Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2020 Dec 7;18(12):e3000963. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000963

Diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection is associated with reduced HIV viral load and lower risk for opportunistic infections in people living with HIV

Katharina Kusejko 1,2,*, Huldrych F Günthard 1,2, Gregory S Olson 3, Kyra Zens 4, Katharine Darling 5, Nina Khanna 6, Hansjakob Furrer 7, Pauline Vetter 8, Enos Bernasconi 9, Pietro Vernazza 10, Matthias Hoffmann 11, Roger D Kouyos 1,2,#, Johannes Nemeth 1,*,#; the Swiss HIV Cohort Study
Editor: Sarah L Rowland-Jones12
PMCID: PMC7721132  PMID: 33284802

Abstract

Approximately 28% of the human population have been exposed to Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB), with the overwhelming majority of infected individuals not developing disease (latent TB infection (LTBI)). While it is known that uncontrolled HIV infection is a major risk factor for the development of TB, the effect of underlying LTBI on HIV disease progression is less well characterized, in part because longitudinal data are lacking. We sorted all participants of the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) with at least 1 documented MTB test into one of the 3 groups: MTB uninfected, LTBI, or active TB. To detect differences in the HIV set point viral load (SPVL), linear regression was used; the frequency of the most common opportunistic infections (OIs) in the SHCS between MTB uninfected patients, patients with LTBI, and patients with active TB were compared using logistic regression and time-to-event analyses. In adjusted models, we corrected for baseline demographic characteristics, i.e., HIV transmission risk group and gender, geographic region, year of HIV diagnosis, and CD4 nadir. A total of 13,943 SHCS patients had at least 1 MTB test documented, of whom 840 (6.0%) had LTBI and 770 (5.5%) developed active TB. Compared to MTB uninfected patients, LTBI was associated with a 0.24 decreased log HIV SPVL in the adjusted model (p < 0.0001). Patients with LTBI had lower odds of having candida stomatitis (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.68, p = 0.0035) and oral hairy leukoplakia (adjusted OR = 0.67, p = 0.033) when compared to MTB uninfected patients. The association of LTBI with a reduced HIV set point virus load and fewer unrelated infections in HIV/TB coinfected patients suggests a more complex interaction between LTBI and HIV than previously assumed.


Surprisingly little is known about how latent tuberculosis infection alters human physiology and immune function. Extensive statistical analyses of the large Swiss HIV Cohort Study suggests that latent tuberculosis infection can be protective in individuals with HIV.

Background

Models suggest that Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) might have emerged as a human pathogen around 400,000 years ago [1]. Over this long period, MTB and humans have evolved to reach a balance; MTB infects many people—approximately 28% of the human population have been exposed to MTB [2]—but over 90% of infected individuals do not develop disease [3]. The evidence of an immune response to MTB in the absence of clinical disease is termed Latent Tuberculosis Infection (LTBI). LTBI represents a spectrum of outcomes, but the differentiation of individuals who harbor viable bacteria from those who have cleared the infection is currently impossible [4,5]. The vast majority of research on LTBI has focused on the aspects of the host–pathogen interface that prevent progression to active pulmonary TB. This framework neglects a basic understanding about how LTBI itself alters human biology.

Recent research in animal models suggests that nonlethal pathogens and commensals provide many benefits to the host [6]. Exposure of pathogen-free laboratory mice to naturally occurring, nonlethal mouse pathogens, for example, has profound effects on the composition of the immune system and confers protection against unrelated pathogens, such as Listeria monocytogenes [7]. Chronic Herpes virus infection primes the murine immune system to provide antigen-independent beneficial effects [8]. Contained MTB infection itself protects against MTB rechallenge and heterologous challenges (L. monocytogenes and Melanoma metastases) through low-grade cytokinaemia and an augmented innate immune response [9].

In humans, the nonspecific impacts of low-grade infections have not been well studied. The best analogy for self-limiting infections in the human system are live-attenuated vaccines. There is a significant body of evidence suggesting that live-attenuated vaccines may provide additional immune benefits beyond protection against the specific vaccine target [10,11]. Specifically, administration of the TB vaccine bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) or measles vaccines in children reduces overall mortality by more than what would be expected by prevention of these 2 diseases alone [12]. Several ongoing clinical trials will shed light on whether the nonspecific benefits of BCG vaccination can be harnessed to prevent progression of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic [1317].

Based on these findings, we hypothesize that the continuous interaction between MTB and the host during LTBI benefits the host by augmenting the immune response to other, unrelated pathogens. In particular, we hypothesize that patients with LTBI have fewer opportunistic infections (OIs) and can control HIV better compared to MTB uninfected patients. The extension of this hypothesis predicts that active TB, which is associated with a pronounced inflammatory response and loss of the equilibrium between the host and the pathogen, reflects the breakdown of the protective state seen in LTBI and therefore is associated with more OIs and faster progression of HIV infection. Indeed, the detrimental interaction between HIV and active TB has been extensively described [18].

In this study, we investigated the association of MTB status with HIV disease progression (including both the HIV set point viral load (SPVL) and the occurrence of OIs). By controlling for other major known risk factors of HIV disease progression, we specifically tested for effects associated with having LTBI or active TB disease in people living with HIV. Assessing the association of either LTBI or active TB on HIV SPVL adjusted for CD4 T cell count requires prospective sampling of both viral load and CD4 T cells over years in thousands of patients. The Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) is in a unique position to study the interaction between LTBI and its host as well as to dissect latent and active TB. Most importantly, information on clinical phenotypes in the SHCS is richly detailed [19]. For example, the high granularity of the longitudinal, clinical data allowed us to investigate patients who developed active TB prior to other OIs in time-to-event analyses.

Results

Selection of the study population

We included information from 13,326 tuberculin skin reactivity tests of 10,649 patients and 3,978 Interferon-gamma Release Assay (IGRA) results of 3,623 patients. In total, we analyzed test results from 17,243 different time points of 13,675 patients, with 11,057 (80.1%) patients having only 1 test available (see Fig 1). Of all tests, 1,258 (7.3%) were positive. We removed 187 patients with positive and negative results at different time points, leaving 840 patients with LTBI. Active TB was diagnosed in 770 patients, with 367 cases of extrapulmonary and 546 cases of pulmonary TB (see S1 Text). In total, 13,943 patients were included in our analysis, 12,333 (88.4%) MTB uninfected patients, 840 (6.0%) patients with LTBI, and 770 (5.5%) patients with active TB (see Fig 2).

Fig 1. Timing of the studied events: (A) Mean log viral load measurements of TB-uninfected and LTBI patients and (B) fraction of OIs of TB-uninfected LTBI patients (see S3 Data for the underlying numerical values).

Fig 1

ART, antiretroviral therapy; LTBI, latent tuberculosis infection; OI, opportunistic infection; TB, tuberculosis.

Fig 2. Description of the study population and the sensitivity analyses; B1 to B7 refer to the respective sections in S2 Text.

Fig 2

ART, antiretroviral therapy; LTBI, latent tuberculosis infection; SHCS, Swiss HIV Cohort Study; TB, tuberculosis.

Characteristics of the study population (Table 1)

Table 1. Basic characteristics of the study populations: MTB uninfected patients, patients with LTBI, and patients with active TB.

Variable MTB uninfected LTBI Active TB
Total (n) 12,333 840 770
Sex male (n, %) 8,861 (71.8%) 549 (65.4%) 501 (65.1%)
Birth year (median, IQR) 1964 [1958,1972] 1969 [1961,1977] 1962.5 [1957,1970]
Ethnicity white (n, %) 9,364 (75.9%) 459 (54.6%) 299 (38.8%)
Region Western Europe (n, %) 8,718 (70.7%) 374 (44.5%) 366 (47.5%)
HIV subtype B (n, %) 6,079 (49.3%) 314 (37.4%) 193 (25.1%)
Diagnosis year (median, IQR) 1998 [1990,2007] 2003 [1997,2009] 1994 [1987,2002]
Registration year (median, IQR) 2000 [1994,2009] 2004 [1998,2011] 1997 [1990,2005]
Transmission group MSM (n, %) 4,833 (39.2%) 232 (27.6%) 143 (18.6%)
HET (n, %) 3,944 (32%) 406 (48.3%) 368 (47.8%)
IDU (n, %) 3,020 (24.5%) 148 (17.6%) 224 (29.1%)
other (n, %) 536 (4.3%) 54 (6.4%) 35 (4.5%)
SHCS follow-up active (n, %) 6,897 (55.9%) 514 (61.2%) 317 (41.2%)
lost to follow-up (n, %) 2,775 (22.5%) 248 (29.5%) 175 (22.7%)
dead (n, %) 2,661 (21.6%) 78 (9.3%) 278 (36.1%)
Years of follow-up total 138,270.4 8,865.3 6,919.5
median, IQR 9.6 [3.9, 17.7] 9.5 [3.7, 16.4] 6.5 [1.9, 15.2]
First CD4 count (median, IQR) 340 [170,540] 455.5 [292.8,662] 195.5 [80,400]
CD4 nadir (median, IQR) 177 [60,297] 265 [171.8,385.5] 70 [20,172.8]
Primary infection (n, %) 815 (6.6%) 68 (8.1%) 15 (1.9%)
OI total, at least 1 OI (n, %) 6,467 (52.4%) 237 (28.2%) 770 (100%)
all OIs (n) 15,180 396 2102
per 1,000 person years 109.8 44.7 303.8

HET, heterosexuals; IDU, intravenous drug users; IQR, interquartile range; LTBI, latent tuberculosis infection; MSM, men who have sex with men; MTB, Mycobacterium tuberculosis; OI, opportunistic infection; SHCS, Swiss HIV Cohort Study; TB, tuberculosis.

The fraction of male patients was 71.8% for MTB uninfected patients, 65.4% for patients with LTBI, and 65.1% for patients with active TB. The median birth year was 1964 for MTB uninfected patients, 1969 for patients with LTBI, and 1962.5 for patients with active TB. Similarly, the median HIV diagnosis year was 1998 for MTB uninfected patients, 5 years later for patients with LTBI, and 4 years earlier for patients with active TB. Moreover, 70.7% of MTB uninfected patients were from the region of Western Europe, while this was the case in 44.5% of patients with LTBI and 47.5% of patients with active TB. The most frequent HIV risk group for MTB infected patients was heterosexual contacts (LTBI: 48.3%, active TB: 47.8%), and men who have sex with men (MSM) (39.2%) for MTB uninfected patients. The median years of follow-up was 9.6 for MTB uninfected patients, 9.5 years for patients with LTBI, and 6.5 for patients who developed active TB. While 36.1% of patients with active TB died, this was the case in 21.6% for MTB uninfected patients and 9.3% of patients with LTBI. However, many patients were lost to follow-up in all 3 groups (no TB infection: 22.5%, LTBI: 29.5%, active TB: 22.7%), so the actual fraction of patients who died might strongly differ from the confirmed death cases. The first CD4 cell count and the CD4 nadir was lowest for patients with active TB (median first CD4 count: 195.5, median CD4 nadir: 70) and highest for patients with LTBI (median first CD4 count: 455.5, median CD4 nadir: 265). Moreover, 52.1% of MTB uninfected patients and 28.2% of patients with LTBI had at least 1 OI, with a total of 109.8 OI per 1,000 person years in MTB uninfected patients and 44.7 OI per 1,000 person years in patients with LTBI (see Table 1 for more information on basic characteristics of the study population). Both the diagnosis date of OIs as well as the time points of the antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve RNA measurements used to calculate HIV SPVL were close to the LTBI test date (Fig 1).

Association of LTBI and active TB with HIV SPVL

We could determine HIV SPVL values for 4,516 (32.4%) patients (12,512 patients had at least 1 HIV RNA measurement available, 8,616 at least 1 measurement before initiation of ART, and 4,516 of these during chronic infection). Of these, 4,069 (90.1%) were MTB uninfected, 375 (8.3%) LTBI, and 72 (1.6%) developed active TB. The overall log10 mean HIV SPVL was 4.40 (standard deviation (SD) = 0.75). The log mean HIV SPVL was 4.43 (SD = 0.74) for MTB uninfected patients, 4.11 (SD = 0.71) for patients with LTBI, and 4.63 (SD = 0.80) for patients with active TB (see Fig 3A). In the unadjusted linear regression model, LTBI was associated with a 0.32 (confidence interval (CI) = [0.24, 0.40], p < 0.0001) decrease in HIV SPVL (log10 RNA) compared to MTB uninfected patients and with a decrease of 0.21 (CI = [0.13, 0.28], p < 0.0001) in the adjusted model (see Fig 3B). This reduction in HIV SPVL remained significant in all sensitivity analyses when restricting the study populations, pooling patients with LTBI and active TB as well as for alternative definitions of HIV SPVL (see Fig 2 and S2 Text). For patients with active TB, we observed an increased HIV SPVL as compared to MTB uninfected patients.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

(A) Distribution of HIV SPVL values (log RNA) for patients with LTBI, active TB, and MTB uninfected patients. The lines indicated the density function of the log RNA values in the 3 studied groups. (B) Association of various factors with the log set point virus load; the lines indicate the 95% CIs obtained in the regression model; the dots indicate the regression coefficients. (see S3 Data for the underlying numerical values) CI, confidence interval; HET, heterosexual; IDU, intravenous drug users; LTBI, latent tuberculosis infection; MSM, men who have sex with men; MTB, Mycobacterium tuberculosis; SPVL, set point viral load; TB, tuberculosis.

Association of MTB status with opportunistic infections

The 10 most frequent OIs (excluding pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB) in the study population were candida stomatitis (3,860 cases), oral hairy leukoplakia (1,772 cases), herpes zoster multidermatomal or relapse (1,553 cases), esophageal candidiasis (1,289 cases), Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (1,261 cases), HIV-related thrombocytopenia (894 cases), Kaposi sarcoma (632 cases), HIV-related encephalopathy (452 cases), cerebral toxoplasmosis (423 cases), and bacterial pneumonia (396 cases) (see S1 Text). In the unadjusted analysis, all tested OIs were significantly less frequent in patients with LTBI as compared to MTB uninfected patients (see Fig 4). In the adjusted model, LTBI was associated with significantly fewer cases of candida stomatitis (OR = 0.68, CI = [0.52, 0.87], p = 0.004) and oral hairy leukoplakia (OR = 0.67, CI = [0.46, 0.96], p = 0.03). The effects were robust in all sensitivity analyses (see S2 Text for the summary). In stark contrast to the comparison of MTB uninfected patients and patients with LTBI, most tested OIs were more frequent in the unadjusted analysis in patients with active TB compared to MTB uninfected patients. After adjustment, the effect weakened for 8 out of 10 OIs in the case of LTBI and for 4 out of 8 in the case of active TB.

Fig 4. Association of the 10 most frequent OIs with TB infection: Patients with active TB and LTBI compared to MTB uninfected patients, respectively (active TB versus no TB, latent versus no TB).

Fig 4

The lines indicate the 95% CIs obtained through the logistic regression model; the dots indicate the ORs. (see S3 Data for the underlying numerical values) CI, confidence interval; LTBI, latent tuberculosis infection; MTB, Mycobacterium tuberculosis; OI, opportunistic infection; OR, odds ratio; TB, tuberculosis.

Time-to-event analysis for candida stomatitis, oral hairy leukoplakia, and herpes zoster

In the time-to-event analysis, LTBI was associated with a lower hazard of candida stomatitis (Fig 5A) as compared to MTB uninfected patients: Without correction for CD4 cell counts, the hazard ratio was 0.33 [0.25, 0.43], after correction 0.48 [0.37, 0.63] (time-updated inclusion of CD4 cell counts as continuous variable) and 0.49 [0.37, 0.64] (inclusion of CD4 cell counts as categorical variable). Independently of MTB status, lower CD4 cell counts were associated with higher hazard ratios of developing candida stomatitis. After additional correction for HIV transmission group and gender, region, and HIV diagnosis year, the hazard ratios were 0.49 [0.37, 0.64], 0.71 [0.54, 0.94], and 0.70 [0.53, 0.92], respectively. Likewise, LTBI was associated with a lower hazard of oral hairy leukoplakia (Fig 5B) when compared to MTB uninfected patients: The hazard ratios in the 3 tested models (no correction for CD4 cell count, time-updated inclusion of CD4 cell counts as continuous variable, inclusion of CD4 cell counts as categorical variable) were 0.26 [0.17, 0.40], 0.36 [0.23, 0.56], and 0.36 [0.24, 0.56], respectively, and 0.44 [0.28, 0.68], 0.61 [0.39, 0.94], and 0.59 [0.38, 0.92] after additional correction for HIV transmission group and gender, region, and HIV diagnosis year. In the unadjusted analysis of the occurrence of herpes zoster (Fig 5C), we obtained the hazard ratios 0.43 [0.30, 0.62] (no correction for CD4 cell count), 0.55 [0.38, 0.80] (CD4 cell count as continuous variable), and 0.55 [0.39, 0.80] (CD4 cell count as categorical variable). In the adjusted model, we obtained the hazard ratios 0.55 [0.38, 0.80] (no correction for CD4 cell count), 0.70 [0.48, 1.01] (inclusion of CD4 cell counts as continuous variable), and 0.69 [0.48, 1.00] (inclusion of CD4 cell counts as categorical variable). For all 3 tested diseases, the effects only reached borderline significance in some sensitivity analyses when restricting the study population (see S2 Text). Moreover, for all 3 tested OIs, no clear pattern of an association between active TB and OIs was found (see Fig 5). A potential confounder in this cohort could be the fact that active TB is an OI, which potentially might develop prior to the OI of interest, i.e., prior to diagnosed candida stomatitis, oral hairy leukoplakia, or herpes zoster. In a sensitivity analysis, we pooled patients with active TB and LTBI and censored for active TB, i.e., we took into account whether active TB or the OI of interest was first diagnosed. In this sensitivity analysis, hazards were reduced for patients with LTBI for all 3 tested diseases when compared to TB uninfected patients.

Fig 5. Time-to-event analysis of the occurrence of candida stomatitis (A), oral hairy leukoplakia (B), and herpes zoster (C): Patients with active TB or LTBI compared to MTB uninfected patients, respectively.

Fig 5

The lines indicate the 95% CIs obtained through the cox proportional hazards model; the dots indicate the HRs. (see S3 Data for the underlying numerical values) CI, confidence interval; HR, hazards ratio; LTBI, latent tuberculosis infection; MTB, Mycobacterium tuberculosis; MV, multivariable; TB, tuberculosis; UV, univariable.

Discussion

In this study, we assessed the association of LTBI infection or active TB with HIV SPVL and the development of OIs at the population level in a prospective, nationwide clinical cohort. Compared to MTB uninfected patients, LTBI was associated with a significant decrease in HIV SPVL, suggesting new and exciting interactions between LTBI and HIV. This effect remained significant after adjusting for HIV transmission group and gender, geographic region of origin, HIV diagnosis year, and CD4 cell counts, and in all sensitivity analyses. In addition, we compared the occurrence of the 10 most frequent OIs (excluding pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB) between MTB uninfected patients, patients with LTBI, and patients with active TB. Compared to 52.4% of MTB uninfected patients, only 28.2% of patients with LTBI developed an OI.

Due to the heterogeneous group of OIs, we analyzed the 10 most frequent OIs separately. In the univariate approach, LTBI was associated with a reduced risk for all tested diseases when compared to MTB uninfected patients. In the adjusted model, the association of LTBI diagnosis with the less frequent occurrence of candida stomatitis, oral hairy leukoplakia, and herpes zoster (the 3 most prevalent OIs) remained significant. The lack of an association between LTBI and the occurrence of other tested OIs could be due to a small number of events, as reflected by similar effects sizes but larger CIs. Ideally, further analyses with a larger sample size within populations of higher MTB prevalence will further dissect the association between LTBI, HIV viral load, and OIs in people living with HIV.

Although the interplay of the altered immune landscape caused by HIV and MTB infection has been studied before, the focus has been almost exclusively on active TB disease. Ongoing HIV replication was shown to be an independent risk factor for active TB [20]. It is well known that decreasing viral load with antiretroviral therapy (ART) lowers the risk for active TB by an order of magnitude prior to the recovery of CD4 T cells [21].

The major strength of our study—the rich and detailed data provided by the SHCS including notifications of OIs and routine MTB testing—allowed us to extend previous studies to interactions between LTBI and HIV. Routine viral load measurements allowed us to determine HIV SPVL of almost one-third of the patients, and routine CD4 cell measurements made it possible to study the occurrence of OIs in CD4 time-updated models. In addition, the extensive demographic and clinical data in the SHCS allowed numerous multivariate and sensitivity analyses to strengthen our results.

Patients with TB infection (both LTBI and active TB) were less often from Western Europe, were more likely to be infected with non-B HIV subtype, and were female or reported heterosexual contacts as the most likely route of HIV acquisition as compared to MTB uninfected patients. To account for these differences, we included them in the multivariate analyses. We included the cofactor of geographic region in the main analysis instead of ethnicity, as this information was available for almost all patients. To correct for potential differences between these 2 variables (e.g., ethnicity representing host genetic differences and geography representing MTB differences), we adjusted for ethnicity instead of geographic region in a sensitivity analysis. Additionally, we performed independent sensitivity analyses restricting the study population to patients of white ethnicity and HIV subtype B, respectively. Strikingly, throughout these analyses, LTBI decreased the HIV log SPVL as much as well-studied host genetic factors (e.g., the 0.32 log decrease attributed to HLA-C locus polymorphisms [22]).

The lack of a gold standard in tests for defining LTBI is a fundamental limitation to all studies in the field. Since MTB tests (both tuberculin skin test (TST) and IGRA) rely on a T cell memory response, immunosuppression, often causes false negative tests [3], especially in people living with HIV [23]. To control for this, we repeated our analyses for patients with either >350 or >500 CD4 T cells at the time of the MTB test (B1.3). In another analysis, we corrected for the CD4 cell count at the MTB test date (B1.3). The robustness of our results in these analyses suggests that misdiagnosis due to immune suppression plays at most a minor role. To further correct for false negative tests, patients who developed active TB were classified as MTB infected, regardless of MTB test results.

Another difficulty in defining LTBI is the dynamic nature of the course of MTB infection over a lifetime [4,5]. In this study, we assumed “LTBI” is a stable condition since most of the OIs were diagnosed approximately at the same time (Fig 1). The clustering in time is an artifact of clinical care: Patients are often diagnosed with an OI prior to the HIV diagnosis and receive the MTB test soon after HIV diagnosis. ART and prophylactic antibiotic treatment decrease the probability of OIs further. Therefore, we are focusing on clinical observations proximal to HIV diagnosis and MTB testing; for most patients, the duration of this time period falls within the months–years range over which a T cell response is considered stable [4].

Since this is a multicenter study conducted over multiple decades, we are unable to provide details about tuberculin types, the thresholds of IGRAs, etc. While the study design lacks test-level granularity, we benefit from decades of follow-up across multiple centers with close to 14,000 patients. Setting aside the difficulties in LTBI definition, our data indicate that at the time point of HIV diagnosis, the detection of a peripheral MTB-specific T cell response is associated with reduced HIV SPVL and reduced occurrent of the 3 most common OIs in HIV–infected patients.

Categorizing patients based on MTB status introduces a potential bias: Patients with low CD4 cell counts might have died or developed the OI of interest before developing active TB. To account for the time aspect, we performed a sensitivity analysis pooling all MTB-infected patients, censoring for the diagnosis of active TB in the time-to-event analysis (B6). All 3 tested OIs occurred significantly less frequently in MTB-infected patients in this analysis. Moreover, we performed a sensitivity analysis excluding patients who were prophylactically treated for TB (B4): All results remained significant, even though this almost halved the study population.

We included patients with active TB to test the reverse of our primary hypothesis: Once immunological control is lost over asymptomatic LTBI infection, active TB fuels CD4 depletion, weakens the immune system, and increases susceptibility to other diseases [12]. In line with our hypothesis and in contrast to LTBI, almost all tested diseases occurred more frequently in patients with active TB when compared to MTB uninfected patients prior to adjustment for confounders. CD4 T cell count provides a reliable surrogate of immune competence in people living with HIV [24]. When we included CD4 cell counts as a confounder in an array of multivariate models and sensitivity analyses investigating the effect of active TB on the occurrence of OIs and HIV SPVL, all observed effects either weakened or disappeared.

The lack of a significant effect after adjustment has 2 possible explanations: First, increased frequency of OIs and active TB concurs because of significant immunodeficiency or second, active TB weakens the immune system leading to the occurrence of additional OIs. Either way, the disappearance of the effect after adjustment suggests that our model accounts for the most important confounders. These data agree with the well-documented association between OIs and active TB in people living with HIV and the nonsignificant increase in HIV SPVL for active TB after adjustment observed in a South African cohort [18,25]. However, it cannot be excluded that the results found in then multivariable model are due to residual confounding (most notably for herpes zoster).

The logical extension of the pattern seen in active TB would be that LTBI is associated with lower HIV SPVL and fewer OIs because of changes in CD4 T cell counts. Our findings do not support such a model. In particular, candida stomatitis and oral hairy leukoplakia occurred less frequently in patients with LTBI as compared to MTB uninfected patients after accounting for CD4 cell count and other cofactors in the multivariate model. That the associations in LTBI are independent of CD4 T cells is substantiated by reduced hazards of these infections in a CD4 cell time-updated time-to-event analysis. Since known immunological confounders do not explain the association between LTBI and decreased HIV SPVL and OIs described in this study, we suggest that additional research should address how LTBI alters the host immune response.

As with every observational study, causation of an observation is impossible to prove. We cannot rule out that the beneficial effects observed for patients with LTBI are due to host-specific factors that protect against active TB and other OIs and simultaneously improve control of HIV. Therefore, untested features of the innate immune system (e.g., macrophages [26]) could explain the association between LTBI and lower HIV SPVL. However, this explanation would require that those patients also maintain a more robust MTB-specific CD4 T cell response in peripheral blood.

To summarize, we demonstrate that LTBI was associated with a reduced HIV SPVL and fewer cases of the most prevalent OIs on a population level. These associations were robust to adjusting for the most important demographic and clinical confounders. Independently, various sensitivity analyses further strengthened these observations. These findings support the hypothesis that LTBI can benefit host immune responses and provides new avenues for future research to continue to unravel the complex interactions between mycobacteria and humans.

Methods

The Swiss HIV Cohort Study

The SHCS, launched in 1988, is a prospective, multicenter cohort study enrolling adults living with HIV in Switzerland (www.shcs.ch) [19]. The SHCS is a nationwide cohort with 7 centers: Zurich, Basel, Bern, Geneva, Lausanne, Lugano, and St. Gallen. Demographic information and the medical history regarding ART, CD4 cell measurements, HIV RNA, and OIs is collected at study registration. Further clinical and laboratory information is prospectively collected in half yearly follow-up visits.

Study population and definitions

In the SHCS, 1 TB test is usually performed around study registration, further tests are not standard but all test results are recorded. In line with routine clinical practice and in line with all major clinical guidelines, most of the patients had only 1 LTBI test. In our study, all patients with at least 1 tuberculin skin reactivity test or IGRA for MTB, or clinically diagnosed active TB (see S1 Text), were included in our analysis. In the main analysis, patients with positive and negative MTB tests at different time points were excluded, but included in a sensitivity analysis (see S2 Text). LTBI was defined as a positive skin reactivity test or positive IGRA and no development to active TB during follow-up. The MTB test results were obtained in the form of P (positive), N (negative), and B (borderline) entries, i.e., the interpretation of the test results was performed by the treating physicians. Active TB was defined as at least 1 entry for clinically diagnosed pulmonary or extrapulmonary TB. Most MTB tests were performed around SHCS registration; however, we used all TB test results provided in the SHCS, including tests performed before, during, or after SHCS study entry. In a sensitivity analysis, we restricted our study population to patients with TB tests within 1 year of SHCS registration (see S2 Text). Patients were assigned to the group of MTB uninfected if all MTB tests during the observation period were negative. The stratification into the 3 groups (MTB uninfected, LTBI, or active TB) were fixed throughout time, as most of the study measurements (TB test, diagnosis of OIs, and viral load measurements used for SPVL) clustered around SHCS registration (see Fig 1 and S1 Text).

The HIV diagnosis year was defined using the earliest information available: either a documented positive HIV test or the registration year of the SHCS. HIV risk group was defined as the most likely transmission route: MSM, HET, IDU, or other. Geographic regions of origin were reported according to the UNAIDS region codes. CD4 nadir was defined as the lowest CD4 cell count ever reported in the SHCS. For the calculation of HIV SPVL, only ART-naïve measurements were considered. HIV SPVL was then defined as the mean of all ART-naïve log RNA measurements in the chronic phase of the HIV infection, i.e., at least 90 days after the first positive test and before occurrence of any opportunistic infection.

Statistical analysis

In the first analysis, the association between MTB status (LTBI, active TB, or TB uninfected) and HIV SPVL was investigated using linear regression, with TB uninfected being the reference group. The model was adjusted for HIV transmission group and gender (MSM, male HET, female HET, male IDU, female IDU, male other, female other—where “other” includes all transmission modes other than MSM, HET, and IDU, as well as unknown transmission mode), geographic region, HIV diagnosis year, and CD4 nadir.

In the second analysis, the association between MTB status and the occurrence of OIs was tested using logistic regression, again with TB uninfected being the reference group. We tested the 10 most frequent OIs diagnosed in the study population, excluding pulmonary or extrapulmonary TB (see S1 Text). Again, the model was adjusted for HIV transmission group and gender, geographic region, HIV diagnosis year, and CD4 nadir. Additionally, we used cox proportional hazard regressions to model the association of MTB status on the hazard of the 3 most frequent OIs. In these cox proportional hazard regressions, 3 different approaches were used to assess the impact of CD4 cell counts: (1) no correction for CD4 cell counts; (2) inclusion of CD4 cell counts in the form of a continuous variable (time-updated for each new value); and (3) inclusion of CD4 cell categories (<50, 50 to 200, 200 to 350, 350 to 500, and >500 cells, time-updated for each new value). In all models, the observation time started with the first available CD4 measurement until either an event, i.e., diagnosis of the OI of interest, or censoring for death or loss to follow-up. Again, the model was adjusted for HIV risk group and gender, geographic region, and HIV diagnosis year.

Sensitivity analysis

An overview of all performed sensitivity analyses and the respective study size is illustrated in Fig 2, and details can be found in S2 Text. To understand the potential impact of our definitions of the study population on the observed associations, we performed numerous sensitivity analyses: First, we assessed the impact of different ways of defining MTB infection (B1). For this, (1) we included all patients with at least 1 TB test (including those with different results over time); (2) we excluded patients with ambiguous test results (borderline or positive and negative for the 2 type of tests); (3) we restricted the study population using CD4 cell count at the TB test date in 2 independent analyses: (a) at least 350 CD4 cells/mL; and (b) at least 500 CD4 cells/mL. Second, we assessed the impact of the timing of the TB test by (1) restricting our study population to patients with a TB test within 1 year of SHCS registration; and (2) restricting to patients with OIs diagnosed within 2 years of SHCS registration (B2). Third, we assessed the impact of ART in the analysis of OIs by performing a time-to-event analysis restricted to ART-naïve patients and censoring for the start of ART. Fourth, to assess the impact of prophylactic TB treatment, we excluded 406/840 (48.3%) patients classified as “LTBI” who obtained prophylactic treatment (Rifampicin or Isoniazid) (B4). Fifth, to assess the impact of the geographic region of origin and ethnicity, (1) we restricted to patients with HIV subtype B; and (2) we assessed the impact of ethnicity and region in 3 ways: (a) instead of correcting for the geographic region as done in the main analysis, we corrected for ethnicity, i.e., white, black, or other ethnicities; (b) we restricted the analysis to patients of white ethnicity; and (c) we restricted to patients from Western Europe (B5). Sixth, we assessed the impact of TB categorization by performing analyses on pooled patients with LTBI and active TB (B6): In the corresponding survival analysis, we censored for active TB using the time point 1.5 years before the diagnosis of active TB [27]. Seventh, we assessed the impact of our choice of definition of HIV SPVL by restricting to chronic, ART-naïve samples within the first 2 years after HIV diagnosis and excluding patients with large variability in VL measurements (B7). All analyses were performed with R (version 3.4.4; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Supporting information

S1 Text. Supporting information 1.

(PDF)

S2 Text. Supporting information 2.

(PDF)

S1 Data. Underlying numerical values of all figures presented in S1 Text.

(XLSX)

S2 Data. Underlying numerical values of all figures presented in S2 Text.

(XLSX)

S3 Data. Underlying numerical values of all figures presented in the main manuscript.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the patients for participating in the SHCS, the study nurses, and physicians for excellent patient care, A. Scherrer, A. Traytel, for excellent data management, and D. Perraudin and M. Amstutz for administrative assistance.

The members of the SHCS are Anagnostopoulos A, Battegay M, Bernasconi E, Böni J, Braun DL, Bucher HC, Calmy A, Cavassini M, Ciuffi A, Dollenmaier G, Egger M, Elzi L, Fehr J, Fellay J, Furrer H, Fux CA, Günthard H (President of the SHCS), Haerry D (deputy of “Positive Council”), Hasse B, Hirsch HH, Hoffmann M, Hösli I, Huber M, Kahlert CR (Chairman of the Mother and Child Substudy), Kaiser L, Keiser O, Klimkait T, Kouyos RD, Kovari H, Ledergerber B, Martinetti G, Martinez de Tejada B, Marzolini C, Metzner KJ, Müller N, Nicca D, Paioni P, Pantaleo G, Perreau M, Rauch A (Chairman of the Scientific Board), Rudin C, Scherrer AU (Head of Data Centre), Schmid P, Speck R, Stöckle M (Chairman of the Clinical and Laboratory Committee), Tarr P, Trkola A, Vernazza P, Wandeler G, Weber R, and Yerly S. We thank Alan Diercks for stinging criticisms.

Ethic statement

The SHCS was approved by the local ethical committees of the participating centers: Kantonale Ethikkommission Zürich (KEK-ZH-NR: EK-793); Ethikkommission beider Basel ("Die Ethikkommission beider Basel hat die Dokumente zur Studie zustimmend zur Kenntnis genommen und genehmigt."); Kantonale Ethikkommission Bern (21/88); Comité departmental d'éthique des specialités médicales es de médecine communautarie et de premier recours, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève (01–142); Commission cantonale d'éthique de la recherche sur l'être humain, Canton de Vaud (131/01); Comitato etico cantonale, Repubblica e Cantone Ticino (CE 813); Ethikkommission des Kantons St. Gallen (EKSG 12/003), and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Abbreviations

ART

antiretroviral therapy

BCG

bacillus Calmette–Guérin

CI

confidence interval

HET

heterosexual

IDU

intravenous drug user

IGRA

Interferon-gamma Release Assay

LTBI

latent tuberculosis infection

MSM

men who have sex with men

MTB

Mycobacterium tuberculosis

OI

opportunistic infection

OR

odds ratio

SARS-CoV-2

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

SHCS

Swiss HIV Cohort Study

SPVL

set point viral load

TB

tuberculosis

TST

tuberculin skin test

Data Availability

The individual level datasets generated or analyzed during the current study do not fulfill the requirements for open data access: 1) The SHCS informed consent states that sharing data outside the SHCS network is only permitted for specific studies on HIV infection and its complications, and to researchers who have signed an agreement detailing the use of the data and biological samples; and 2) the data is too dense and comprehensive to preserve patient privacy in persons living with HIV. According to the Swiss law, data cannot be shared if data subjects have not agreed or data is too sensitive to share. Investigators with a request for selected data should send a proposal to the respective SHCS address (www.shcs.ch/contact). The provision of data will be considered by the Scientific Board of the SHCS and the study team and is subject to Swiss legal and ethical regulations, and is outlined in a material and data transfer agreement. The numerical data underlying the figures presented in the main manuscript and supplementary information can be found in the files Data_Manuscript.xlsx, Data_AppendixA.xlsx, Data_AppendixB.xlsx.

Funding Statement

Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF, http://p3.snf.ch) (grant numbers 33CS30_177499 and 324730B_179571), received by HFG. Yvonne-Jacob Foundation (https://stiftungen.stiftungschweiz.ch/organizations/stiftung-yvonne-jacob), received by HFG. SNF (grant numbers PZ00P3-142411 and BSSGI0_155851), received by RDK. SNF (grant number P300PB_164742), and grant for scientific development from the University Hospital Zurich, received by JN. SHCS research foundation (Number 857), received by JN. Unrestricted research grant from Gilead Sciences, to the SHCS research foundation. None of the funders had a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Chisholm RH, Trauer JM, Curnoe D, Tanaka MM. Controlled fire use in early humans might have triggered the evolutionary emergence of tuberculosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016. September;113(32):9051–9056. 10.1073/pnas.1603224113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Houben RMGJ, Dodd PJ. The Global Burden of Latent Tuberculosis Infection: A Re-estimation Using Mathematical Modelling. PLoS Med. 2016. October;13(10):e1002152 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pai M, Behr MA, Dowdy D, Dheda K, Divangahi M, Boehme CC, et al. Tuberculosis. Nat Rev Dis Primer. 2016. 27;2:16076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Behr MA, Edelstein PH, Ramakrishnan L. Is Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection life long? BMJ. 2019. 24;367:l5770 10.1136/bmj.l5770 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Behr MA, Waters WR. Is tuberculosis a lymphatic disease with a pulmonary portal? Lancet Infect Dis. 2014. March;14(3):250–255. 10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70253-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Skelly AN, Sato Y, Kearney S, Honda K. Mining the microbiota for microbial and metabolite-based immunotherapies. Nat Rev Immunol. 2019. May;19(5):305–323. 10.1038/s41577-019-0144-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Beura LK, Hamilton SE, Bi K, Schenkel JM, Odumade OA, Casey KA, et al. Normalizing the environment recapitulates adult human immune traits in laboratory mice. Nature. 2016. April 28;532(7600):512–516. 10.1038/nature17655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Barton ES, White DW, Cathelyn JS, Brett-McClellan KA, Engle M, Diamond MS, et al. Herpesvirus latency confers symbiotic protection from bacterial infection. Nature. 2007. May 17;447(7142):326–329. 10.1038/nature05762 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nemeth J, Olson GS, Rothchild AC, Jahn AN, Mai D, Duffy FJ, et al. Contained Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection induces concomitant and heterologous protection. PLoS Pathog. 2020. July;16 (7):e1008655 10.1371/journal.ppat.1008655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Aaby MP, Samb B, Simondon F, Seck AM, Knudsen KM, Whittle H. A non-specific, beneficial effect of measles vaccination. Analysis of mortality studies from developing countries. Ugeskr Laeger. 1996. October 14;158(42):5944–5948. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jensen KJ, Larsen N, Biering-Sørensen S, Andersen A, Eriksen HB, Monteiro I, et al. Heterologous immunological effects of early BCG vaccination in low-birth-weight infants in Guinea-Bissau: a randomized-controlled trial. J Infect Dis. 2015. March 15;211(6):956–967. 10.1093/infdis/jiu508 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Higgins JPT, Soares-Weiser K, López-López JA, Kakourou A, Chaplin K, Christensen H, et al. Association of BCG, DTP, and measles containing vaccines with childhood mortality: systematic review. BMJ. 2016. October 13;355:i5170 10.1136/bmj.i5170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.O’Neill LAJ, Netea MG. BCG-induced trained immunity: can it offer protection against COVID-19? Nat Rev Immunol. 2020. June;20(6):335–337. 10.1038/s41577-020-0337-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hegarty PK, Sfakianos JP, Giannarini G, DiNardo AR, Kamat AM. COVID-19 and Bacillus Calmette-Guérin: What is the Link? Eur Urol Oncol [Internet]. 2020. April 13 [cited 2020 Apr 15]; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7152883/. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gursel M, Gursel I. Is Global BCG Vaccination Coverage Relevant To The Progression Of SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic? Med Hypotheses [Internet]. 2020. April 6 [cited 2020 Apr 15]; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7136957/. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.BCG Vaccination to Protect Healthcare Workers Against COVID-19—Full Text View—ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. [cited 2020 Apr 15]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04327206.
  • 17.Reducing Health Care Workers Absenteeism in Covid-19 Pandemic Through BCG Vaccine—Full Text View—ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. [cited 2020 Apr 15]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04328441.
  • 18.Kwan CK, Ernst JD. HIV and tuberculosis: a deadly human syndemic. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011. April;24(2):351–376. 10.1128/CMR.00042-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Schoeni-Affolter F, Ledergerber B, Rickenbach M, Rudin C, Günthard HF, Telenti A, et al. Cohort Profile: The Swiss HIV Cohort Study. Int J Epidemiol. 2010. October 1;39(5):1179–1189. 10.1093/ije/dyp321 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fenner L, Atkinson A, Boulle A, Fox MP, Prozesky H, Zürcher K, et al. HIV viral load as an independent risk factor for tuberculosis in South Africa: collaborative analysis of cohort studies. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017. 23;20(1):21327 10.7448/IAS.20.1.21327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lawn SD, Wood R, De Cock KM, Kranzer K, Lewis JJ, Churchyard GJ. Antiretrovirals and isoniazid preventive therapy in the prevention of HIV-associated tuberculosis in settings with limited health-care resources. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010. July;10(7):489–498. 10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70078-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fellay J, Shianna KV, Ge D, Colombo S, Ledergerber B, Weale M, et al. A Whole-Genome Association Study of Major Determinants for Host Control of HIV-1. Science. 2007. August 17;317(5840):944–947. 10.1126/science.1143767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Elzi L, Schlegel M, Weber R, Hirschel B, Cavassini M, Schmid P, et al. Reducing tuberculosis incidence by tuberculin skin testing, preventive treatment, and antiretroviral therapy in an area of low tuberculosis transmission. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2007. January 1;44(1):94–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fahey JL, Taylor JM, Detels R, Hofmann B, Melmed R, Nishanian P, et al. The prognostic value of cellular and serologic markers in infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. N Engl J Med. 1990. January 18;322(3):166–172. 10.1056/NEJM199001183220305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Day JH, Grant AD, Fielding KL, Morris L, Moloi V, Charalambous S, et al. Does tuberculosis increase HIV load? J Infect Dis. 2004. November 1;190(9):1677–1684. 10.1086/424851 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sattentau QJ, Stevenson M. Macrophages and HIV-1: An Unhealthy Constellation. Cell Host Microbe. 2016. March 9;19(3):304–310. 10.1016/j.chom.2016.02.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Zak DE, Penn-Nicholson A, Scriba TJ, Thompson E, Suliman S, Amon LM, et al. A blood RNA signature for tuberculosis disease risk: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Lond Engl. 2016. June 4;387(10035):2312–2322. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01316-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hashi Wijayatilake

14 May 2020

Dear Dr Kusejko,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection is associated with reduced HIV viral load and lower risk for opportunistic infections in people living with HIV" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology. I sincerely apologize for the delay in getting you a decision. As I’m sure you can understand, our Academic Editors (and reviewers) currently have very limited availability due to COVID-19 related disruptions, and our editorial team is similarly affected. Please do accept our apologies for the unavoidable delays.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff as well as by an Academic Editor with relevant expertise and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by May 16 2020 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology

During resubmission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF when you re-submit.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Given the disruptions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, please expect delays in the editorial process. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience caused and will do our best to minimize impact as far as possible.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Hashi Wijayatilake, PhD,

Managing Editor

PLOS Biology

Decision Letter 1

Nonia Pariente, PhD

14 Jul 2020

Dear Katharina,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection is associated with reduced HIV viral load and lower risk for opportunistic infections in people living with HIV" for consideration as a Research Article at PLOS Biology, and please accept our apologies for the time it has taken for us to contact you with a decision on your work, which is longer than we aim for. Your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by four independent reviewers, whse expertise and comments can be found below.

As you will see, although all acknowledge the value of the cohort and of the dataset ad are in principle quite interested in the work, referees 1, 2 and 4 especially raise a number of serious issues that question the conclusiveness of your analyses. For example, the fact that there is set-point viral load data for a minority, which could introduce selection bias, that there seem to be substantial losses to follow-up, that whether/how anti-retroviral therapy was analysed as a covariate is unclear, and concerns about the time sequence of events and therefore the direction of causality. Referees 1 and 4 consider that the exclusion of TB discordant people is a shame, as they could also be informative. Referee 3's report is raises some issues regarding the writing in introduction and discussion. The rest referees’ reports are clear and the remaining issues should be straightforward to address.

In light of these reviews, and the constructive nature of the reports, which suggest various ways of addressing confounders/ascertainment bias, we would be happy to invite a revision of the study that addresses the referee concerns in full. We will not be able to make a decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments, which will also be sent for further evaluation by the reviewers.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 3 months, but please let us know if the revision process is likely to take longer.

Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point by point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually, point by point.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type.

3. Your Supplementary Information file will need to be split into its 7 "chapters", as they are referred to in the main text and will need to be linked to each SI file.

*Re-submission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this re-submission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision:

*Published Peer Review*

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. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*PLOS Data Policy*

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

*Blot and Gel Data Policy*

We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

*Protocols deposition*

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: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

With best wishes,

Nonia

Nonia Pariente, PhD,

Editor-in-Chief PLOS Biology

PLOS Biology

*****************************************************

REVIEWS:

Reviewer expertise:

Reviewer #1: Tuberculosis

Reviewer #2: HIV epidemiology; TB control measures in HIV-endemic populations

Reviewer #3: TB epidemiology

Reviewer #4: TB and HIV co-infections

Reviewer reports:

Reviewer #1: This interesting study investigates how testing positive for latent M.tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in those co-infected with HIV affects the HIV viral load, and the acquisition of other co-infections/co-morbidities.

There is an extensive literature on how M.tuberculosis afters the immune system, including reducing antigen presentation, and beneficial T cell function. Thus it may not be surprising that patients with clinical TB might have much more marked alterations of their immune system leading to a change in how HIV is controlled. This Swiss cohort provides a valuable opportunity to investigate these interactions between latent and active TB and HIV viral load and the number of opportunistic infections acquired. It is striking that having studied over 13,000 patients, the HIV nadir was 70 in TB compared to 265 in those with LTBI, and that the rate of opportunistic infections was lower in those with latent Mtb infection and HIV infection compared to those without Mtb infection, although as expected those with TB disease and HIV infection had increased rates of opportunistic infections.

There is an extensive set of supplementary information containing 56 supplementary figures., only a few of which are referred to in the text.

Methods. The patients from the cohort all had positive or negative tests for LTBI; any patients with inconsistent results were excluded. This is a pity, as there is recent interest in those who convert to LTBI positive and then revert to negative. More information about the finding that inclusion of these individuals did not greatly affect the findings might be included.

Results. The text should be checked to ensure that when the LTBI group are described as having significant decreases in HIV viral load or opportunistic infections etc, it is clear whether it is the Mtb uninfected HIV infected group that the LTBI group is being compared to, or the TB patients group.

LTBI is not a clear-cut state but rather a spectrum, as until TB is actually diagnosed, someone with incipient or subclinical TB will be categorised as having LTBI. There will also be individuals who test positive for Mtb infection using TST or an IGRA test, who then revert to negative, perhaps because the mycobacteria have been cleared. Overall, there will be fewer live mycobacteria in LTBI than in active TB disease, and as Mtb has the capacity to modulate immunity, it is perhaps less surprising that therefore patients with TB disease will have a more suppressed immune system and therefore be more susceptible to opportunistic infections.

Secondly, if these are LTBI patients who have not progressed to active TB, due to the long follow-up of participants in this cohort, they will not be typical of LTBI individuals as a whole, as they are those with the ability to prevent progression to active disease, even when HIV-induced immunosuppression is present. In other words they may be a group protected against opportunistic infections as they have not progressed to TB. Assuming that the status "LTBI" is a stable condition, as discussed on page 13 (Discussion) is therefore a potential limitation of the approach taken. It may also be worth noting that progression from LTBI to active TB is likely to occur in the first 1-2 years after infection in about half of those infected who will progress to TB disease; thus if many of this cohort have been infected before coming to Switzerland, again most of those likely to progress to TB shortly after infection will have done so.

A statement might also be included about whether any of the individuals with LTBI were offered chemoprophylaxis.

Minor comments:

Abstract, third paragraph. HIV infection was associated with a reduced HIV set point. The text should clarify if this is compared to those without Mtb infection, or those who developed active TB.

Abstract line 1, change "were ", to "have been " exposed….Also, page 4, line 4.

Page 9, line 2, change to "Similarly.."

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting paper which uses data from the Swiss HIV cohort to examine the association between latent TB infection (LTBI) and HIV clinical progression, including set-point viral load (VL) and the incidence of opportunistic infections (OIs). It purports to show that HIV+ patients with LTBI have a lower VL and lower incidence of OIs than HIV+ patients uninfected with TB, while there was evidence that patients with active TB disease have higher VL and incidence of OIs.

Strengths of this paper are the very large sample size, extensive data on potential confounding factors and systematic follow-up. However, there are also some serious weaknesses. First, one of the primary outcomes, set-point VL, was only available in about a third of the patients, so there are serious concerns about potential selection bias. There is also quite a high rate of losses to follow-up (over 20% of patients were lost). ART would obviously be an important covariate but there is no information on how many patients were on ART at different times, or how this was incorporated in the analysis. The time sequence of events is also unclear. It seems that the classification of TB infection status is based on TB tests carried out at different times following diagnosis (and enrolment in the cohort), so some of these tests may have been conducted after the outcomes (VL and OIs) were recorded. This is also a problem for the analysis of active TB. Some more detailed comments are given below.

Major comments:

1. The Abstract reports a reduced viral load as a "hazard ratio". This can't be correct?

2. The main paper needs to give clearer information about the test schedule for TB infection in the cohort. Information on this is given in the Supplementary Material, but understanding the timing of these tests, and the reasons for testing, seem important to interpret the results.

3. Later development of active TB is an exclusion criteria for the LTBI group. This will clearly impose a selection effect on this group so that those with more immune dysfunction are omitted. What implications might this have?

4. There are major concerns around the time sequence of events and therefore the direction of causality. A decline in immune function following infection may lead to the LTBI test becoming negative, especially in those with a high viral load and this might induce an apparent association between LTBI negativity and high viral load. This is a particular problem if LTBI test results are used from after the time the VL measurements are made. Maybe the analysis should be restricted to LTBI results taken within a short period after diagnosis?

5. As noted above, there are similar concerns with the analysis of OIs. In many cases, the LTBI test was done long after the occurrence of the OIs.

6. I would have found it useful to have a diagram of the cohort showing the timing of the measurements used in this analysis.

7. A key point is that ART status does not seem to be taken account of in this study. I assume that ART must have been in common use during the latter part of the cohort follow-up and may have had a major impact on TB infection status and on the outcomes of interest in this analysis.

8. Viral load set-point data were only available in about a third of the patients and this could be a major source of selection bias. Did you look at the characteristics of those with and without VL data, to assess the likely degree of bias?

9. In the analyses of OIs, the adjusted effects are considerably smaller than the crude effects and some of the CIs are close to 1. This raises concerns over residual confounding, for example by features of immune status that are not fully captured by the CD4 count, or due to the limited frequency of CD4 testing.

Minor comments:

10. TB is of course a major OI in its own right, but it is never stated that the analysis of OIs excluded pulmonary or extra-pulmonary TB.

11. In the Methods, there is some text about MTB test results, concerning "skin diameter" and "immune status" that are obscure.

12. There is too much emphasis on arbitrary levels of "statistical significance". For example a statement that an effect "vanished" after adjustment whereas in fact the point estimate was still quite substantially below 1 (but the CI just overlapped 0).

13. The analysis of VL takes account of "nadir CD4 count" but there seems to be no limitation on the timing of that measure, which may have been a long time before or after the VL measurement (or the definition of TB infection status).

14. You conclude that because the adjusted effect for active TB was close to zero that confounding must have been adequately controlled in the analysis for LBTI. That is quite a stretch as patterns of confounding may well differ between these different exposures.

15. The treatment of LBTI as a "stable condition" is questionable given that LBTI results in HIV+ may well depend on the immune status of the individual, which can clearly vary over time.

Reviewer #3: Background

I'm not sure why we need to believe that human fire use sparked the evolution of Mtb!

The language is stilted.

The word commensalism is not appropriate for Mtb, as we now know that the pathogen is likely to be in a constant stand-off with the immune system, rather than being simply a commensal. Low grade infection is also an imperfect representation. And it is not likely to be an interaction only with the innate immune system.

The authors appear to suggest that active TB progresses HIV of its own right, driving HIV to progress. However, this misrepresents the fact that HIV must drive TB progression, as TB disease is far more common in HIV than HIV negative people in the same population.

The hypothesis being test could be overtly and clearly stated.

Methods

These are presented soundly

Results

I think these are clearly presented

Discussion

The concluding statement of a hypothesis that wasn't actually the hypothesis is an unfortunate ending to an otherwise solid discussion.

One consideration that isn't mentioned is that the LTBI positive individuals are a selective cohort in relation to TB, as those members that had progressive primary TB disease are excluded. In contrast, individuals who would have progressive primary disease upon infection are still included in the LTBI negative individuals. As such LTBI positive individuals are enriched for those capable of controlling Mtb. It would be reasonable to assume that they are able to control or repel other infections quite well too, including HIV.

Tables and figures

These are well presented.

Reviewer #4: This is a well-written and absorbing manuscript which starts with the exciting hypothesis that acquisition of M.tb infection provides a degree of protection against other conditions in the context of HIV co-infection. The authors marshal helpful data to support this. They then go on to show that there are differences between an M.tb uninfected population (the great majority of the Swiss HIV cohort study group being examined), individuals with latent TB infection and those who develop active TB during follow up. This appears to be related to a reduced HIV set point viral load in the latent TB population. Further, they had lower odds of oral thrush and OHL compared to individuals who were considered to be M.tb-uninfected, or had active TB disease.

There may be something in it, but I am not sure that the authors have fully convinced me with the manuscript as it stands. One major issue is that as far as I can understand, the cohorts are defined by their status (i.e. M.tb-uninfected, M.tb-infected and TB disease) at some point in time, and assessments occur going forward from then. Given that the date of diagnoses varied between the three groups (as would be expected active TB was diagnosed at an earlier year to latent TB), and there appears to be little mention of antiretroviral therapy throughout the manuscript, I am struggling a bit with some of their findings.

For example in the Methods, the authors state that "patients with positive and negative M.tb tests at different time points were excluded". Does this mean that they did or did not perform routine serial testing for latent TB infection? If they did, were those participants who were initially negative and subsequently tested positive not included in the study? If this is a case this feels like a shame as this population may provide insights into their proposed protection conferred by M.tb (for example were less OI events occurring after M.tb infection compared to before?).

It feels like I am missing something here as this is a clear benefit of an observational cohort, which has the flexibility to asses an individual at different points throughout their health trajectory.

Other comments (plus some further discussion of the above) are given below as they arise in the manuscript:

1. Methods - Study population and definitions. I would be interested to know the number or proportion of participants who had multiple tests? And also those where there were negative then positive results or vice versa.

2. Methods - The authors mention that they used all TB test results including tests performed before, during or after entry to the Swiss HIV cohort study. Can they provide any information on the proportions of these? This might be important if there were a particularly large group diagnosed prior to the Swiss HIV cohort, as there could be concerns about possibly self-reported or non-observed test results.

3. Methods - The authors are keen on HIV set point viral load. This is certainly a useful measure, but I am concerned that its value diminishes in the active TB population, when so many participants in the HIV cohort have presented with TB which then led to an HIV diagnosis, that only around 10% of cases are used in this analysis in the TB disease group. How do the authors answer this point?

4. Methods - Statistical analysis. As mentioned above it would be useful to know what proportion of subjects have an initial negative skin or blood test for latent TB infection and then became positive. Assuming that this does reflect an immune response against M.tb, and samples were assessed at different time points, one might expect there to be the same effect as the authors report in their cross sectional analysis in specific individuals followed over time. Do they have any evidence to demonstrate this?

5. Methods - Statistical analysis. The authors appear to shy away from mentioning antiretroviral therapy. I might have missed it but to me this is so fundamentally important to HIV care and reduction in opportunistic infections and also in controlling true pathogens such as M.tb, that if feels as if they are trying to bury something. Can the authors reassure me about this?

6. Results - As mentioned earlier I am concerned about the relative proportion of individuals who had latent TB compared to active TB. These are pretty much the same number. I think most clinicians would expect to see at least four times as many participants with latent TB than active disease. I appreciate that people can progress from latent infection to active disease, but then things might get messy with regards to where the participant is categorised i.e. as latent infection or active TB disease. Can the authors explain.

7. Results - The information for HIV set point viral load feels to me a bit shaky. The numbers of subjects where this information was available were quite reduced. Is there any evidence that we are looking at some form of selection bias? Again I would be interested to know how the authors have accounted for the use of antiretroviral therapy for an individual and also between the different groups.

8. The Discussion is readable but feels far too long. It takes up five of the twelve total pages of manuscript in my version. I think this could be significantly reduced with no loss of impact.

9. Tables and figures - Table 1 is quite large - I think the authors could collapse some of the sub groups with no loss of impact.

Decision Letter 2

Nonia Pariente, PhD

2 Oct 2020

Dear Dr Kusejko,

Thank you for submitting your revised Research Article entitled "Diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection is associated with reduced HIV viral load and lower risk for opportunistic infections in people living with HIV" for publication in PLOS Biology. I have now obtained advice from two of the original reviewers and have discussed their comments with the Academic Editor.

Based on the reviews, I am writing with an accept-in-principle decision, which is conditional on you addressing the final minor points of reviewers 2 and 4, whose reports you will find below my signature at the end of this email. You will also need to comply with all of the reporting and formatting requests that follow here and others that you will receive in a separate email from one of my colleagues.

----

In going through your manuscript, we have noted the following issues that need attention:

1) Please restructure the main text according to PLOS Biology format, i.e. Abstract, Introduction, Results, Discussion and Methods. The figures need to be cited in order, and figure 1 is only cited in the Methods, so would either need to be cited at the beginning of the results (best possibility) or be moved to the last main display item.

2) Please include the specific protocol number(s) that were approved by the ethics committees of the participating institutions, if available.

3) In all figure legends please include statistical information, including how many times measurements were performed (and whether they were technical and biological replicates) and, where applicable, what is being represented (e.g. mean or median, plus confidence interval).

4) Please note that per journal policy, all of the individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the main and supplementary (i.e. those in the apendices) figures and tables of your paper need to be made available in one of the following forms:

a) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

b) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed throughout the study (note that we do not require all raw data, just the numerical data underlying the figures and tables), as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it.

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

5) Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

6) Please ensure that you update your Data Statement in the submission system to accurately describe where your data can be found. That is, in addition to the restrictions and instructions to obtaining the raw data that you describe, please also state where the numerical data underlying the figures can be found.

------

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer, as well as the points I alluded to above. A member of our team will be in touch shortly with a set of additional requests, to ensure formatting and reporting adheres to our guidelines. As we can't proceed until these requirements are met, your swift response will help prevent delays to publication.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following:

- a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable

- a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable)

- a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

*Copyediting*

Upon acceptance of your article, your final files will be copyedited and typeset into the final PDF. While you will have an opportunity to review these files as proofs, PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling or significant scientific errors. Therefore, please take this final revision time to assess and make any remaining major changes to your manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that 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. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Early Version*

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

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: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Nonia

Nonia Pariente, PhD,

Editor-in-Chief,

npariente@plos.org,

PLOS Biology

-------------

Reviewer remarks:

Reviewer #2: I have now been able to review the revised version of this paper. I am pleased to say that I am satisfied with the changes that have been made as well as the response letter from the authors.

Just a few minor points to pass on to the authors for their consideration when finalising the manuscript for publication:

1. Figure 1a and 1b: The legend and labelling really need to be improved. In Fig 1a, what are the units of the dates (or rather differences of dates) on the x axis? Are they in years? What are the 3 lines marked on Fig 1a?

2. Foot of page 11. The reference to an "interaction between active TB and OIs": The term "interaction" has a specific statistical meaning which is not what is intended here. The word "association" would be clearer.

3. Foot of page 12. "…could be due to lower sample sizes" - I think they are actually referring to the small "numbers of events" rather than "small sample size".

4. Abstract: I think the 0.24 decrease in viral load actually refers to the log viral load? Could this be clarified?

Reviewer #4: Thanks for the useful revisions.

Figure 1 is helpful, though I couldn't find legends that explain how the X axis timeline should be interpreted, and also indicated to which patient populations the colours in the plots referred.

Decision Letter 3

Nonia Pariente, PhD

2 Nov 2020

Dear Dr Kusejko,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Sarah L. Rowland-Jones, I am pleased to inform you that we will be delighted to publish your Research Article in PLOS Biology.

PRODUCTION PROCESS

Before publication you will see the copyedited word document (within 5 business days) and a PDF proof shortly after that. The copyeditor will be in touch shortly before sending you the copyedited Word document. We will make some revisions at copyediting stage to conform to our general style, and for clarification. When you receive this version you should check and revise it very carefully, including figures, tables, references, and supporting information, because corrections at the next stage (proofs) will be strictly limited to (1) errors in author names or affiliations, (2) errors of scientific fact that would cause misunderstandings to readers, and (3) printer's (introduced) errors. Please return the copyedited file within 2 business days in order to ensure timely delivery of the PDF proof.

If you are likely to be away when either this document or the proof is sent, please ensure we have contact information of a second person, as we will need you to respond quickly at each point. Given the disruptions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there may be delays in the production process. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience caused and will do our best to minimize impact as far as possible.

EARLY VERSION

The version of your manuscript submitted at the copyedit stage will be posted online ahead of the final proof version, unless you have already opted out of the process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Biology and for your support of Open Access publishing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any assistance during the production process.

Kind regards,

Alice Musson

Publishing Editor,

PLOS Biology

on behalf of

Nonia Pariente, PhD,

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Biology

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Text. Supporting information 1.

    (PDF)

    S2 Text. Supporting information 2.

    (PDF)

    S1 Data. Underlying numerical values of all figures presented in S1 Text.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Data. Underlying numerical values of all figures presented in S2 Text.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Data. Underlying numerical values of all figures presented in the main manuscript.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: R1_PointByPoint_KusejkoNemeth.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PointByPoint.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The individual level datasets generated or analyzed during the current study do not fulfill the requirements for open data access: 1) The SHCS informed consent states that sharing data outside the SHCS network is only permitted for specific studies on HIV infection and its complications, and to researchers who have signed an agreement detailing the use of the data and biological samples; and 2) the data is too dense and comprehensive to preserve patient privacy in persons living with HIV. According to the Swiss law, data cannot be shared if data subjects have not agreed or data is too sensitive to share. Investigators with a request for selected data should send a proposal to the respective SHCS address (www.shcs.ch/contact). The provision of data will be considered by the Scientific Board of the SHCS and the study team and is subject to Swiss legal and ethical regulations, and is outlined in a material and data transfer agreement. The numerical data underlying the figures presented in the main manuscript and supplementary information can be found in the files Data_Manuscript.xlsx, Data_AppendixA.xlsx, Data_AppendixB.xlsx.


    Articles from PLoS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES