 0.175 No

We found one statistically significant canonical discriminant function (p<0.001), with a Wilks’ lambda = 0.694 and a Cehi-square = 184.25. Through LDA, 78.6% of original patients and 77.1% of cross-validated groups were correctly classified.

The variables significantly associated with a positive PCR for pertussis were used for feeding the Weka J48 algorithm to produce decision trees through the selection of a final set of variables. The results are reported in Fig 1. The algorithm without white blood cell counts (Fig 1A) identified a suspect of pertussis posed by a physician as a single strong predictive criterion for predicting laboratory confirmation. When the patient presented with no previous suspicion of pertussis, the simultaneous presence of whooping and cyanosis with no fever predicted lab confirmation. This algorithm correctly classified 79.9% of cases and was 94% specific. When adding white blood cell count (Fig 1B), the decision tree for classifying lab confirmed pertussis was more complex with a slightly lower accuracy (79.0%) and a higher specificity (94.6%).

Fig 1. Clinical algorithm for predicting a case with RT-PCR+ for pertussis.

Fig 1

(A) Clinical algorithm developed with clinical symptoms only. (B) Clinical algorithm developed with the addition of white blood cell count.

We lastly compared the performance of the algorithms with that of the three case definitions considered in the study. Results are reported in Table 4.

Table 4. Comparison of accuracy of algorithms with some clinical surveillance case definitions for pertussis.

WHO (14) CDC (15) ECDC (16) Algorithm A Algorithm B
Accuracy 73.30% 70.53% 55.25% 79.93% 78.39%
Sensitivity 40.63% 30.63% 75.62% 46.30% 41.70%
Specificity 86.95% 87.21% 46.74% 94.00% 94.00%
PPV 56.52% 50% 37.20% 76.30% 74.70%
NPV 77.80% 75.06% 82.10% 80.70% 79.10%
LR+ 3.11 2.39 1.42 7.72 6.95
LR- 0.68 0.795 0.52 0.571 0.62

PPV: Positive Predictive Value.

NPV: Negative Predictive Value.

LR+: Positive Likelihood Ratio.

LR-: Negative Likelihood Ratio.

WHO: World Health Organization.

ECDC: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

Compared with our algorithms, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) case definition had a lower accuracy and a lower specificity but a higher sensitivity. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) case definitions had lower accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, our algorithms had a much higher positive predictive value and positive likelihood ratio than any case definition. Many children with laboratory confirmation for pertussis met a standard case definition only several days after being enrolled in this study. Specifically, 7, 15, and 16 pertussis cases respectively met the ECDC, WHO and CDC clinical case definition only several days after admission, since they mostly presented before 2 weeks of cough duration.

Discussion

We found that simple algorithms for differential diagnosis of pertussis in infants younger than 1 year of age, developed with data on clinical symptoms and laboratory findings commonly collected in clinical practice, are accurate and specific and have a much higher positive predictive value and positive likelihood ratio than any clinical case definition for surveillance. These algorithms allow for different combinations of symptoms and may be helpful in timely supporting decisions for diagnosis and therapy.

Since a cough duration of at least two weeks is considered a hallmark for identifying pertussis cases, our algorithms may help to earlier identify infants younger than 1 year at high risk of pertussis. Patients are likely to seek health care early in the course of respiratory diseases, and only 33.7% of our pertussis cases had a cough history > 14 days when they were enrolled. Pertussis diagnosis is often missed or delayed, because its clinical picture is similar to other respiratory infections in infancy [18,22]. In our study, typical symptoms for pertussis were also frequently seen in infants with other respiratory conditions. Since pertussis must be ruled out in infants presenting with acute persistent cough [23,24], an algorithmic approach that transforms the generic clinical description of respiratory infections into a standard approach to differential diagnosis may be a powerful clinical tool. Given the high positive predictive values and positive likelihood ratios, the use of these algorithms may be important especially in low resource settings or where laboratory facilities for performing a PCR test or culture are not available. As a matter of fact, our algorithm has been developed in a setting characterised by a high availability of resources, and therefore it can be used in a similar, high resource environment. Nevertheless, the same algorithm can be trained with data originating from different contexts, and can therefore be adapted even to settings with fewer resources.

Our algorithms included symptoms specific for pertussis as a previous suspect of pertussis, whooping, cyanosis, and absence of fever, and leukocytosis and lymphocytosis. When looking at variables associated with pertussis in the logistic regression analysis, a previous suspect of pertussis and leukocytosis plus lymphocytosis were 5 and 4 times more frequent in pertussis cases respectively, while typical symptoms like cyanosis, paroxysm, and whooping were only two times more frequent in cases. Moreover, being a male and being observed in summer were significantly more frequent in lab confirmed pertussis but did not help to predict the presence of the disease. In our setting, apnoea and post-tussive vomiting were not statistically associated with pertussis despite the fact that they are included in most common clinical case definitions. Interestingly, also previous immunization, previous antibiotic treatment, age and duration of cough were not associated with confirmed pertussis. Finally, the absence of fever was helpful in classifying pertussis cases. The majority of infants presenting with respiratory symptoms in the emergency room routinely undergo a blood cell count. It is well known that leukocytosis and lymphocytosis are specific markers of pertussis. The inclusion of this information in the algorithm, however, increased only slightly its specificity, suggesting that other clinical symptoms are sufficient to support clinical decisions and differential diagnosis.

Our observations may have implications for surveillance. The comparison of our algorithms with other case definitions showed increased accuracy and specificity. Current clinical case definitions for surveillance may miss cases early in the course of the disease and, as a matter of fact, a significant number of pertussis cases fulfilled the clinical case definition for surveillance only several days after the enrollment in this study. Specific algorithms, therefore, may help to improve early diagnosis even in low resource settings [25]. Moreover, the performance of case definitions is affected by the prevalence of the disease. The high positive predictive value and positive likelihood ratio of our algorithms suggest that they may be most useful in high prevalence settings and in specific circumstances as outbreaks, epidemic years or during summer season, when pertussis is most frequent.

In 2011, an algorithm for clinical diagnosis of pertussis was elaborated by the Global Pertussis Initiative (GPI) based on expert opinion to offer diagnostic and surveillance tools tailored to age [26]. A direct comparison between our algorithms and those proposed by GPI is not possible as they differ by symptoms and age groups. On the other hand, our data driven approach, which focused on children below 12 months only, was partially consistent with symptoms in the 4mo - 9yrs age group for the aggregation of whooping, cyanosis and absence of fever.

Ideally, a case definition should have both a high specificity and sensitivity. However, while a high sensitivity is required for a precise estimation of the burden and for studying transmission of disease, a high specificity allows to avoid false positives which do not require intervention. Moreover, a case definition with high specificity is desirable in vaccine evaluations or in studies on disease trends [27].

A possible change of pertussis case definition and duration of cough has long been debated [9,25,2830]. To our knowledge, an algorithmic approach to refine pertussis case definitions and achieve a better performance has never been used, and deserves attention in perspective.

Our study has several strengths. We worked within an enhanced surveillance framework with standard procedures to detect suspected pertussis cases. We also studied a population in a restricted age range (< 1 year) where pertussis is most severe and differential diagnosis with other viral diseases is most difficult. Pertussis may present with atypical symptoms, particularly in the newborn, when pertussis may be even fatal. Our algorithm even correctly classifies patients in this age group.

Moreover, we simultaneously searched for pertussis and a wide array of viral infections through PCR testing, avoiding misclassification of cases. Finally, we monitored pertussis cases over time to calculate how many of them had satisfied surveillance case definitions after laboratory confirmation.

We used a robust data mining approach to build a decision algorithm, based on routine clinical data. The computational capabilities for data mining have become more accessible as computer power has increased and dedicated software has become available. Compared with a simple list of symptoms, algorithms are more flexible and allow for visualizing complex interactions. The value of these tools may be extremely important when support for clinical diagnosis is associated with evidence based treatment recommendations [31].

On the other hand, this study also has limitations.

First, we did not systematically exclude a diagnosis of B. parapertussis or B. holmesii in the analysed samples. This choice was based on the epidemiology of Bordetella spp. in Italy, where circulation of B. parapertussis or B. holmesii is exceedingly rare. In support of this observation, we recently reviewed a case series of young children with pertussis in our area, using a RT-PCR against IS481 and IS1001, and confirming pertussis positive results with a specific RT-PCR assay for B. pertussis using the ptxP (promoter of pertussis toxin gene) as target. In this study, we did not find any evidence of infection by B. holmesii or B. parapertussis [6]. The absence of B. holmesii and B. parapertussis was also confirmed by culture in one third of the RT-PCR positive samples. Given all this premises, we believe that, even if a misclassification potential exists, it is negligible.

Moreover, such an algorithm has been developed in a high resource setting and may not universally apply to all populations because of patient selection, access to healthcare facilities, and availability of laboratory confirmation. However, the methods used in this work are transparent and completely reproducible so that a customized algorithm can be developed for any setting, based on the specific setting’s data.

As with any case definition using reported symptoms, our algorithm is subject to recall bias and we have not investigated the value of other unusual symptoms. Additional predictive clinical characteristics may be explored through mining large numbers of clinical records in settings where EHR is available.

In conclusion, we have developed a data driven algorithm based on simple clinical information which reliably supports the early differential diagnosis between pertussis and other respiratory conditions in infants younger than 1 year. Such a resource may be important in clinical practice for deciding in a timely manner the most appropriate case management when laboratory confirmation is not available. An algorithmic approach may also be useful for developing novel clinical case definitions for surveillance to partially address their low accuracy.

Data Availability

The policy of our hospital, in line with the Italian regulations, does not allow data sharing of clinical data when there is a risk of identification of patients even when they are deidentified. This concern is usually high for rare diseases and decreases with the frequency of diseases. Since, however, identification may depend on other factors as specific patterns of disease in a specific site, requests for data sharing are directly managed by our Data Protection Officer who is in charge of the analysis of requests and relevant decisions. The specific Italian regulations are included in art. 2-septies, comma 8, D Lgs 196/2003 and D Lgs 101/2018. Our Data Protection Officer is Dr Luigi Recupero: dpo@opbg.net.

Funding Statement

This work was partially supported by the ECDC (European Center for Disease Control) within the Pertinent project (Pertussis in Infants European Network), a European hospital-based network dedicated to measuring pertussis burden in infants and to studying pertussis vaccine effectiveness (framework contract number ECDC/2015/017). The study received additional funding from internal research funds of the Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Muloiwa R, Wolter N, Mupere E, Tan T, Chitkara AJ, Forsyth KD, et al. Pertussis in Africa: Findings and recommendations of the Global Pertussis Initiative (GPI). Vaccine. 2018;36: 2385–2393. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.03.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tan T, Dalby T, Forsyth K, Halperin SA, Heininger U, Hozbor D, et al. Pertussis Across the Globe: Recent Epidemiologic Trends From 2000 to 2013. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015;34: e222–232. 10.1097/INF.0000000000000795 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yeung KHT, Duclos P, Nelson EAS, Hutubessy RCW. An update of the global burden of pertussis in children younger than 5 years: a modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17: 974–980. 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30390-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lee AD, Cassiday PK, Pawloski LC, Tatti KM, Martin MD, Briere EC, et al. Clinical evaluation and validation of laboratory methods for the diagnosis of Bordetella pertussis infection: Culture, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and anti-pertussis toxin IgG serology (IgG-PT). PLoS ONE. 2018;13: e0195979 10.1371/journal.pone.0195979 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ristić M, Radosavljević B, Stojanović VD, Đilas M, Petrović V. Performance of the new clinical case definitions of pertussis in pertussis suspected infection and other diagnoses similar to pertussis. PLoS ONE. 2018;13: e0204103 10.1371/journal.pone.0204103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Stefanelli P, Buttinelli G, Vacca P, Tozzi AE, Midulla F, Carsetti R, et al. Severe pertussis infection in infants less than 6 months of age: Clinical manifestations and molecular characterization. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2017;13: 1073–1077. 10.1080/21645515.2016.1276139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ghanaie RM, Karimi A, Sadeghi H, Esteghamti A, Falah F, Armin S, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the World Health Organization pertussis clinical case definition. Int J Infect Dis. 2010;14: e1072–1075. 10.1016/j.ijid.2010.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Koh MT, Liu C-S, Chiu C-H, Boonsawat W, Watanaveeradej V, Abdullah N, et al. Under-recognized pertussis in adults from Asian countries: a cross-sectional seroprevalence study in Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand. Epidemiol Infect. 2016;144: 1192–1200. 10.1017/S0950268815002393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cherry JD, Tan T, Wirsing von König C-H, Forsyth KD, Thisyakorn U, Greenberg D, et al. Clinical definitions of pertussis: Summary of a Global Pertussis Initiative roundtable meeting, February 2011. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54: 1756–1764. 10.1093/cid/cis302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Domínguez A, Soldevila N, Caylà JA, García-Cenoz M, Ferrús G, Sala-Farré MR, et al. Assessment of clinical symptoms in household contacts of confirmed pertussis cases. J Infect. 2017;75: 426–432. 10.1016/j.jinf.2017.08.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ebell MH, Marchello C, Callahan M. Clinical Diagnosis of Bordetella Pertussis Infection: A Systematic Review. J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30: 308–319. 10.3122/jabfm.2017.03.160330 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Jõgi P, Oona M, Kaart T, Toompere K, Maskina T, Koort I, et al. Pertussis and parapertussis in children and adults with a persistent cough: an observational study. Infection. 2018;46: 83–91. 10.1007/s15010-017-1095-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Moore A, Ashdown HF, Shinkins B, Roberts NW, Grant CC, Lasserson DS, et al. Clinical Characteristics of Pertussis-Associated Cough in Adults and Children: A Diagnostic Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Chest. 2017;152: 353–367. 10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Recommended surveillance standard of pertussis. World Health Organization. [Cited 2020 Feb 20]. Available from: https://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/burden/vpd/surveillance_type/passive/pertussis_standards/en/
  • 15.Pertussis (Whooping Cough). 2020 Case Definition. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Cited 2020 Feb 20]. Available from: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/pertussis/case-definition/2020/
  • 16.European Commission. Pertussis In: On the communicable diseases and related special health issues to be covered by epidemiological surveillance as well as relevant case definitions. Official Journal of the European Union; 2018. [Cited 2020 Feb 20]. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A32018D0945&from=EN%29 [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kimberlin DW. Pertussis (Whooping Cough). Red Book®; 2018. AAP Point-of-Care-Solutions. [Cited 2020 Feb 20]. Available: https://redbook.solutions.aap.org/chapter.aspx?sectionid [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Plint AC, Johnson DW, Wiebe N, Bulloch B, Pusic M, Joubert G, et al. Practice variation among pediatric emergency departments in the treatment of bronchiolitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11: 353–360. 10.1197/j.aem.2003.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Frumkin K. Pertussis and persistent cough: practical, clinical and epidemiologic issues. J Emerg Med. 2013;44: 889–895. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.09.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kliegman RM, Nelson WE. Nelson textbook of pediatrics 19th ed Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier, Saunders; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Quinlan JR. C4.5: programs for machine learning. San Mateo, Calif: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wirsing von König C-H. Pertussis diagnostics: overview and impact of immunization. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2014;13: 1167–1174. 10.1586/14760584.2014.950237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Crowcroft NS, Booy R, Harrison T, Spicer L, Britto J, Mok Q, et al. Severe and unrecognised: pertussis in UK infants. Arch Dis Child. 2003;88: 802–806. 10.1136/adc.88.9.802 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Masseria C, Martin CK, Krishnarajah G, Becker LK, Buikema A, Tan TQ. Incidence and Burden of Pertussis Among Infants Less Than 1 Year of Age. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2017;36: e54–e61. 10.1097/INF.0000000000001440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Krishnan SG, Fun WH, Ramadras MD, Yunus R, Lye YF, Sararaks S. Pertussis clinical case definition: Time for change in developing countries? PLOS ONE. 2019;14: e0219534 10.1371/journal.pone.0219534 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Guiso N, Wirsing von König CH, Forsyth K, Tan T, Plotkin SA. The Global Pertussis Initiative: Report From a Round Table Meeting to Discuss the Epidemiology and Detection of Pertussis, Paris, France, 11–12 January 2010. Vaccine. 2011;9: 1115–21. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.12.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Beyer WEP. Heterogeneity of case definitions used in vaccine effectiveness studies—and its impact on meta-analysis. Vaccine. 2006;24: 6602–6604. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.05.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Shakib JH, Wyman L, Gesteland PH, Staes CJ, Bennion DW, Byington CL. Should the pertussis case definition for public health reporting be refined? J Public Health Manag Pract. 2009;15: 479–484. 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181af0ac3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Knapp JK, Wilson ML, Murray S, Boulton ML. Evaluating the role of cough duration in the pertussis case definition among Michigan cases, 2000–2010. Prev Med Rep. 2019;16 10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.100973 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wu D-X, Chen Q, Yao K-H, Li L, Shi W, Ke J-W, et al. Pertussis detection in children with cough of any duration. BMC Pediatrics. 2019;19: 236 10.1186/s12887-019-1615-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Nanji KC, Seger DL, Slight SP, Amato MG, Beeler PE, Her QL, et al. Medication-related clinical decision support alert overrides in inpatients. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25: 476–481. 10.1093/jamia/ocx115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Daniela Flavia Hozbor

7 May 2020

PONE-D-20-05693

A data driven clinical algorithm for differential diagnosis of pertussis and other respiratory infections in infants

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Francesco Gesualdo,

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 June 5. 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,

Daniela Flavia Hozbor

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. During our initial internal evaluation of your submission, we noticed a possible error in Abstract (the second sentence of conclusion: 'were lab confirmation is unavailable' should be 'where lab confirmation is unavailable'). Please note that PLOS ONE does not providing copyediting or proofs of accepted manuscripts. We therefore recommend that you carefully review your manuscript and correct any language errors at this time.

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

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

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

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

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

 

4.Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)    Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)    State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)     If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)     If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The manuscript addresses an interesting topic related to the diagnosis of pertussis. The clinical criteria and the clinical case definition include cough lasting for 14 days or more, but patients usually seek care earlier. What other criteria allow predicting the confirmation of pertussis?

The paper is adequately written although a minor language revision in some points is necessary.

A point that should be discussed more clearly is the specificity of the PCR used. Amplification of an IS481 sequence can be positive in patients infected with Bordetella pertussis but also with B. holmesii. The clinical presentation can be different between both infections and therefore the predictive capacity of each symptom, too. This point deserves a deep discussion.

In the same sense, the possible influence of clinical symptoms caused by B. parapertussis that, given the diagnostic tool used here, have been considered "negative for pertussis" should be analyzed.

When discussing the PCR results in Table 1, reference should be made to B. pertussis / B. holmesii and not to "pertussis"

Reviewer #2: Authors propose an algorithm aimed at predicting a laboratory confirmed pertussis case. Since many case definitions include cough duration of at least 14 days which are usually not archived at the time of physician visit, in most cases patients don´t fulfill case definitions and are misdiagnosed. Moreover this algorithm may be useful in settings where there is no diagnostic PCR available.

Since statistics and informatic model tools is not in my field of expertise, my revision is focused on clinical and laboratory observations, assuming the statistical analysis and data mining is ok.

I understand from the reading that nasopharyngeal samples were stored at -70°C in some cases. But it is affirmed that culture was performed. No results on culture results are shown. Do you have all negative results? I think the storage of samples at a low temperature is the cause of this negative finding.

was there any exclusion criteria employed for patients selection in this study?

During the period of time studied, was there an outbreak year ? could the results showing that the disease is more common in summer be associated with an outbreak ? this observation is interesting since there has been inconclusive information for many years related to seasonality until recent reports showing pertussis rise in spring and summer seasons (Estimating seasonal variation in Australian pertussis notifications from 1991 to 2016: evidence of spring to summer peaks R. N. F. Leong, J. G. Wood, R. M. Turner, and A. T. Newall)

Can the authors confirm there were no co infections of B. pertussis and respiratory virus? the numbers show that, but it is interesting that fever is included in the manuscript as a criteria for pertussis diagnostics since it is a unusual pertussis symptom. Moreover following the proposed algorithm a child with whooping, cyanosis and fever should be classified as pertussis positive Fig 1B. Fever in this algorithm is unnecessary as discriminating variable? please clarify

The socio-demographic variables analysed are not explicited. Did you thought to include them in the algorithm ?

There are some acronyms not specified what they stand for, eg. aOR, ECDC, please clarify

I suggest to add the comparison with surveillance standards defined by experts in GPI (Global pertussis initiative) which includes a different case definition for young children. In reference 9 of your manuscript authors propose an algorithm for diagnosis of pertussis in children from 0-3months and 4 months to 4 years for settings that lack PCR confirmatory assays. Could you discuss similarities and differences with GPI algorithm.

I also suggest to explicit all along the manuscript that results became from analyzing results from children under 1year of age in a high income country meaning that the algorithm could be used in that context.

Lines numbers in the manuscript are not displayed.

**********

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

[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 23;15(7):e0236041. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236041.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Jun 2020

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your comments. We revised the paper according to your advice, we hope we have fulfilled all of your requests.

Here follows a point-by-point response to your comments.

Reviewer #1

The manuscript addresses an interesting topic related to the diagnosis of pertussis. The clinical criteria and the clinical case definition include cough lasting for 14 days or more, but patients usually seek care earlier. What other criteria allow predicting the confirmation of pertussis? The paper is adequately written although a minor language revision in some points is necessary.

A point that should be discussed more clearly is the specificity of the PCR used. Amplification of an IS481 sequence can be positive in patients infected with Bordetella pertussis but also with B. holmesii. The clinical presentation can be different between both infections and therefore the predictive capacity of each symptom, too. This point deserves a deep discussion. In the same sense, the possible influence of clinical symptoms caused by B. parapertussis that, given the diagnostic tool used here, have been considered "negative for pertussis" should be analyzed. When discussing the PCR results in Table 1, reference should be made to B. pertussis / B. holmesii and not to "pertussis"

We thank the reviewer for the comment, which gives us the opportunity to expand the discussion on this topic. We constantly monitor circulating Bordetella species and we repeatedly reviewed the existing diagnostic procedures during our surveillance program. According to our data, B. holmesii and B. parapertussis seem exceedingly rare in Italy:

1) We recently reviewed a case series of young children with pertussis in our area and we did not find any evidence of infection by B. holmesii or B. parapertussis (Stefanelli P, Buttinelli G, Vacca P, Tozzi AE, Midulla F, Carsetti R, Fedele G, Villani A, Concato C; Pertussis Study Group. Severe pertussis infection in infants less than 6 months of age: Clinical manifestations and molecular characterization. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2017;13:1073-1077). In this study, we performed culture + PCR with IS481 and IS1001. To prevent misdiagnosis of B. holmesii as B. pertussis, all samples positive for B. pertussis were confirmed with a specific Real Time PCR assay for B. pertussis using the ptxP (promoter of pertussis toxin gene) as target.

2) Moreover, all samples collected in our study were cultured (see below) and among the 543 patients included in the study, none had evidence of different isolates than B pertussis. More precisely, 54 cultures showed growth of B. pertussis (out of 154 RT-PCR positive patients) and no B. parapertussis or B. holmesii were detected in cultures.

In light of these comments, we better addressed the diagnostic details through adding: 1) a clarification on cultures and a justification of the choice of the IS481 target in the methods section; 2) details on the results of cultures in the results section; 3) a comment in the discussion (limitation paragraphs) addressing the potential of misclassification of diagnosis. Moreover, we changed the headings in Table 1 to “negative for B. pertussis” and “positive for B. pertussis”.

Reviewer #2

Authors propose an algorithm aimed at predicting a laboratory confirmed pertussis case. Since many case definitions include cough duration of at least 14 days which are usually not archived at the time of physician visit, in most cases patients don´t fulfill case definitions and are misdiagnosed. Moreover this algorithm may be useful in settings where there is no diagnostic PCR available. Since statistics and informatic model tools is not in my field of expertise, my revision is focused on clinical and laboratory observations, assuming the statistical analysis and data mining is ok.

I understand from the reading that nasopharyngeal samples were stored at -70°C in some cases. But it is affirmed that culture was performed. No results on culture results are shown. Do you have all negative results? I think the storage of samples at a low temperature is the cause of this negative finding.

We better clarified how the sampling and the diagnostic procedures were performed. Indeed, all nasopharingeal aspirates were seeded before they were stored at -70° and cultured. The results of cultures have been added in the results section.

was there any exclusion criteria employed for patients selection in this study?

The only exclusion criteria applied was parents not speaking Italian. No other exclusion criteria were applied. We added this information in the text.

During the period of time studied, was there an outbreak year ? could the results showing that the disease is more common in summer be associated with an outbreak ? this observation is interesting since there has been inconclusive information for many years related to seasonality until recent reports showing pertussis rise in spring and summer seasons (Estimating seasonal variation in Australian pertussis notifications from 1991 to 2016: evidence of spring to summer peaks R. N. F. Leong, J. G. Wood, R. M. Turner, and A. T. Newall)

We agree that this observation is interesting and, although we observe years with higher incidence, pertussis in young children seems still endemic in our area, possibly due to the very low coverage of pertussis immunization in pregnant women. We did observe a higher incidence of B. pertussis in 2016, however the number of cases per year was never negligible and a seasonal trend seems detectable in all years. Even if symptom onset in summer was significantly associated with confirmed pertussis at the logistic regression analysis and at the linear discriminant analysis, this variable did not statistically help to predict pertussis in the algorithms and therefore was not included. We feel that a comment would not really fit the Discussion in its current form, as we mainly discussed the variables that are actually included in the final algorithm. Nevertheless, we are available to add a comment in case the reviewer thinks this is needed.

Can the authors confirm there were no co infections of B. pertussis and respiratory virus? the numbers show that, but it is interesting that fever is included in the manuscript as a criteria for pertussis diagnostics since it is a unusual pertussis symptom. Moreover following the proposed algorithm a child with whooping, cyanosis and fever should be classified as pertussis positive Fig 1B. Fever in this algorithm is unnecessary as discriminating variable? please clarify

We thank the reviewer for noting a mistake in the figure. A child with whooping, cyanosis, and no fever leads to pertussis in the algorithm. We edited the graphs accordingly.

We did find coinfections and we included them as pertussis as the finding of a B. pertussis positivity always justifies an antibiotic therapy and isolation measures. (This is stated in the Methods section).

In our experience, children with coinfections have a clinical picture which is similar to that of pertussis. More specifically, the proportion of children with fever does not significantly differ between a pertussis only and a co-infection diagnosis (Frassanito A, Nenna R, Nicolai A, Pierangeli A, Tozzi AE, Stefanelli P, Carsetti R, Concato C, Schiavoni I, Midulla F; Pertussis study group. Infants hospitalized for Bordetella pertussis infection commonly have respiratory viral coinfections. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17:492).

The socio-demographic variables analysed are not explicited. Did you thought to include them in the algorithm ?

As reported in Table 1, the socio-demographic variables collected in this study were age, sex and parent education. We selected the variables for the logistic regression model and for the linear discriminant analysis based on the statistical differences at the univariate analysis, including only those with a p at the statistical test <= 0.30. Only sex and age remained in the models for the other analyses. According to our analyses then, none of these two variables contributed to a better classification of pertussis. We better clarified in the methods how the selection of variables for the algorithms was made and we reviewed Table 3 that now reports the same variables included in the logistic regression analysis..

There are some acronyms not specified what they stand for, eg. aOR, ECDC, please clarify

Accomplished

I suggest to add the comparison with surveillance standards defined by experts in GPI (Global pertussis initiative) which includes a different case definition for young children. In reference 9 of your manuscript authors propose an algorithm for diagnosis of pertussis in children from 0-3months and 4 months to 4 years for settings that lack PCR confirmatory assays. Could you discuss similarities and differences with GPI algorithm.

We added a paragraph on the comparison of this algorithm with ours in the discussion

Overall, a comparison between the GPI’s algorithm and ours is not straightforward, as they differ by symptoms taken into account and age group. GPI also took into account coryza, seizures, pneumonia, coinfection, sleep disturbance and sweating, that we did not record on our patients. Moreover, we developed an algorithm in which cough duration did not help to classify pertussis. GPI algorithm is based on experts’ opinion, while our algorithm is data driven.

I also suggest to explicit all along the manuscript that results became from analyzing results from children under 1year of age in a high income country meaning that the algorithm could be used in that context.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion, we stated more explicitly along the manuscript that the algorithm targeted infants younger than on year of age, and that it has been developed in a high resource setting. We also underlined that the same algorithm can be trained with different data, coming from different context, and can therefore be adapted to other settings.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to reviewer.docx

Decision Letter 1

Daniela Flavia Hozbor

29 Jun 2020

A data driven clinical algorithm for differential diagnosis of pertussis and other respiratory infections in infants

PONE-D-20-05693R1

Dear Dr. Francesco Gesualdo,

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,

Daniela Flavia Hozbor

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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

Acceptance letter

Daniela Flavia Hozbor

8 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-05693R1

A data driven clinical algorithm for differential diagnosis of pertussis and other respiratory infections in infants

Dear Dr. Gesualdo:

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. Daniela Flavia Hozbor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewer.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The policy of our hospital, in line with the Italian regulations, does not allow data sharing of clinical data when there is a risk of identification of patients even when they are deidentified. This concern is usually high for rare diseases and decreases with the frequency of diseases. Since, however, identification may depend on other factors as specific patterns of disease in a specific site, requests for data sharing are directly managed by our Data Protection Officer who is in charge of the analysis of requests and relevant decisions. The specific Italian regulations are included in art. 2-septies, comma 8, D Lgs 196/2003 and D Lgs 101/2018. Our Data Protection Officer is Dr Luigi Recupero: dpo@opbg.net.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES