Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jan 5;16(1):e0244981. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244981

Cohort profile: Study on Zika virus infection in Brazil (ZIKABRA study)

Guilherme Amaral Calvet 1,*,#, Edna Oliveira Kara 2,#, Sihem Landoulsi 2, Ndema Habib 2, Camila Helena Aguiar Bôtto-Menezes 3,4, Rafael Freitas de Oliveira Franca 5, Armando Menezes Neto 5, Marcia da Costa Castilho 3, Tatiana Jorge Fernandes 1, Gerson Fernando Pereira 6, Silvana Pereira Giozza 6, Ximena Pamela Díaz Bermúdez 7, Kayvon Modjarrad 8, Noemia Lima 8, Patrícia Brasil 1, Marcus Vinicius Guimarães de Lacerda 3,9, Ana Maria Bispo de Filippis 10, Nathalie Jeanne Nicole Broutet 2; on behalf of ZIKABRA Study Team
Editor: Pierre Roques11
PMCID: PMC7785242  PMID: 33400705

Abstract

Zika virus (ZIKV) has been detected in blood, urine, semen, cerebral spinal fluid, saliva, amniotic fluid, and breast milk. In most ZIKV infected individuals, the virus is detected in the blood to one week after the onset of symptoms and has been found to persist longer in urine and semen. To better understand virus dynamics, a prospective cohort study was conducted in Brazil to assess the presence and duration of ZIKV and related markers (viral RNA, antibodies, T cell response, and innate immunity) in blood, semen, saliva, urine, vaginal secretions/menstrual blood, rectal swab and sweat. The objective of the current manuscript is to describe the cohort, including an overview of the collected data and a description of the baseline characteristics of the participants. Men and women ≥ 18 years with acute illness and their symptomatic and asymptomatic household contacts with positive reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test for ZIKV in blood and/or urine were included. All participants were followed up for 12 months. From July 2017 to June 2019, a total of 786 participants (284 men, 502 women) were screened. Of these, 260 (33.1%) were enrolled in the study; index cases: 64 men (24.6%), 162 (62.3%) women; household contacts: 12 men (4.6%), 22 (8.5%) women. There was a statistically significant difference in age and sex between enrolled and not enrolled participants (p<0.005). Baseline sociodemographic and medical data were collected at enrollment from all participants. The median and interquartile range (IQR) age was 35 (IQR; 25.3, 43) for men and 36.5 years (IQR; 28, 47) for women. Following rash, which was one of the inclusion criteria for index cases, the most reported symptoms in the enrollment visit since the onset of the disease were fever, itching, arthralgia with or without edema, non-purulent conjunctivitis, headache, and myalgia. Ten hospitalizations were reported by eight patients (two patients were hospitalized twice) during follow up, after a median of 108 days following symptom onset (range 7 to 266 days) and with a median of 1.5 days (range 1 to 20 days) of hospital stay. A total of 4,137 visits were performed, 223 (85.8%) participants have attended all visits and 37 (14.2%) patients were discontinued.

Introduction

The Zika virus (ZIKV) has been found in body fluids such as blood, urine, semen, brain and spinal fluids, saliva, rectal swab, vaginal secretions, amniotic fluid, and breast milk [18]. Studies have found that the ZIKV RNA can persist longer in urine and semen when compared to its presence in blood [5, 7, 9]. This is the first virus known to be transmitted to humans through the bite of an infected mosquito and sexual intercourse with an infected person [10, 11].

Since 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Brazil Ministry of Health (MoH) are coordinating the ZIKABRA study, a research cohort study in Brazil, set up to address questions such as how long does the virus remains in the body? How long infectivity can take place? Could the virus remain inactive in a person and reappear at a later stage? What are the potential relations between host genetics, immune response, and environmental factors as well as co-infections such as dengue (DENV), chikungunya (CHIKV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), syphilis, Hepatitis B (HBV), hepatitis C (HCV), and the duration of the persistence of the virus in body fluids? The responses will help to refine recommendations on how best to prevent ZIKV virus infection.

The ZIKABRA is a prospective cohort study which aims to assess the presence and duration of ZIKV and related markers (ZIKV specific RNA, antibodies, T cell response, and innate immunity) in blood, semen, saliva, urine, vaginal secretions/menstrual blood, rectal swab and sweat. The study has been conducted in collaboration with the Brazil Ministry of Health, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Tropical Medicine Foundation Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado (FMT-HVD), and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR). The study was also supported by grants from the Wellcome Trust and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive description of the ZIKABRA cohort, including an overview of the collected data and a description of the baseline characteristics of the participants.

Material and methods

Index screening inclusion and exclusion criteria

Index case screening inclusion criteria: Men and women ≥ 18 years with acute illness presenting rash; having given consent to blood and urine collection for real time revere transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) testing and to be enrolled if the test result in either sample return positive, including attendance to the study clinic for follow-up visits over 12 months comprising 17 visits, and provide body fluid according to the testing schedule; no intention to move to a place that would not make possible attendance to the study clinic to continue with the study procedures as per protocol.

Index case screening exclusion criteria: Individuals under 18 years of age; pregnancy; presenting a condition that would not allow reliable informed consent (e.g. alcohol abuse and substance misuse) or lacking mental capacity to consent participation.

Index case enrolment inclusion criteria: Presenting rRT-PCR test positive for ZIKV in blood and/or urine specimens; having given consent for all body fluid collection, as appropriate, according to the testing schedule.

Index case enrolment exclusion criteria: Presenting rRT-PCR negative test results for ZIKV in blood and urine specimens collected during screening.

Household contacts screening and enrollment criteria

Household contact screening inclusion criteria: individual aged 18 years and above; having given consent for rRT-PCR testing in blood and urine and subsequent enrollment if the tests return a positive result, including coming back to all follow-up visits and provide body fluid according to the testing schedule; no intention to move to a place that would not make possible attendance to the study clinic to continue with the study procedures as per protocol.

Household contact screening exclusion criteria—As per index case.

Household contact enrolment inclusion and exclusion criteria- As per index case.

ZIKV detection

ZIKV detection was performed by rRT-PCR employing a commercial kit namely ZDC, from the Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos Biomanguinhos. The kit was approved by the Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária/ANVISA (registry #80142170032). A test was deemed positive when a sample returned within 38 amplification cycles.

The detailed study protocol has been published elsewhere [12]. Since then, some changes were performed in the study case report forms (CRFs). The final versions of the CRFs can be found in the supplement information.

Screening and recruitment in the cohort

Patients with ZIKV infection were screened and enrolled in two cities, Recife and Manaus, representing two regions of Brazil (Northeast and North, respectively). The study sites were selected based on the presence of high population density, high circulation of ZIKV, strong community health network and laboratory facilities able to perform viral culture, ZIKV antigen assays, rRT-PCR, IgM/IgG, neutralizing antibodies test (specific for ZIKV, DENV, and CHIKV) and genetic sequencing. However, by the time of the study onset, the number of ZIKV cases dropped dramatically in Recife. As a result, only five participants were recruited in that site between 21 July 2017 and 13 August 2018.

The identification of symptomatic subjects took place in the collaborating clinics: Fiocruz ambulatory (Recife), Tropical Medicine Foundation Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado (FMT-HVD) ambulatory (Manaus), primary health centers (Family Clinics) and 24-hour emergency units located in the areas of the study intervention. At each of these screening sites, individuals meeting the study inclusion criteria were referred to the study sites for consideration for enrolment.

Case report forms, procedures, and data collection

Eleven CRFs were elaborated to collect the study information for each participant. Table 1 shows a summary of the forms and related study visits.

Table 1. Summary of questionnaires and data collection for ZIKABRA study.
Form Visit Number
Name V0 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16 V17
PRE X
TRI X
IDE X
REC X
AMO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
RES X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
RAP X X X
CLA X X X
SEG X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
CLB X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
FIM X

PRE (Pre-Screening): Type of potential participant (index/contact), relationship with the index case, and eligibility for screening.

TRI (Screening): Symptoms of ZIKV infection.

IDE (Identification): Sensitive participant information and linkage with the national database.

REC (Enrollment): Sociodemographics data, biological sex, race/ethnicity, formal education, marital status, and vital signs.

AMO (Sample collection): Body fluids collection (blood, urine, saliva, sweat, rectal swab, semen, vaginal, and breastmilk, if available.

RES (Results): Body fluids results.

RAP (Rapid tests/Serology): HIV, syphilis, pregnancy, HBV, and HCV tests.

CLA (Clinical questionnaire A): Comorbidities, history of arboviruses infection (DENV, ZIKV, CHIKV and YF), history of immunization, signs, and symptoms, results for exams requested or referral to specialists, physical examination, other clinical or laboratory diagnosis, exams results, and referral to specialists.

SEG (Follow-up): New cases in the household, any hospitalization, health and wellbeing, signs of reactivation, reinfection, or complications of ZIKV infection, and vital signs.

CLB (Clinical questionnaire B): Intermediary visits as needed, results for exams requested or referral to specialists, symptoms of ZIKV reinfection/reactivation or complication, new symptoms, physical examination, other clinical or laboratory diagnosis, exams results, and referral to specialists.

FIM (End of the study): End of the study participation or reasons for premature participant discontinuation.

Pre-screening and screening visit

Two informed consent forms (ICF) were used in the study, for the screening and enrollment phases. After ensuring the message addressed to participants was clearly understood and clarification to their questions and information details had been updated, an initial screening informed consent was signed. During the pre-screening visit (S1 File) the type of potential participant (index/household contact), relationship with the index case, symptoms of ZIKV infection (S2 File), and eligibility were assessed by the study nurse who checked whether they met the inclusion criteria and did not meet any of the exclusion criteria. Sensitive participant information and linkage with the national database were recorded (S3 File). After that, blood and urine were collected for ZIKV testing.

The potential participants were also advised that if their test yielded a positive result, and if they agreed, their household contacts would be invited to participate in the study following the same procedures.

Enrollment visit

The screening test results were delivered to the participant by the study nurse. Individuals whose ZIKV rRT-PCR tests returned negative in blood and urine, were referred to the clinic where they were seen in the first place to receive routine clinical standard of care. Individuals with rRT-PCR tests positive in blood or urine were classified as index cases and were invited by the study nurse to be part of the one-year follow-up. At this stage, they were asked to sign a full study informed consent (recruitment), and an enrollment questionnaire (S4 File) was applied to collect a more detailed sociodemographic data, biological sex, race/ethnicity, formal education, marital status, and vital signs. Specimen collection of all body fluids was then performed. Participants provided blood, urine, saliva, sweat, rectal swab, semen specimens (male participants), or vaginal and menstrual blood specimens (female participants) and breast milk specimens (if lactating). Detailed information on specimen collection, including visit date, visit number, type of visit (if scheduled or non-scheduled), and reason, if not collected, were noted on the sample collection form (S5 File) and the test results recorded in the results form (S6 File). Test results for HIV, syphilis, pregnancy, HBV, and HCV were recorded in the rapid tests/serology form (S7 File) at enrollment, six and 12-months post-enrollment.

All study participants were evaluated by a study physician that collected a detailed baseline clinical information (S8 File) that included comorbidities, history of arboviruses infection (DENV, ZIKV, CHIKV, and yellow fever (YF)), history of immunization, clinical manifestations, results for exams requested or referred to specialists, physical examination, other clinical or laboratory diagnosis, exams results, and referral to specialists. The clinical questionnaire form (S8 File) was completed at the enrolment (visit 1), twenty days (visit 5), and 360 days (visit 17) after the enrollment visit.

Participants were followed for 12 months to evaluate the persistence of ZIKV at 2, 4, 10, 20, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210, 240, 270, 300, 330, and 360 days following the recruitment visit and specimen collection. Participants who could not be contacted after three attempts (phone contact) or did not present to the study clinic for two consecutive visits were considered as lost to follow-up. At each follow-up visit information on new cases in the household, hospitalization, health and wellbeing, signs of reactivation, reinfection, or complications of ZIKV infection, and vital signs were noted in the follow-up questionnaire (S9 File). The sample collection form (S5 File) and results form (S6 File) were also completed in each study visit.

If the participant presented complications during any follow up visit that required medical evaluation, a new form was completed (S10 File). This questionnaire captured results for exams requested or referral to specialists, symptoms of ZIKV reinfection/reactivation or complication, new symptoms, new signs in physical examination, other clinical or laboratory diagnosis and exam results. At the end of the study participation or in case of premature discontinuation, the end of the study form (S11 File) was filled.

Household contact who consented and had detectable ZIKV rRT-PCR in blood and or urine collected in the screening visit, followed the same procedures described above.

Samples storage

A biorepository, linked to the ZIKABRA protocol, was created in the participant laboratories aiming at the possibility of use in future investigations. According to the Brazil ethical regulation (regulatory documents and resolutions) resolutions, the term of validity of this type of biorepository can be authorized for up to 10 years, being possible renewals authorized by the relevant ethics committees (local review board/national review board) through an examination of justification and report presented by the researcher. The study will follow the norms contained in the Resolution CNS 441/2011 and Ordinance MS 2201.2011 of the Ministry of Health.

Statistical analyses

The study data were collected and managed using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) tools hosted at Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil [13, 14].

Statistical analyses of the study cohort profile were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0. The sociodemographic and clinical variables were determined using frequencies and proportions for categorical variables and medians and either ranges or Interquartile Ranges (IQRs) for continuous variables. Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, for categorical variables, and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables, were conducted to assess differences in sex and age between individuals enrolled and not enrolled in the study and to compare characteristics of participants who were discontinued with those who remained in the study. Two-sided tests with 5% significance levels and 95% confidence intervals were used for all parameters.

Ethical approvals

The study protocol and procedures were reviewed and approved by the WHO Ethics Review Committee (WHO ERC), Protocol ID: ERC.0002786; the Brazilian National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP)(CAAE: 62518016.6.1001.0008); the Institutional Ethics and Research Committee of the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro (CAAE: 62518016.6.2002.5262), the Ethics and Research Committee of the Rio de Janeiro’s Municipal Secretary of Health (CAAE: 2518016.6.3001.5279); the Institutional Ethics and Research Committee of the Aggeu Magalhães Research Center, Fiocruz, Recife (CAAE: 62518016.6.2001.5190) and the Institutional Ethics and Research Committee of the Tropical Medicine Foundation, Manaus, Amazonas (CAAE: 62518016.6.2003.0005). In addition, a memorandum of understanding between the Brazil MoH, WHO, Fiocruz, and WRAIR was signed.

Results

Between July 2017 and June 2019, 786 patients were assessed for eligibility (Fig 1). Of these, 260 (76 men, 184 women) participants were enrolled in the study, 255 in Manaus, and five in Recife. There was a statistically significant difference in age and sex among enrolled and not enrolled participants (Table 2).

Fig 1. Flow diagram of ZIKABRA study.

Fig 1

Table 2. Age and sex of 786 individuals assessed for eligibility in the ZIKABRA study.

Characteristics Enrolled Not Enrolled P value
(n = 260) (n = 526)
Age, years, median (IQR) 36 (27–46) 31 (23.8–41) <0.001
Sex, n (%)
    Men 76 (29.2) 208 (39.5) <0.005
    Women 184 (70.8) 318 (60.5) <0.005

A total of 4,137 study visits were performed (4,097 scheduled and 40 unscheduled visits). Among the 260 enrolled patients, 226 (86.9%) were identified as index cases and 34 (13.1%) were household contacts.

Demographic and clinical characteristics

The demographic and clinical characteristics of the study cohort are shown in Table 3. The cohort consists mainly of women (70.8%), single (46.7%), with a median age of 36.5 years (IQR; 28, 47), and with mixed-race/ethnicity (75.5%). Most individuals had high school/technical college and university/post-graduation levels of education (82.6%). Prevalence of baseline overweight and obesity were remarkably high in the study population (72.8%). No study participants were diagnosed with yellow fever in the past or malaria within 30 days prior to enrollment.

Table 3. Baseline characteristics of 260 study participants of the ZIKABRA study, by sex.

Characteristics Male Female
(n = 76) (n = 184)
Age, years, median (IQR) 35 (25.3–43) 36.5 (28–47)
Race/ethnicity, n (%)
    White 15 (19.7) 27 (14.7)
    Black 1 (1.3) 8 (4.4)
    Mixed 48 (63.2) 139 (75.5)
    Indigenous 4 (5.3) 3 (1.6)
    Yellow - 1 (0.5)
    Unknown 8 (10.5) 5 (2.7)
    Missing - 1 (0.5)
Highest formal educational attendance, n (%) 
    University/post-graduation 16 (21.1) 59 (32.1)
    High school/technical college 43 (56.6) 93 (50.5)
    Lower secondary 7 (9.2) 11 (6.0)
    Primary 9 (11.8) 20 (10.9)
    Less than primary 1 (1.3) 1 (0.5)
Marital Status, n (%)
    Single 32 (42.1) 86 (46.7)
    Married 22 (28.9) 59 (32.1)
    Living with a partner 19 (25.0) 22 (12.0)
    Separated or Divorced 3 (3.9) 14 (7.6)
    Widowed - 3 (1.6)
Household contacts, median (IQR) 3 (2–4) 2 (1–4)
Self-reported history of chronic diseases, n (%)
    Diabetes mellitus 3 (3.9) 1 (0.5)
    Hypertension 7 (9.2) 19 (10.3)
    Joint Disease 1 (1.3) 5 (2.7)
    HIV infection 1 (1.3) -
    Chronic hepatitis C - 1 (0.5)
    Other chronic diseases* 8 (10.5) 20 (10.9)
    BMI, median (IQR) 28.9 (25.2–33.1) 27 (23.2–29.9)
    Underweight - 3 (1.6)
    Normal 17 (22.4) 49 (26.6)
    Overweight 21 (27.6) 72 (39.1)
    Class I Obesity 23 (30.3) 40 (21.7)
    Class II Obesity 7 (9.2) 13 (7.1)
    Class III Obesity 8 (10.5) 3 (1.6)
    Missing - 4 (2.2)
History of blood transfusion, yes, n (%) 1(1.3) 11 (6.0)
History of allergies, yes, n (%) 16 (21.1) 40 (21.7)
History of arbovirus infection, yes, n (%)
    Zika - -
    Dengue 5 (6.6) 28 (15.2)
    Chikungunya - 2 (1.1)
    Yellow fever - -

IQR: Interquartile Range, BMI: Body mass index, in kg/m2

*Participants may have more than one chronic disease but were analyzed only once regarding the presence or not of chronic disease. Other chronic diseases reported: sickle cell disease (n = 1), breast cancer (n = 1), depression (n = 2), hypothyroidism (n = 1), hyperthyroidism (n = 1), endometriosis (n = 1), cholelithiasis (n = 1), labyrinthitis (n = 2), gastritis (n = 3), seizures (n = 1), hemorrhoids (n = 1), chronic urticaria (n = 2), contact dermatitis (n = 1), chronic sinusitis (n = 1), rotator cuff syndrome, synovitis, and tenosynovitis (n = 1), multiple myeloma (n = 1), chronic migraine (n = 1), herniated disc disease (n = 2), cardiopathy (n = 3).

Seven men (9.2%) and 38 women (20.7%) were regularly taking medications for more than 30 days. Male patients were taking medications mainly for diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and dyslipidemia, while women were being regularly medicated for hypertension, contraception, menopause, thyroid disorders, gastritis, and depressive symptoms.

Regarding yellow fever vaccine history, 50 men (65.8%) and 131 women (71.2%) received at least one dose, 21 men (27.6%) and 38 women (20.7%) did not know whether they were vaccinated, and only five men (6.6%) and 15 women (8.2%) were not immunized.

During adulthood, one man had immunization history against hepatitis A (HAV) (1/76–1.3%), seven against HBV (7/76–9.2%), seven against measles (7/76–9.2%), five against rubella (5/76–6.6%), 16 against tetanus/diphtheria (16/76–21.1%), and nine against seasonal influenza (9/76–11.8%). No man was immunized with the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. In contrast, 97 women had immunization history of HBV (40/184–21.7%), measles (24/184–13.0%), rubella (25/184–13.6%), tetanus/diphtheria (81/184–44.0%), and seasonal influenza (48/184–26.1%). Only two women were immunized against HPV. No woman was immunized against HAV and just only one man received a dengue vaccine.

Following rash, which was one of the inclusion criteria for index cases, the most reported symptoms since the onset of the disease were fever, itching, arthralgia with or without edema, non-purulent conjunctivitis, headache, and myalgia. Hemorrhagic symptoms (epistaxis, gingival, and metrorrhagia) were reported in six women. Two asymptomatic participants were included as contacts (one man and one women) (Table 4).

Table 4. Signs and symptoms at enrollment since the onset of disease of 260 study participants of the ZIKABRA study, by sex.

Signs/Symptoms Male n (%) Female n (%)
(n = 76) (n = 184)
Macular or papular rash* 75 (98.7) 183 (99.5)
Fever 72 (94.7) 163 (88.6)
Itching 72 (94.7) 182 (98.9)
Arthralgia 66 (86.8) 176 (95.7)
Nonpurulent conjunctivitis 62 (81.6) 155 (84.2)
Periarticular Edema 51 (67.1) 166 (90.2)
Headache 48 (63.2) 161 (87.5)
Myalgia 43 (58.9) 107 (60.1)
Chills 39 (52.0) 116 (63.4)
Numbness 26 (34.2) 88 (48.1)
Nausea 25 (32.9) 74 (40.2)
Photophobia 22 (28.9) 97 (52.7)
Lymphonode enlargement 21 (27.6) 55 (29.9)
Tingling 18 (23.7) 56 (30.6)
Retro-orbital pain 17 (22.4) 74 (40.2)
Sweating 16 (21.1) 44 (23.9)
Prostration 16 (21.1) 54 (29.5)
Anorexia 15 (19.7) 66 (35.9)
Diarrhea 15 (19.7) 56 (30.4)
Oropharyngeal pain 13 (17.1) 35 (19.0)
Taste alteration 13 (17.1) 41 (22.4)
Burning 13 (17.1) 40 (21.9)
Cough 10 (13.2) 21 (11.4)
Abdominal pain 8 (10.5) 37 (20.1)
Hoarseness 7 (9.2) 16 (8.7)
Nasal congestion 4 (5.3) 14 (7.6)
Dyspnea 4 (5.3) 15 (8.2)
Coryza 3 (3.9) 14 (7.6)
Earache 2 (2.7) 16 (8.7)
Mouth ulcers  1 (1.4) 17 (9.6)
Dysuria 1 (1.3) 8 (4.3)
Bleeding (Epistaxis, Ginvival, metrorrhagia) - 6 (3.3)
Jaundice - 1 (0.6)
Vomiting - 9 (4.9)

Male missing: chills (n = 1), earache (n = 1), myalgia (n = 3), mouth ulcers (n = 3). Female missing: chills (n = 1), jaundice (n = 6), numbness (n = 1), burning (n = 1), tingling (n = 1), prostration (n = 1), taste alteration (n = 1), myalgias (n = 6), mouth ulcers (n = 6).

* Two asymptomatic participants were included as contacts (one man and one women).

Study participant's examination findings at enrollment included rash, non-purulent conjunctivitis, periarticular edema, and lymphadenomegaly, usually observed in patients with ZIKV infection (Table 5).

Table 5. Physical examination at enrollment of 260 study participants of the ZIKABRA study, by sex.

Physical signs Male n (%) Female n (%)
  (n = 76)  (n = 184)
Dehydration 6 (7.9) 11 (6.0)
Pale skin/mucosa 1 (1.3) 14 (7.6)
Macular rash 12 (15.8) 36 (19.6)
Maculopapular rash 18 (23.7) 39 (21.2)
Skin erythema 5 (6.6) 10 (5.4)
Vesicular rash 1 (1.3) -
Petechiae/purpura/Ecchymosis - 3 (1.6)
Enathema 1 (1.3) -
Oropharyngeal redness 1 (1.3) -
Mouth ulcers - 1 (0.5)
Nonpurulent conjunctivitis 24 (31.6) 43 (23.4)
Muscular weakness 3 (3.9) 8 (4.3)
Coarse crackles 1 (1.3) -
Cardiac murmur - 1 (0.5)
Abdominal pain 1 (1.3) 2 (1.1)
Periarticular edema 9 (11.8) 39 (21.2)
Lymphadenopathy 21(27.6) 67 (36.4)
    Cervical 8 (38.0) 33 (49.2)
    Retroauricular 8 (38.0) 32 (47.8)
    Occipital 3 (14.3) 5 (7.5)
    Submandibular 1 (4.8) -
    Axillar 2 (9.5) 3 (4.5)
    Supraclavicular - 1 (1.5)
    Inguinal 8 (38.0) 18 (26.9)

Ten hospitalizations were reported by eight patients (two patients were hospitalized twice) during follow up, after a median of 108 days (range 7 to 266 days) following symptom onset and with a median of 1.5 days (range 1 to 20 days) of hospital stay. Reasons for hospitalizations were surgery for a teratoma removal, surgery for the extraction of a cyst in the left ovary, immobilization for fracture of the left clavicle and fracture of three fingers of the left hand, clinical and support treatment for cholelithiasis, generalized anxiety disorder, myopericarditis, severe headache, and unspecified otalgia. No deaths were associated with ZIKV infection in this cohort.

Attrition during follow-up

Thirty-seven participants were discontinued (14.2%) (Fig 1), of which 17 were lost to follow-up for unknown reasons, seven moved to an area far from the study center, six women became pregnant, five declined to continue further participation, and only two men were unable to provide a semen sample for two consecutive visits. This late discontinuation criterion was withdrawal after a protocol amendment. There was a statistically significant difference between the sex (p = 0.043) and the age (p = 0.012) of discontinued participants with participants who remained in the study (Table 6).

Table 6. Characteristics associated with discontinuation in the ZIKABRA cohort study.

Characteristics n Remained Participantsn (%) Discontinued Participants n (%) p
Age 260 0.012
    Up to 35 101 (45.3) 25 (67.6)
    > 35 122 (54.7) 12 (32.4)
Sex 260 0.043
    Male 60 (26.9) 16 (43.2)
    Female 163 (73.1) 21 (56.8)
Race/ethnicity 246 0.425
    Non-white 175 (83.7) 29 (78.4)
    White 33 (16.3) 8 (21.6)
Formal education 260 0.370
    Lower secondary and less 44 (19.7) 5 (13.5)
    High school and more 179 (80.3) 32 (86.5)
Marital Status 260 0.898
    Single/separated/divorced/widowed 118 (52.9) 20 (54.1)
    Married/living with a partner 105 (47.1) 17 (45.9)
Underlying chronic medical condition 260 0.313
    Yes 46 (20.6) 5 (13.5)
    No 177 (79.4) 32 (86.5)
BMI 256 0.827
    Underweight/overweight/obese 162 (74.0) 28 (75.7)
    Normal 57 (26.0) 9 (24.3)

BMI: Body mass index.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths

Having enrolled 260 men and women with confirmed ZIKV infection and with one year of follow-up after the acute infection, the ZIKABRA study is the longest cohort study to investigate the presence and persistence of ZIKV in several body fluids.

Full genome sequences will be obtained from several samples which will allow us to study the evolution of the virus within a patient during the disease. Genetic changes over time in consensus sequences and intra-host nucleotide variants can be investigated in different body compartments. Assays for cellular and humoral immune responses will be measured with the blood samples stored during the study. Studies will be also carried out on genetic polymorphisms within host genes reported to influence the rates of pathogen acquisition and/or disease severity.

The adherence to the collection of biological samples in the study was substantial, considering the number of visits and sample collection entailed, especially highlighting the collection of rectal swabs, which can be considered a taboo by men in some parts of Brazil.

A biorepository was established in the study centers with a wide range of specimen types creating a unique opportunity to promote future collaborations and data sharing.

So far, 2 manuscripts were published related to this study cohort. The study protocol [12] and an unprecedented publication on detection, persistence, and isolation of ZIKV in rectal swab samples [2].

Limitations

The study included participants with ZIKV infection in two regions of Brazil to also explore the possible genetic diversity of the virus and influence on viral persistence. However, due to the low circulation of ZIKV in Brazil after the 2016 outbreak, and later circulation of the virus in the northern region of the country, the center in Manaus (Amazonas) virtually included almost all the study participants [15]. As a result, the study will not have the opportunity to study genetic diversity across different regions in the country. Additionally, the final sample size of 282 males and females was not reached, limiting some statistical analysis. This sample size was estimated for evaluation of the primary outcome which is the overall ZIKV persistence rate by 12 months (taking into consideration a design/clustering effect and loss to follow up).

Another limitation of the study that somewhat delayed the start of processing of the study samples was the need to validate some kits and diagnostic tests in fluids that had not been previously validated and somehow intermittent availability of some diagnostic kits and funding provided by the Ministry of Health due to the bureaucratic process.

Finally, the impossibility of following pregnant women in the study and outcomes of ZIKV infection in babies in this cohort. After careful evaluation of risks and benefits of the research for pregnant women, and considering the frequency of collection of body fluids, pregnancy was an exclusion criterion of the study. Following the same principle, women that became pregnant during the study had their participation discontinued. They were, however, promptly referred to existing specialized units for the care of pregnant women with Zika, where adequate care for their special needs and followed up to delivery was provided. All information and exams related to this patient and collected during the study period were shared with the referred unit. Besides, some pregnant patients were invited to participate in ongoing cohort studies of pregnant women infected with ZIKV available in the city where the study was conducted.

Supporting information

S1 File. PRE: Pre-screening form.

(PDF)

S2 File. TRI: Screening form.

(PDF)

S3 File. IDE: Identification form.

(PDF)

S4 File. REC: Enrollment form.

(PDF)

S5 File. AMO: Sample collection form.

(PDF)

S6 File. RES: Body fluids results form.

(PDF)

S7 File. RAP: Rapid tests/serology form.

(PDF)

S8 File. CLA: Clinical questionnaire a form.

(PDF)

S9 File. SEG: Follow-up form.

(PDF)

S10 File. CLB: Clinical questionnaire B form.

(PDF)

S11 File. FIM: End of the study form.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The ZIKABRA study team would like to thank all patients who participate in the research. Also, the healthcare workers in Recife who helped us by providing an exclusive/private space at the Hospital das Clínicas for the study to be carried out (Frederico Jorge Ribeiro, Celia Maria Machado Barbosa de Castro, Ana Maria Menezes Caetano, Jose Angelo Rizzo. The healthcare workers at the UPA Caxanga where patients were screened (Audrey Vasconcelos and Georgia Assunção), the Secretary of Health from Rio de Janeiro (Cristina Lemos), and Recife (Jailson Correa) who provided the epidemiological situation of the Zika virus disease.

And finally to the ZIKABRA Study Team (in alphabetical order): Abreu, André Luiz de (General Coordination of Public Health Laboratories (CGLAB/DAEVS/SVS/MS), Brasília-DF, Brazil); Bermudez, Ximena Pamela Diaz (Department of Public Health, University of Brasília, Brasília-DF, Brazil); Bôtto-Menezes, Camila Helena Aguiar (Department of Malaria, Tropical Medicine Foundation Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado (FMT-HVD), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil & School of Health Sciences, Amazonas State University (UEA), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil); Brasil, Patrícia (Acute Febrile Illnesses Laboratory, Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); Brito, Carlos Alexandre Antunes (Clinical Hospital of Federal University, Department of Internal Medicine, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil); Broutet, Nathalie Jeanne Nicole (Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland–lead author, email: broutetn@who.int; Calvet, Guilherme Amaral (Acute Febrile Illnesses Laboratory, Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); Castilho, Marcia da Costa (Department of Malaria, Tropical Medicine Foundation Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado (FMT-HVD), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil); Fernandes, Tatiana Jorge (Acute Febrile Illnesses Laboratory, Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); Filippis, Ana Maria Bispo de (Flavivirus Laboratory, Oswaldo Cruz Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); Franca, Rafael Freitas Oliveira (Department of Virology and Experimental Therapy, Institute Aggeu Magalhães, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil); Giozza, Silvana Pereira (Department of Chronic Condition Diseases and Sexually Transmitted Infections, Health Surveillance Secretariat, Ministry of Health, Brazil); Habib, Ndema (Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland); Kara, Edna Oliveira (Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland); Lacerda, Marcus Vinicius Guimarães (Department of Malaria, Tropical Medicine Foundation Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado (FMT-HVD), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil & Instituto Leônidas & Maria Deane, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil); Landoulsi, Sihem (Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland); Lima, Morganna Costa (Department of Virology and Experimental Therapy, Institute Aggeu Magalhães, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil); Lima, Noemia (Emerging Infectious Diseases Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD, United States of America); Mello, Maeve Brito de (Regional Advisor for HIV and STI Prevention, Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), WDC, United States of America); Meurant, Robyn (Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland); Modjarrad, Kayvon (Emerging Infectious Diseases Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD, United States of America); Neto, Armando Menezes (Department of Virology and Experimental Therapy, Institute Aggeu Magalhães, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil); Pereira, Gerson Fernando (Department of Chronic Condition Diseases and Sexually Transmitted Infections, Health Surveillance Secretariat, Ministry of Health, Brazil), Pimenta, Cristina (Department of Chronic Condition Diseases and Sexually Transmitted Infections, Health Surveillance Secretariat, Ministry of Health, Brazil); Storme, Casey (Emerging Infectious Diseases Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD, United States of America); Ströher, Ute (Regulation and Prequalification Department, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland); Thorson, Anna (Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland); Trautman, Lydie (US Military HIV Research Program, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America).

Data Availability

Data underlying the study cannot be made publicly available due to ethical concerns, as data contain several personally identifiable information. Data are available from Oswaldo Cruz Foundation for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Contact information: Institutional Ethics and Research Committee of the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases, email: cep@ini.fiocruz.br or Guilherme Amaral Calvet; email: guilherme.calvet@ini.fiocruz.br.

Funding Statement

GAC, AMBF, KM, MVGL, NJNB. The research leading to these results received funding from the Wellcome Trust: Grant Number 206522/Z/17/Z, World Health Organization: Reference TSA1-2017/720873-0 and TSA2-2017/731359-0, Brazilian Ministry of Health: Convênio 837059/2016, Processo 25000162039201616, National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health: Award Number R21AI139777 and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine: Prime Award No W81XWH-18-2-0040. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Musso D, Roche C, Nhan TX, Robin E, Teissier A, Cao-Lormeau VM. Detection of Zika virus in saliva. J Clin Virol. 2015;68:53–5. Epub 2015/06/14. 10.1016/j.jcv.2015.04.021 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Botto-Menezes CHA, Neto AM, Calvet GA, Kara EO, Lacerda MVG, Castilho MDC, et al. Zika Virus in Rectal Swab Samples. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25(5):951–4. Epub 2019/04/20. 10.3201/eid2505.180904 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bonaldo MC, Ribeiro IP, Lima NS, Dos Santos AA, Menezes LS, da Cruz SO, et al. Isolation of Infective Zika Virus from Urine and Saliva of Patients in Brazil. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2016;10(6):e0004816 Epub 2016/06/25. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004816 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Reyes Y, Bowman NM, Becker-Dreps S, Centeno E, Collins MH, Liou GA, et al. Prolonged Shedding of Zika Virus RNA in Vaginal Secretions, Nicaragua. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25(4):808–10. Epub 2019/03/19. 10.3201/eid2504.180977 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Medina FA, Torres G, Acevedo J, Fonseca S, Casiano L, De Leon-Rodriguez CM, et al. Duration of the Presence of Infectious Zika Virus in Semen and Serum. J Infect Dis. 2019;219(1):31–40. Epub 2018/07/31. 10.1093/infdis/jiy462 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Calvet G, Aguiar RS, Melo ASO, Sampaio SA, de Filippis I, Fabri A, et al. Detection and sequencing of Zika virus from amniotic fluid of fetuses with microcephaly in Brazil: a case study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(6):653–60. Epub 2016/02/22. 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00095-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Paz-Bailey G, Rosenberg ES, Sharp TM. Persistence of Zika Virus in Body Fluids—Final Report. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(2):198–9. Epub 2019/01/10. 10.1056/NEJMc1814416 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Blohm GM, Lednicky JA, Marquez M, White SK, Loeb JC, Pacheco CA, et al. Evidence for Mother-to-Child Transmission of Zika Virus Through Breast Milk. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(7):1120–1. Epub 2018/01/05. 10.1093/cid/cix968 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sanchez-Montalva A, Pou D, Sulleiro E, Salvador F, Bocanegra C, Trevino B, et al. Zika virus dynamics in body fluids and risk of sexual transmission in a non-endemic area. Trop Med Int Health. 2018;23(1):92–100. Epub 2017/12/02. 10.1111/tmi.13019 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Foy BD, Kobylinski KC, Chilson Foy JL, Blitvich BJ, Travassos da Rosa A, Haddow AD, et al. Probable non-vector-borne transmission of Zika virus, Colorado, USA. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(5):880–2. Epub 2011/05/03. 10.3201/eid1705.101939 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Venturi G, Zammarchi L, Fortuna C, Remoli ME, Benedetti E, Fiorentini C, et al. An autochthonous case of Zika due to possible sexual transmission, Florence, Italy, 2014. Euro Surveill. 2016;21(8):30148 Epub 2016/03/05. 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2016.21.8.30148 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Calvet GA, Kara EO, Giozza SP, Botto-Menezes CHA, Gaillard P, de Oliveira Franca RF, et al. Study on the persistence of Zika virus (ZIKV) in body fluids of patients with ZIKV infection in Brazil. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):49 Epub 2018/01/24. 10.1186/s12879-018-2965-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81. Epub 2008/10/22. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O'Neal L, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208 Epub 2019/05/13. 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde − Ministério da Saúde. Monitoramento dos casos de dengue, febre de chikungunya e febre pelo vírus Zika até a Semana Epidemiológica 52, 2017. Volume 49, N° 2–2018. [cited 2020 November 16]. Available from https://antigo.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2018/janeiro/23/Boletim-2018-001-Dengue.pdf.

Decision Letter 0

Pierre Roques

9 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-28958

Cohort profile: Study on the persistence of Zika virus in body fluids of patients with ZIKV infection in Brazil (ZIKABRA Study)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Calvet,

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.

A large rewritting is requested taking in accoun the general comment from the reviewer 2. As the persistence is the main item analysed here the virology data (ie RNA detection or virus isolation) cannot be partialy skipped as noted by the reviewer 2. The description of the cohort building may be improved by a flowchart as suggested by reviewer 1. Altogether the comments of the 2 reviewers pointed out a paper that deserved to be improved by some clarification in the material and method (and mainly the cohort description) and more carefully linked with the former of future papers that the authors plane to do with this work to improve the discussion conclusion.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 23 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pierre Roques, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. 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.

3. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium [ZIKABRA Study Team]. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: It is great to see a study of this important health issue in Brazil. This is an important arbovirus in Latin America and elsewhere. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed.

Line 89. Screening and recruitment in the cohort: How were the patients recruited? How were the participants referred to the screening locations? Additional details should be provided elaborating upon the information in reference 12.

Line 98. Here it is mentioned that no participants were recruited from Rio de Janeiro. Elsewhere the study alludes to recruitment in three cities. As there was no recruitment from Rio de Janeiro, perhaps Rio de Janeiro should not be mentioned in the methods at all. Furthermore, the statement that there was difference in incidence among the cities should be justified by citing a reference.

The authors should list the eligibility criteria in greater detail, and provide a list of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. For example, the text suggests that the most important symptom was rash. However, in Table 3, not all participants had rash.

ICFs are mentioned on line 107 and line 122. Were there two ICFs? Please clarify. Perhaps a flowchart would make this clearer.

Line 116. “the management was done according to regular procedures”. The authors should explain what is meant by “regular procedures”.

Line 120. “Individuals with rRT-PCR…”. Was the PCR qualitative or quantitative? If the latter, please list the cycle threshold used to classify a sample as positive.

Line 169. The authors repeatedly refer to “Household/sexual contact”. Presumably these two types of contacts are distinct. The study would benefit from clarifying the differences between these two types of contacts.

Line 184. Future collaborations. This section of the text is written in the future tense. The previous sections were written in the present tense. It would strengthen the manuscript to reword this text to use the same tense consistently.

Line 221. Statistical Analysis. The information about the loss to follow-up after three attempts to contact does not fit in well with the data on statistical methods. This could be moved to the section about Methods: Enrollment.

Results

Line 261. Currently, the text states that an individual was classified as having prior exposure to malaria if he or she reported malaria in the previous 30 days. This definition may be too restrictive. The definition of the malaria and Yellow Fever could be improved by stating that patients were assessed for recent malaria or Yellow Fever, without limiting the diagnosis to the last 30 days.

Line 293. Here it is reported that maculopapular rash was the “most important” symptom. It would make the text more precise if the authors were to list the frequency of rash among the participants, which is given in Table 3.

Line 366. Here it is stated that during the recruitment period incidence was low in Brazil. I suggest citing a reference to justify this.

Table 2. What is the difference between “Don’t known”, “missing”, and “other”? I suggest replacing “don’t known” with “unknown”. Moreover, it would strengthen the manuscript to list the sample size N and the number of missing. It might benefit the study to compare demographic characteristics of the positive and negative individuals. E.g. was average age different between ZIKV positive and negative individuals?

Perhaps the study could mention that the persistence of the virus in sperm is important as it could potentially prolong the persistence of ZIKV in the population. For example, during the Ebola epidemic in West Africa in 2016, the virus was spread both by sexual intercourse as well as by other forms of physical contact. Epidemiological studies demonstrated that the first wave of the epidemic was driven by transmission due to physical contact that was not sexual in nature. Subsequent smaller outbreaks were attributed to sexual transmission. There may be parallels with the transmission of Zika by two different routes: mosquito transmission and sexual intercourse.

In connection with this, sexual contacts should be added to the first box of Figure 1.

Reviewer #2: Reviewer report- Cohort profile: Study on the persistence of Zika virus in body fluids of patients with ZIKV infection in Brazil

Summary

Authors of the paper provide a reporting on a cohort that enrolled acute ZIKV patients and their symptomatic and asymptomatic household/sexual contacts. The name of the cohort is ZIKABRA. It is a prospective cohort supported by the WHO and conducted in Brazil to assess the presence and maintenance of ZIKV in human body fluids. Several related markers of infection will be evaluated in the cohort.

Overall impression

Herein, the authors provide an exhaustive reporting of clinical data of participants enrolled in the ZIKABRA cohort. All models of recording questionnaire frames used in the study are available and the tables contains all results on the clinical status and characteristics of the participants.

However, the reporting lacks to developpe specific data and tables about the presence of the virus itself (RNA or virus isolation, as author implement their study especially in places with facilities allowing isolation and detection of the virus). There is only one paragraph, named “Biological specimens”, that shortly summarized the presence of the RNA virus in some fluids.

There isn’t any more information instead of the percentage value of positive participants.

The authors have already published 2 papers on this cohorts and so they will probably publish paper on each fluid separately, but it should be nice to have more discussion on the results reported in this paper.

For example, we haven’t any information of the % of positive male/female for each kind of fluids (obviously apart for semen, breast milk or vaginal secretions). We don’t know neither the positive participants belong to the index case participants or household/sexual contacts, nor the % that correspond to the symptomatic/asymptomatic.

Authors noted some information but failed to develop hypothesize about these facts. For instance, they noted that an important part of overweight people in participants, is there any link with disease presentation or the presence of the virus in fluids?

Authors issued the potential alternative diagnostic tool due to detection of ZIKV RNA in several fluids in the abstract section but they don’t give more information in the main text about this interesting outcome.

Then, authors reported some difficulties to fix the detection of ZIKV RNA, which kind of difficulties to overcome?

I invite authors to go little deeper in the analyze of the results presented in this reporting and link these ones with the presence of the virus in body fluids.

Minor issues

Line 1: The title of the first publication Botto-Menezes et al (doi: 10.3201/eid2505.180904) on this cohort was « Study on the persistence of Zika virus (ZIKV) in body fluids of patients with ZIKV infection in Brazil » and the title of the current submitted paper is : « Cohort profile: Study on the persistence of Zika virus in body fluids of patients with ZIKV infection in Brazil ». Both titles are very closed and it this can be confusing for the reader. May you change the title ?

have to be done in results not in discussion.

Line 67-68: “… coinfection like dengue…”. Please authors write “dengue and chikungunya” but right next words they use HIV, Hepatitis B (HBV)… If authors describe the virus and not the desease, please correct with “dengue virus (DENV)” and “chikungunya virus (CHIKV)”.

Line 85: “… chain reaction (rRT-PCR)…” please homogenized the term for Real Time revers transcription polymerase chain reaction in the text because in line 95 RT-PCR is used.

Line 96: used the short form DENV and CHIKV as authors describe viruses (like ZIKV)

Line 131: used the short form HBV and HCV as authors mention above for all the virus (Line 68).

Line 200: “Specific proposals for collaboration are welcome…”, curious statement in a materiel and methods part.

**********

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.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 5;16(1):e0244981. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244981.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Nov 2020

REVIEWER COMMENTS

REVIEWER 1

Line 89

Screening and recruitment in the cohort

• How were the patients recruited?

• How were the participants referred to the screening locations?

• Additional details should be provided elaborating upon the information in reference 12

We added a paragraph to detail how the potential participants were identified and referred to the studies sites: “Briefly, the identification of symptomatic subjects took place in the collaborating clinics: Fiocruz ambulatory (Recife), Tropical Medicine Foundation Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado (FMT-HVD) ambulatory (Manaus), primary health centers (Family Clinics) and 24-hour emergency units located in the areas of the study intervention. At each of these screening sites, a triage system took place to refer individuals meeting the study inclusion criteria for consideration for enrolment in the study sites.”

Line 98

Here it is mentioned that no participants were recruited from Rio de Janeiro. Elsewhere the study alludes to recruitment in three cities. As there was no recruitment from Rio de Janeiro, perhaps Rio de Janeiro should not be mentioned in the methods at all. Furthermore, the statement that there was difference in incidence among the cities should be justified by citing a reference.

Thank you for your pertinent suggestion. The paragraph was modified and the information regarding Rio de Janeiro was suppressed.

“Patients with ZIKV infection were screened and enrolled in two study sites in Recife and Manaus cities, representing two regions of Brazil (Northeast and North, respectively). The study sites were selected based on the presence of high population density, high circulation of ZIKV, strong community health network and laboratory facilities able to perform viral culture, ZIKV antigen assays, rRT-PCR, IgM/IgG, neutralizing antibodies test (specific for ZIKV, DENV, and CHIKV) and genetic sequencing. However, by the time of the study onset, the number of ZIKV cases dropped dramatically in Recife. As a result, only five participants were recruited in that site between 21 July 2017 and 13 August 2018.”

The authors should list the eligibility criteria in greater detail, and provide a list of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. For example, the text suggests that the most important symptom was rash. However, in Table 3, not all participants had rash. A new section on inclusion and exclusion criteria has been added to the manuscript.

“Index screening inclusion and exclusion criteria

Index case screening inclusion criteria: Men and women ≥ 18 years with acute illness presenting rash; having given consent to blood and urine collection for rRT-PCR (real time revere transcription polymerase chain reaction) testing and to be enrolled if the test result in either sample return positive, including attendance to the study clinic for follow-up visits over 12 months comprising 17 visits, and provide body fluid according to the testing schedule.

Index case screening exclusion criteria: Individuals under 18 years of age; pregnancy; presenting a condition that would not allow reliable informed consent (e.g. alcohol abuse and substance misuse) or lacking mental capacity to consent participation.

Index case enrolment inclusion criteria: Presenting rRT-PCR test positive for ZIKV in blood and/or urine specimens; having given consent for all body fluid collection, as appropriate, according to the testing schedule.

Index case enrolment exclusion criteria: Presenting rRT-PCR negative test results for ZIKV in blood and urine specimens collected during screening.

Household contacts screening and enrollment criteria

Household contact screening inclusion criteria: individual aged 18 years and above; having given consent for rRT-PCR testing in blood and urine and subsequent enrollment if the tests return a positive result, including coming back to all follow-up visits and provide body fluid according to the testing schedule; no intention to move to a place that would not make possible attendance to the study clinic to continue with the study procedures as per protocol.

Household contact screening exclusion criteria - As per index case.

Household contact enrolment inclusion and exclusion criteria- As per index case.”

After submission, a second review of the CRFs was performed and two women were found to have a history of rash, and consequently this information is provided in table 3.

In addition, during this process, further two asymptomatic participants with detectable rRT-PCR were included as contacts. This sentence was added in the text for clarification.

Also, we revised the table 3 to include symptoms that occurred since the acute phase of the disease and modified the title of the table.

Line 107 and 122

ICFs are mentioned on line 107 and line 122. Were there two ICFs? Please clarify. Perhaps a flowchart would make this clearer.

Two informed consent forms were used in the study, for the screening and enrollment phases.

We opted for not adding a flow chart and instead include a paragraph stating the use of these two types of Informed consent.

Line 116.

“the management was done according to regular procedures”. The authors should explain what is meant by “regular procedures”.

The paragraph was changed to: “The screening test results were delivered to the participant by the study nurse. Individuals whose ZIKV rRT-PCR tests returned negative in blood and urine, were referred to the clinic where they were seen in the first place to receive routine clinical standard of care.”

Line 120.

“Individuals with rRT-PCR…”. Was the PCR qualitative or quantitative? If the latter, please list the cycle threshold used to classify a sample as positive.

Thank you for this relevant comment. A new section entitled: “ZIKV detection” has been added to the manuscript containing the following information:

“ZIKV detection was performed by rRT-PCR employing a commercial kit namely ZDC, from the Instituto de Tecnologia em Imunobiológicos Biomanguinhos. The kit was approved by the Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária/ANVISA (registry #80142170032). A test was deemed positive when a sample returned within 38 amplification cycles.”

Line 169

The authors repeatedly refer to “Household/sexual contact”. Presumably these two types of contacts are distinct. The study would benefit from clarifying the differences between these two types of contacts.

Initially, the study intended to distinguish between household contact and sexual partner for potential ancillary study assessing the contribution of sexual transmission. However, this information is not relevant considering the primary objectives of the cohort study. For this reason, the word "sexual" has been removed from the text.

Line 184. Future collaborations. This section of the text is written in the future tense. The previous sections were written in the present tense. It would strengthen the manuscript to reword this text to use the same tense consistently.

Thank you for your remarks with which we completely agree. As we collected several personally identifiers we decided to delete this section form the manuscript. The following information will be added to the manuscript:

Data Availability: Data underlying the study cannot be made publicly available due to ethical concerns, as data contain several personally identifiable information. Data are available from Oswaldo Cruz Foundation for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Contact information: Institutional Ethics and Research Committee of the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases, email: cep@ini.fiocruz.br or Guilherme Amaral Calvet; email: guilherme.calvet@ini.fiocruz.br

Line 221.

Statistical Analysis. The information about the loss to follow-up after three attempts to contact does not fit in well with the data on statistical methods. This could be moved to the section about Methods: Enrollment.

We agree with this pertinent comment. The text has been moved to the Methods section.

Results

Line 261

Currently, the text states that an individual was classified as having prior exposure to malaria if he or she reported malaria in the previous 30 days. This definition may be too restrictive. The definition of the malaria and Yellow Fever could be improved by stating that patients were assessed for recent malaria or Yellow Fever, without limiting the diagnosis to the last 30 days.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed the sentence to make it clearer that we have checked the individual’s history of yellow fever and only for malaria within the 30 days prior to enrollment. “No study participants were diagnosed with yellow fever in the past or malaria within 30 days prior to enrollment”.

Line 293

Here it is reported that maculopapular rash was the “most important” symptom. It would make the text more precise if the authors were to list the frequency of rash among the participants, which is given in Table 3. Having a rash was one of the criteria adopted for screening potential study participants. The sentence was reworded to “Following rash, which was one of the inclusion criteria for index cases, the most reported symptoms in the enrollment visit since the onset of the disease were fever, itching, arthralgia with or without edema, non-purulent conjunctivitis, headache, and myalgia.”

Line 366

Here it is stated that during the recruitment period incidence was low in Brazil. I suggest citing a reference to justify this.

Thank you for this very appropriate suggestion. We have included a new reference to support the statement made in the text related to the decrease in incidence rates during the study recruitment phase.

[16] Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde − Ministério da Saúde. Monitoramento dos casos de dengue, febre de chikungunya e febre pelo vírus Zika até a Semana Epidemiológica 52, 2017. Volume 49, N° 2 - 2018. [cited 2020 November 16]. Available from https://antigo.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2018/janeiro/23/Boletim-2018-001-Dengue.pdf.

Table 2.

What is the difference between “Don’t known”, “missing”, and “other”? I suggest replacing “don’t known” with “unknown”.

We apologize for the typo as we were meant to use “don’t know” rather than “don’t known”. The option “Other” referred to any ethnicity not covered by the list provided under the variable Ethnicity. We thank you for the suggestion to use “unknown” which has been accepted and adopted when patients were unable to define their race/ethnicity. The category “Other” was deleted and the only participant reported in the category was considered as “mixed”. “Missing” refers to information not provided in the CRF. The table 2 has been corrected to reflect the changes aforementioned.

Moreover, it would strengthen the manuscript to list the sample size N and the number of missing.

Thank you for this recommendation. The information on sample size and missing information have been added to the table.

It might benefit the study to compare demographic characteristics of the positive and negative individuals. E.g. was average age different between ZIKV positive and negative individuals?

This is an important point, thank you. We agree with the recommendation and have included a sentence preceding a new table that contains the comparison between the two groups (individuals with positive and negative results for ZIKV). We found statistically significant differences in age and sex among enrolled and not enrolled participants. A comment on this finding has been added to the manuscript.

Perhaps the study could mention that the persistence of the virus in sperm is important as it could potentially prolong the persistence of ZIKV in the population. For example, during the Ebola epidemic in West Africa in 2016, the virus was spread both by sexual intercourse as well as by other forms of physical contact. Epidemiological studies demonstrated that the first wave of the epidemic was driven by transmission due to physical contact that was not sexual in nature. Subsequent smaller outbreaks were attributed to sexual transmission. There may be parallels with the transmission of Zika by two different routes: mosquito transmission and sexual intercourse.

In connection with this, sexual contacts should be added to the first box of Figure 1.

We thank the information provided by the reviewer on Ebola transmission which we were aware of. However, this will be part of the Discussion section of the paper where we will be reporting the results for persistence in each of the studied body fluids. The objective of the current manuscript is to describe the profile of the cohort and is intended to be used as a reference.

REVIEWER 2

Herein, the authors provide an exhaustive reporting of clinical data of participants enrolled in the ZIKABRA cohort. All models of recording questionnaire frames used in the study are available and the tables contains all results on the clinical status and characteristics of the participants.

However, the reporting lacks to developpe specific data and tables about the presence of the virus itself (RNA or virus isolation, as author implement their study especially in places with facilities allowing isolation and detection of the virus). There is only one paragraph, named “Biological specimens”, that shortly summarized the presence of the RNA virus in some fluids. There isn’t any more information instead of the percentage value of positive participants. The authors have already published 2 papers on this cohorts and so they will probably publish paper on each fluid separately, but it should be nice to have more discussion on the results reported in this paper.

For example, we haven’t any information of the % of positive male/female for each kind of fluids (obviously apart for semen, breast milk or vaginal secretions). We don’t know neither the positive participants belong to the index case participants or household/sexual contacts, nor the % that correspond to the symptomatic/asymptomatic. As informed above, the aim of this manuscript is to report the cohort profile in detail. The results on Zika persistence in different body fluids is the object of another paper that is being prepared and will be submitted soon.

For this reason and to keep consistency with the objective of the current paper, we decided to delete any information on viral persistence included in the text.

This was an option to avoid a very lengthy article reporting the results on persistence.

Authors noted some information but failed to develop hypothesize about these facts. For instance, they noted that an important part of overweight people in participants, is there any link with disease presentation or the presence of the virus in fluids? Thank you for the insightful comment. We judge that this would be more appropriate for the manuscript on viral persistence where logistic regression will be conducted to assess possible factors associated with viral persistence.

Authors issued the potential alternative diagnostic tool due to detection of ZIKV RNA in several fluids in the abstract section but they don’t give more information in the main text about this interesting outcome.

We decided to delete this text from the manuscript after receiving your pertinent comment. This was not relevant to what we were intending to report in this paper.

Then, authors reported some difficulties to fix the detection of ZIKV RNA, which kind of difficulties to overcome?

The kits used in the study had been validated for serum, saliva and urine. An extra effort was necessary to standardize the methodology for detection in other fluids. In the case of semen, for instance, the viscosity was an important factor and more diluted samples were used to enable detection.

I invite authors to go little deeper in the analyze of the results presented in this reporting and link these ones with the presence of the virus in body fluids.

We have addressed this point in the answer above related publication of persistence results. Thank you for your suggestion and please refer to our answer for similar points made before.

Line 1:

The title of the first publication Botto-Menezes et al (doi: 10.3201/eid2505.180904) on this cohort was « Study on the persistence of Zika virus (ZIKV) in body fluids of patients with ZIKV infection in Brazil » and the title of the current submitted paper is : « Cohort profile: Study on the persistence of Zika virus in body fluids of patients with ZIKV infection in Brazil ». Both titles are very closed and it this can be confusing for the reader. May you change the title?

have to be done in results not in discussion.

The actual title for the paper referred by the reviewer is “Zika virus in rectal swab samples.” This has been published as an ancillary study by the ZikaBra study team.

In case the intention was to compare the current manuscript with the protocol publication, we would like to highlight that the title adopted was intentional, considering that we are reporting the profile of this cohort. We only added “cohort profile” to make it clear.

Reference: Calvet GA, Kara EO, Giozza SP, Botto-Menezes CHA, Gaillard P, de Oliveira Franca RF, et al. Study on the persistence of Zika virus (ZIKV) in body fluids of patients with ZIKV infection in Brazil. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):49. Epub 2018/01/24. doi: 10.1186/s12879-018-2965-4. PubMed PMID: 29357841; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5778641.

Line 67-68:

“… coinfection like dengue…”. Please authors write “dengue and chikungunya” but right next words they use HIV, Hepatitis B (HBV)… If authors describe the virus and not the desease, please correct with “dengue virus (DENV)” and “chikungunya virus (CHIKV)”.

Thank you for this relevant recommendation. We agree with the reviewer’s points and have corrected the text as suggested.

Line 85:

“… chain reaction (rRT-PCR)…” please homogenized the term for Real Time revers transcription polymerase chain reaction in the text because in line 95 RT-PCR is used.

Thank you. The text has been corrected accordingly.

Line 96

Used the short form DENV and CHIKV as authors describe viruses (like ZIKV)

Thank you. The text has been corrected accordingly.

Line 131

Used the short form HBV and HCV as authors mention above for all the virus (Line 68).

We agree with the reviewer and have corrected the text as suggested.

Line 200:

“Specific proposals for collaboration are welcome…”, curious statement in a materiel and methods part.

Thank you for your comment. As previously mentioned, we decided to delete this section.

2. 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.

Yes. As we collected several personally identifiers and sensitive data from the study participants, we ask the editors to consider the following statement to be written in the manuscript, if accepted for publication:

Data Availability: Data underlying the study cannot be made publicly available due to ethical concerns, as data contain several personally identifiable information. Data are available from Oswaldo Cruz Foundation for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Contact information: Institutional Ethics and Research Committee of the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases, email: cep@ini.fiocruz.br or Guilherme Amaral Calvet; email: guilherme.calvet@ini.fiocruz.br

3. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium [ZIKABRA Study Team]. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

Thank you for this recommendation. We listed the individual authors and affiliations and indicated a lead author for the ZIKABRA Study Team in the acknowledgements section:

“And finally to the ZIKABRA Study Team (in alphabetical order): Abreu, André Luiz de (General Coordination of Public Health Laboratories (CGLAB/DAEVS/SVS/MS), Brasília-DF, Brazil); Bermudez, Ximena Pamela Diaz (Department of Public Health, University of Brasília, Brasília-DF, Brazil); Bôtto-Menezes, Camila Helena Aguiar (Department of Malaria, Tropical Medicine Foundation Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado (FMT-HVD), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil & School of Health Sciences, Amazonas State University (UEA), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil); Brasil, Patrícia (Acute Febrile Illnesses Laboratory, Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); Brito, Carlos Alexandre Antunes (Clinical Hospital of Federal University, Department of Internal Medicine, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil); Broutet, Nathalie Jeanne Nicole (Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland – lead author, email: broutetn@who.int; Calvet, Guilherme Amaral (Acute Febrile Illnesses Laboratory, Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); Castilho, Marcia da Costa (Department of Malaria, Tropical Medicine Foundation Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado (FMT-HVD), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil); Fernandes, Tatiana Jorge (Acute Febrile Illnesses Laboratory, Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); Filippis, Ana Maria Bispo de (Flavivirus Laboratory, Oswaldo Cruz Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro,Brazil); Franca, Rafael Freitas Oliveira (Department of Virology and Experimental Therapy, Institute Aggeu Magalhães, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil); Giozza, Silvana Pereira (Department of Chronic Condition Diseases and Sexually Transmitted Infections, Health Surveillance Secretariat, Ministry of Health, Brazil); Habib, Ndema (Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland); Kara, Edna Oliveira (Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland); Lacerda, Marcus Vinicius Guimarães (Department of Malaria, Tropical Medicine Foundation Doctor Heitor Vieira Dourado (FMT-HVD), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil & Instituto Leônidas & Maria Deane, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil); Landoulsi, Sihem (Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland); Lima, Morganna Costa (Department of Virology and Experimental Therapy, Institute Aggeu Magalhães, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil); Lima, Noemia (Emerging Infectious Diseases Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD, United States of America); Mello, Maeve Brito de (Regional Advisor for HIV and STI Prevention, Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), WDC, United States of America); Meurant, Robyn (Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland); Modjarrad, Kayvon (Emerging Infectious Diseases Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD, United States of America); Neto, Armando Menezes (Department of Virology and Experimental Therapy, Institute Aggeu Magalhães, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil); Pereira, Gerson Fernando (Department of Chronic Condition Diseases and Sexually Transmitted Infections, Health Surveillance Secretariat, Ministry of Health, Brazil), Pimenta, Cristina (Department of Chronic Condition Diseases and Sexually Transmitted Infections, Health Surveillance Secretariat, Ministry of Health, Brazil); Storme, Casey (Emerging Infectious Diseases Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD, United States of America); Ströher, Ute (Regulation and Prequalification Department, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland); Thorson, Anna (Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland); Trautman, Lydie (US Military HIV Research Program, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America).”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_23.11.2020.docx

Decision Letter 1

Pierre Roques

16 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-28958R1

Cohort profile: Study on the persistence of Zika virus in body fluids of patients with ZIKV infection in Brazil (ZIKABRA Study)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Calvet,

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.

You have to stated correctly the objective of the article in both the title and the abstract in order it reflect the result and description you provide.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 30 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pierre Roques, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

To have any chance of publication the title and abstract must reflect the contain of the article and thus cannot claimed any virological result (viral load in fluid) that you deleted from the final version.

I thus suggest either you provide a true description or you will come back with the data you speach about you would like to provide in a future article.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Authors answer or/and corrected minor suggestions.

However, in the answer to comments, they mentioned that the purpose/objective of this paper was only to report the profile of a cohort and delete any information on viral persistence, submitting results and virologic data to a future publication dedicated to this purpose. They answered only to the minor comments, stayed evasive and avoided the question relative to presence of ZIKV keeping this point for a future publication.

I therefore note that this paper is only about the cohort profile but not on ZIKV persistence in body fluid contrary to what the title suggests.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 5;16(1):e0244981. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244981.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


18 Dec 2020

Authors answer or/and corrected minor suggestions. However, in the answer to comments, they mentioned that the purpose/objective of this paper was only to report the profile of a cohort and delete any information on viral persistence, submitting results and virologic data to a future publication dedicated to this purpose. They answered only to the minor comments, stayed evasive and avoided the question relative to presence of ZIKV keeping this point for a future publication.

I therefore note that this paper is only about the cohort profile but not on ZIKV persistence in body fluid contrary to what the title suggests.

We agree with this pertinent comment.

We changed the manuscript title to: “Cohort profile: Study on Zika virus infection in Brazil (ZIKABRA Study)”

We also changed the short title and add a sentence in the abstract section to better reflect the objective of the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_18.12.2020.docx

Decision Letter 2

Pierre Roques

21 Dec 2020

Cohort profile: Study on Zika virus infection in Brazil (ZIKABRA Study)

PONE-D-20-28958R2

Dear Dr. Calvet,

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,

Pierre Roques, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Pierre Roques

23 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-28958R2

Cohort profile: Study on Zika virus infection in Brazil (ZIKABRA Study)

Dear Dr. Calvet:

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. Pierre Roques

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. PRE: Pre-screening form.

    (PDF)

    S2 File. TRI: Screening form.

    (PDF)

    S3 File. IDE: Identification form.

    (PDF)

    S4 File. REC: Enrollment form.

    (PDF)

    S5 File. AMO: Sample collection form.

    (PDF)

    S6 File. RES: Body fluids results form.

    (PDF)

    S7 File. RAP: Rapid tests/serology form.

    (PDF)

    S8 File. CLA: Clinical questionnaire a form.

    (PDF)

    S9 File. SEG: Follow-up form.

    (PDF)

    S10 File. CLB: Clinical questionnaire B form.

    (PDF)

    S11 File. FIM: End of the study form.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_23.11.2020.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_18.12.2020.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data underlying the study cannot be made publicly available due to ethical concerns, as data contain several personally identifiable information. Data are available from Oswaldo Cruz Foundation for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Contact information: Institutional Ethics and Research Committee of the Evandro Chagas National Institute of Infectious Diseases, email: cep@ini.fiocruz.br or Guilherme Amaral Calvet; email: guilherme.calvet@ini.fiocruz.br.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES