Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Mar 3;16(3):e0247251. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247251

A propensity score-matched analysis of mortality in solid organ transplant patients with COVID-19 compared to non-solid organ transplant patients

Laura Linares 1, Frederic Cofan 2, Fritz Diekmann 2, Sabina Herrera 1, María Angeles Marcos 3, María Angeles Castel 4, Marta Farrero 4, Jordi Colmenero 5, Pablo Ruiz 5, Gonzalo Crespo 5, Jaume Llopis 6, Carolina Garcia-Vidal 1, Àlex Soriano 1, Asunción Moreno 1, Marta Bodro 1,*; on behalf of Hospital Clínic COVID-19 research group
Editor: Tzevat Tefik7
PMCID: PMC7928439  PMID: 33657157

Abstract

In the context of COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to analyze the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, risk factors for mortality and impact of COVID-19 on outcomes of solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients compared to a cohort of non transplant patients, evaluating if transplantation could be considered a risk factor for mortality. From March to May 2020, 261 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were evaluated, including 41 SOT recipients. Of these, thirty-two were kidney recipients, 4 liver, 3 heart and 2 combined kidney-liver transplants. Median time from transplantation to COVID-19 diagnosis was 6 years. Thirteen SOT recipients (32%) required Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission and 5 patients died (12%). Using a propensity score match analysis, we found no significant differences between SOT recipients and non-transplant patients. Older age (OR 1.142; 95% [CI 1.08–1.197]) higher levels of C-reactive protein (OR 3.068; 95% [CI 1.22–7.71]) and levels of serum creatinine on admission (OR 3.048 95% [CI 1.22–7.57]) were associated with higher mortality. The clinical outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in our cohort of SOT recipients appear to be similar to that observed in the non-transplant population. Older age, higher levels of C-reactive protein and serum creatinine were associated with higher mortality, whereas SOT was not associated with worse outcomes.

Introduction

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019 in China rapidly evolving to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic [1]. Reported associated mortality is around 7%, mostly related to older age, obesity, hypertension and chronic pulmonary disease [2].

Emerging data of the impact of COVID-19 in immunosupressed patients, including solid organ transplant (SOT recipients) has recently become available [318]. SOT recipients may be at a greater risk for worse outcomes due to the detrimental effect of the immunosuppressive therapy, similar to other viral infections, however, while some studies reflected poorer outcomes [6,9,1618], other studies do not suggest worse prognosis compared to the non-transplant population [35,7,8,15,19].

Furthermore, besides immunosuppressive regimens, transplant recipients usually present more co-morbidities such as hypertension and diabetes, possibly influencing the outcome of patients with COVID-19. On the other hand, a propensity score match analysis has not been performed to assess mortality of solid organ recipients compared to non-solid organ transplant patients before.

In this setting, we aimed to study the epidemiology, clinical characteristics and mortality risk factors of SOT recipients that required hospitalization due to COVID-19 compared to a cohort of non transplant patients hospitalized in the same period, using a propensity score match analysis.

Material and methods

Patient selection

From 6th of March to 24h of May, data regarding epidemiology, clinical and laboratory findings and outcomes of patients admitted with respiratory symptoms and radiological evidence of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia to Hospital Clinic of Barcelona was prospectively recorded. We included all hospitalized patients.

Clinical data and definitions

Laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection was made by a positive reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay from a nasopharyngeal swab.

We used the World Health Organization clinical Ordinary Scale Determination (OSD) to assess patient clinical status. This OSD was recorded at baseline and every day while hospitalization. The ordinal scale categories are as follows: 0) Uninfected 1) Ambulatory patients with no limitation of activities 2) Ambulatory patients with limitation of activities, 3) Patients requiring hospitalization in a non-ICU ward not requiring supplemental oxygen, 4) Patients requiring hospitalization in a non-ICU ward requiring supplemental oxygen, 5) Patients hospitalized in ICU or non-ICU hospital ward, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen, 6) Patients hospitalized in ICU requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, 7) Patients hospitalized in ICU, requiring Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or mechanical ventilation and additional organ support (e.g. vasopressors, renal replacement therapy) and 8) Death during hospitalization.

The following laboratory measurements were recorded: Total lymphocyte count (cell/mm), serum C-reactive protein (mg/dL) (NR<0, D- dimer (ng/mL) (NR<500), serum Lactate dehydrogenase (IU/mL) (NR<234), serum Creatinine, (mg/dL) (NR 0.3–1.3), serum Ferritin (ng /mL) (NR 20–400), serum Troponin (ng /mL) (NR <42.2). For the purpose of statistical analysis, the highest value recorded during hospitalization was used. For the total lymphocyte count the lowest laboratory value was selected for analysis purposes.

Streptococcus pneumoniae co-infection was considered if cultures from respiratory tract samples or urinary antigen were positive together with a chest X-ray or CT-scan suggestive of bacterial pneumonia.

All patients are prescribed prophylactic anticoagulation with enoxaparin 40 mg/24h unless contraindicated. Patients with overweight (>80Kg), D-dimer >3000 ng/mL, or with additional risk factors (cancer, history of thrombosis, recent surgery, etc) are prescribed enoxaparin 60 mg/24h unless contraindicated. In patients with clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism a chest-CT is performed.

Cryptogenic Organizing pneumonia (COP) was defined on chest CT by multifocal ground glass opacities and/or consolidation.

Biopsy proven acute rejection episodes were recorded in the 3 months prior to admission.

All patients were followed-up after discharge for 2 months.

Treatment protocol

Our hospital protocol consisted of lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg BID for 7–14 days plus hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h on the first day, followed by 200 mg/12h for the next 4 days. Patients with major drug interactions did not receive lopinavir/ritonavir. From the 18th of March, azithromycin 500 mg the first day and 250 mg/24h for 4 additional days was added to the regimen. All patients received prophylactic doses of heparin. The local indication of anti-cytokine therapy was for patients with pneumonia, progressive respiratory failure (increasing fraction of inspired Oxygen) and C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 8 mg/dL or ferritin ≥800 ng/mL or lymphocyte count < 800 cells/mm3.

Choice of anti-cytokine therapy was at the discretion of the attending physician. Available anti-cytokine therapy in our center included: tocilizumab, anakinra and barticinib. Remdesivir therapy was prescribed if patients presented with: a) 7 days of symptoms or less, b)room air oxygen saturation of < 94%, c) glomerular filtration >30 (mL/min), and d) liver function tests < 5 times the upper normal limit according to Spanish Protocol from AEMS (Spanish Agency of Drugs and Heath Products) in addition to the standard of care. Hepatitis B serologies (hepatitis B surface antigen) and QuantiFERON-TB® were performed prior to anti-cytokine prescription and prophylaxis with entecavir and isoniazid were prescribed if applicable.

Immunosuppressive protocol

At baseline transplant patients could either be in a: a) calcineurin inhibitors based regimen (including tacrolimus or cyclosporine plus a cycle cell inhibitor and prednisone) or b) mTOR based regimen (including everolimus or sirolimus plus cycle cell inhibitor and prednisone).

According to center policy, due to the potential severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection, mycophenolate and mTOR inhibitor (mTORi) (Sirolimus or everolimus) were initially withdrawn in all admitted SOT recipients with COVID-19. Furthermore, in those patients starting treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir, the calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) (tacrolimus or cyclosporine) was also temporary discontinued due to the strong significant increase of CNI levels. Maintenance immunosuppression consisted of prednisone monotherapy (10–20 mg/day) until COVID-19 resolution, at which time tacrolimus was reinitiated at reduced doses (through blood levels around 5 ng/mL).

Statistical analysis

In the comparative analysis, we used the chi-square test with Yate’s correction for categorical variables. Depending on their homogeneity, continuous variables were compared using the t test or Mann-Whitney test. Statistically significant variables in the univariate analysis including median age and sex were entered into a multivariate model using logistic regression analysis, and the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

Propensity score matching was calculated using the following parameters: age, sex, hypertension, lung disease, use of anti-cytokine therapies, baseline OSD and OSD during hospitalization.

The analysis was performed using the stepwise logistic regression model of the SPSS software package (SPSS version 23.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). All statistical tests were 2-tailed, and the threshold of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

The Institutional Ethics Committee of the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, approved the study and due to the nature of retrospective chart review, waived the need for inform consent from individual patients (Comité Ètic d’Investigació Clínica; HCB/2020/0273). All patients signed an informed consent for therapies off-label use.

Results

Two hundred and sixty-one patients were included in our study. Forty-one of them were SOT recipients, including 32 kidney recipients (78%), 4 liver recipients (10%), 3 heart recipients (7%) and 2 combined liver-kidney recipients (5%). Median follow-up was 68 days (IQR 57–75). Table 1 shows SOT recipients baseline characteristics. Median years from transplantation to COVID-19 diagnosis were 6 (range, 1–21). Fever was found in 95% (39) of the patients followed by cough in 68% (28) and dyspnoea in 32% (13). Two patients presented Streptococcus pneumoniae co-infection.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of SOT recipients with COVID-19.

Variables n = 41 (%)
Median age, years, IQR 58 (33–86)
Male sex 27 (66)
Transplanted organ
 Kidney 32 (78)
 Liver 4 (10)
 Heart 3 (7)
 Combined liver-kidney transplant 2 (5)
Underlying conditions
 Hypertension 33 (81)
 Diabetes mellitus 34 (83)
 Cardiovascular disease 10 (24)
 COPD 8 (20)
 Chronic kidney disease 14 (34)
Years from transplant to diagnosis, median (IQR) 6 (1–21)
Immunosupressive regimen
 Calcineurin inhibitors based therapy 26 (63)
 mTOR based therapy 15 (37)
Previous episodes of acute rejection (3 months, only biopsy proven) 0
COVID-19 adjuvant treatment
 Lopinavir/ritonavir 31 (76)
 Hydroxychloroquine 40 (98)
 Remdesivir 0
 Azithromycin 41 (100)
 Tocilizumab 19 (46)
 Anakinra 7 (17)
 Baricitimib 1 (2)
 Steroids pulse 17 (41)
 Interferon 3 (7)

*COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Table 2 shows the clinical characteristics and laboratory findings of transplant and non-transplant patients with COVID-19. We compared baseline characteristics of both groups. Hypertension was more frequent in transplanted patients compared to the non-transplant group (81% vs 45%, p<0.001), whereas diabetes mellitus was more frequent in the non-transplant group (32% vs 16%, p = 0.01). Transplant recipients had significantly more chronic kidney disease than non-transplant patients (34% vs 5% p <0.001). Dyspnoea and cough on admission were more frequent in the non-transplant group (57% vs 32%, p = 0.003; 82% vs 68%, p = 0.032). Median ferritin levels on admission were higher in the non-transplant group than in SOT recipients (776 vs 321, p = 0.03). Transplant patients had higher serum creatinine levels on admission than the non-transplant group (p<0.001). Regarding COVID-19 specific treatment, 23 transplant recipients received at least one anti-cytokine therapy (57%) that included tocilizumab, anakinra or baricitinib, compared to 125 (57%) of the non-transplant group (p = 0.932).

Table 2. Clinical characteristics and laboratory findings of transplant and non-transplant patients with COVID-19.

Variables Transplanted n = 41 (%) Non-transplanted n = 220 (%) p
Age in years, median (IQR) 58 (33–86) 63 (51–72) 0.175
Male sex 27 (66) 144 (66) 0.961
Underlying conditions
 Hypertension 33 (81) 98 (45) <0.001
 Diabetes mellitus 34 (16) 13 (32) 0.013
 Cardiovascular disease 10 (24) 29 (13) 0.065
 COPD 8 (20) 38 (17) 0.730
 Chronic kidney disease 14 (34) 11 (5) < 0.001
Symptoms at admission
 Fever 39 (95) 201 (91) 0.417
 Diarrhea 9 (22) 48 (22) 0.985
 Dyspnoea 13 (32) 126 (57) 0.003
 Cough 27 (68) 181 (82) 0.032
Median days from symptoms to diagnosis (IQR) 5 (2–9) 6 (4–8) 0.276
Laboratory values on admission, median (IQR)
 Lymphocyte (cell/mm) 600 (400–900) 800 (600–1000) 0.220
 C-reactive protein (mg/dL) (NR<0) 9.4 (3–13.8) 8.1 (4.2–16.8) 0.479
 D- dimer (ng/mL) (NR<500) 800 (600–2447) 800 (450–1400) 0.706
 Lactate dehydrogenase (IU/mL) (NR<234) 289(400–900) 338 (264–424) 0.390
 Creatinine, (mg/dL) (NR 0.3–1.3) 1.8 (1.2–2.9) 0.9 (0.7–1.09) <0.001
 Ferritin (ng /mL) (NR 20–400) 321 (264–949) 776 (391–1421) 0.030
 Troponin (ng /mL) (NR <42.2) 8.2 (4.7–30.7) 11.2 (5.1–20.5) 0.551
COVID-19 adjuvant treatment
 Lopinavir/ritonavir 31 (76) 205 (93) 0.001
 Hydroxychloroquine 40 (98) 216 (98) 0.390
 Azithromycin 41 (100) 220 (100) 0.932
 Tocilizumab 19 (46) 125 (57) 0.216
 Anakinra 7 (17) 4 (2) <0.001
 Baricitinib 1 (2) 0 0.020
 Remdesivir 0 29 (13) 0.005
 Anti-cytokine therapy 23 (56) 125 (57) 0.932
Clinical outcomes
 Intensive care unit admission 14 (34) 90 (41) 0.317
  • non-invasive ventilation 7 (17) 47 (21) 0.928
  • mechanical ventilation 7 (17) 43 (19) 0.325
Complications
 Acute kidney injury 20 (49) 35 (16) 0.001
 Other infection 10 (24) 26 (19) 0.462
 Septic shock 5 (12) 51 (23) 0.110
 Organizing pneumonia 4 (10) 42 (19) 0.150
 Pulmonary embolism 0 21 (10) 0.04
Higher/lower* laboratory values during admission, median (IQR)
 Lymphocyte (cell/mm) 700 (500–1100) 1600 (1200–2300) 0.001
 C-reactive protein (mg/dL) 14.4 (9–18.9) 15.5 (8.8–22.6) 0.754
 D-dimer (ng/mL) 1300 (1000–4010) 2400 (1000–7600) 0.190
 Lactate dehydrogenase (IU/mL) 367 (285–525) 448 (348–567) 0.027
 Ferritin (ng /mL) 888 (442–1515) 1135 (648–1934) 0.161
 Troponin (ng/mL) 15.2 (7.1–52.0) 13.7 (6.3–31.2) 0.860
Median days of hospitalization (IQR) 17 (12–24) 12 (8–20) 0.054
Median days in ICU, median (IQR) 11 (7–22) 9 (5–15) 0.303
Mortality 5 (12.2) 33 (15) 0.640

* In case of C-reactive protein, D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin and troponin we selected the highest laboratory value during hospitalization. And in case of lymphocyte count we select the lowest laboratory value.

We found several differences in the complications during hospitalization; acute kidney injury was more frequent in the transplant group (49% vs. 16%, p<0.001). Persistent lymphopenia was more frequent in the transplant cohort compared to the non-transplant group (p = 0.001). Four cases of cryptogenetic organizing pneumonia were registered in the SOT group (10%) compared to 42 (19%) in the non-transplant group (p = 0.1). None of the SOT recipients was diagnosed with pulmonary embolism whereas it was diagnosed in 21 patients of the non-transplant group (0% vs 10%, p = 0.04). Transplant patients had longer hospital stay compared to the non-transplant group, almost reaching statistical significance (17 days vs 12, p = 0.054). There were no differences in terms of mortality between both groups (15% vs 12%, p = 0.64). Respiratory failure due to COVID-19 was the main cause of death in all patients with the exception of a patient that died of complications of infective endocarditis. Fig 1 shows the Kaplan-Meier curve.

Fig 1. Kaplan-Meier analysis by transplant.

Fig 1

Table 3 shows clinical Ordinary Scale Determination on admission and during hospitalization by transplantation.

Table 3. Ordinal Scale Determination at baseline, during hospitalization and at end of follow up by transplant.

Ordinal Scale Determination Transplant n = 41 (%) Non-transplant n = 220 (%)
Baseline
 Non-ICUa hospital ward, not requiring supplemental oxygen 25 (61) 63 (29)
 Non-ICU hospital ward requiring supplemental oxygen 13 (32) 135 (61)
 ICU or non-ICU hospital ward requiring non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen 2 (5) 1 (1)
 ICU, requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation 1 (2) 21 (10)
During hospitalization
 Non-ICU hospital ward, not requiring supplemental oxygen 9 (22) -
 Non-ICU hospital ward requiring supplemental oxygen 18 (44) 130 (59)
 ICU or non-ICU hospital ward requiring non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen 7 (17) 47 (21)
 ICU, requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation or ECMOb 7 (17) 43 (20)
End of follow-up
 Discharged from hospital 36 (88) 189 (86)
 Death 5 (12) 33 (15)

aICU, intensive care unit;

bECMO, Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

In terms of outcomes, 14 patients in the transplant group required ICU admission, of them 7 patients required mechanical ventilation (50%) and 5 died (12%). Ninety patients of the non-transplant group required ICU admission. Of them, 43 (20%) required mechanical ventilation and 33 died (15%).

Multivariate analysis of risk factors for mortality was performed and is depicted in Table 4. Older age (OR 1.142; 95% [CI 1.08–1.197]) higher levels of serum C-reactive protein (OR 3.068; 95% [CI 1.22–7.71]) and higher levels of serum creatinine on admission (OR 3.048 95% [CI 1.22–7.57]) were associated with mortality.

Table 4. Univariate and multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with mortality.

Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
Category n Mortality n (%) OR (95% CI) p value OR (95% CI) p value
Gender Male 171 23 (13.5)
Female 90 15 (16.7) 1.287 (0.634–2.611) 0.484
Age, years < 63 137 4 (2.9)
> 63 124 34 (27.4) 12.561 (4.309–36.62) <0.001 1.142 (1.089–1.197) <0.001
Hypertension Yes 131 27 (20.6)
No 130 11 (8.5) 2.809 (1.328–5.939) 0.005
Cardiovascular disease Yes 39 14 (35.9)
No 222 24 (10.8) 4.620 (2.119–10.073) <0.001
Chronic respiratory disease Yes 46 13 (28.3)
No 215 25 (11.6) 2.994 (1.393–6.436) 0.004
Solid Organ Transplantation Yes 41 5 (12.2)
No 220 33 (15) 0.787 (0.288–2.152) 0.640
serum C-reactive protein (mg/dL) Day 0 < 8.2 130 15 (11.5)
>8.2 131 23 (17.6) 1.633 (0.810–3.293) 0.168
serum C-reactive protein (mg/dL), maximum value < 15.2 130 8 (6.2)
>15.2 131 30 (23) 4.530 (1.989–10.318) <0.001 3.068 (1.22–7.71) 0.017
serum Creatinine (mg/dL) Day 0 < 0.9 121 10 (8.3)
> 0.9 140 28 (20) 2.775 (1.287–5.983) 0.007 3.048 (1.226–7.575) 0.016
Lymphocytes (cell/mm3) Day 0 < 700 133 24 (18)
>700 128 14 (36.8) 0.558 (0.274–1.134) 0.104
Serum ferritin (ng/mL) Day 0 < 749 124 14 (11.3)
>749 137 24 (17.5) 1.669 (0.821–3.393) 0.154
D-dimer (ng/mL) Day 0 < 800 140 13 (9.3)
> 800 121 25 (20.7) 2.544 (1.237–5.230) 0.009
Intensive care unit (ICU) admission Yes 101 21 (20.8)
No 160 17 (10.6) 2.208 (1.101–4.427) 0.023
Invasive mechanical ventilation Yes 53 12 (22.6)
No 208 26 (12.5) 2.049 (0.955–4.395) 0.062
Septic shock Yes 56 14 (25)
No 203 23 (11.3) 2.609 (1.239–5.492) 0.010
Biological therapy Yes 148 18 (47.4)
No 113 130 (58.3) 0.644 (0.323–1.284) 0.209
OSDa, baseline
Conventional ward, not requiring supplemental oxygen Yes 88 5 (5.7)
Conventional ward, requiring supplemental low-flow oxygen Yes 148 25 (16.9)
ICUb, requiring supplemental high-flow supplemental oxygen Yes 3 2 (66.7)
ICU, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation/ECMOc Yes 22 6 (27.3) 15.629 0.001

aOSD, ordinary scale determination;

bICU, intensive care unit.

cECMO, Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

We performed a propensity score matching (PSM) including 36 patients in each group (Table 5).

Table 5. Comparison of transplant and non-transplant population after applying a propensity score matching.

Variables Transplant n = 36 (%) Non-transplant n = 36 (%) p-value
Age in years, media (SD) 59.6 (13.2) 60.5 (12.7) 0.750
Male sex 11 (31) 13 (36%) 0.482
Underlying conditions
 Hypertension 28 (78) 29 (81) 0.693
 Lung disease 8 (22) 7 (19) 0.693
Anti-cytokine therapy 18 (50) 20 (56) 0.514
Mortality 5 (14) 6 (17) 0.640

Patients were matched one-to-one using PSM to eliminate confounding factors. Clinical variables entered into the PSM analysis were age, gender, comorbidities, biological therapy, categorical ordinal scale and mortality. There were no significant differences between matched groups in terms of mortality (14% vs 17%).

Discussion

In our study comparing a cohort of hospitalized SOT recipients with cohort of non-transplant recipients using a propensity score analysis we found no differences in mortality between the two groups. Therefore, in our cohort of patients with COVID-19, SOT cannot be considered a risk factor for mortality.

In our cohort of COVID-19 hospitalized patients, we found no differences in clinical presentation between SOT and non-transplant patients. However, the true incidence of COVID-19 infection and symptom development in SOT vs. general population remains to be established, due to the lack of universal testing in asymptomatic recipients. Ongoing seroprevalence studies may provide information on true infection incidence.

We did find differences in the use of COVID-19 specific therapy that was considered standard of care at the time of the study in the two groups. Transplant patients received significantly less lopinavir/ritonavir, and more anakinra compared to non-transplant patients. The important drug-drug interactions of lopinavir/ritonavir with immunosuppressant medications could have influenced physicians prescribing this drug [20]. Remdesivir which has been shown to reduce the time to clinical improvement, was not administered to SOT patients, possibly as a result of higher incidence of chronic kidney disease and acute kidney injury, that contraindicate the use of this drug [21]. Randomized control trials with lopinavir/ritonavir and azythromycin as adyuvant therapy for COVID-19 have shown no benefit, and some have shown deleterious effects, and therefore they are no longer being used [22].

To the date, remdesivir and dexamethasone have shown to be beneficial in randomized controlled trials in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 [2327]. Preliminary studies found promising results with the use of anakinra [2832] and other anti-cytokine therapies [3335], however, randomized controlled trials analyzing the use of these therapies the SOT population are lacking, with the special interest of development of opportunistic infections. In terms of complications during hospitalization, we found that acute kidney failure was more common in the transplant cohort, probably reflecting kidney function vulnerability of SOT recipients, and use of calcineurin inhibitors. Transplant patients had lymphopenia for a significantly longer time compared to non-transplant patients, possibly as a consequence of the use of drugs that cause myelotoxicity such as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy and prophylactic antibiotics. It is to be noted that despite having 25% patients with septic shock in the SOT group, compared to 12% in the non-transplant group, this did not influence the mortality significantly.

In the multivariate analysis of risk factors of mortality, solid organ transplantation was not associated with death. Our mortality rate is similar to other transplant cohorts [3,4,15]. However, other cohort have reported much worse outcomes, with mortality ranging from 28 to 67% [10,12]. These differences might me explained by demographic differences, including limited heath resources in the context of an overstretched health system in the peak of the pandemic. There have been several discussions around the impact of immunosupression on COVID-19 prognosis. It is reasonable to assume that during the viremic phase immunosuppressive therapy could potentially be deleterious, however, some studies have found that some drugs such as cyclosporine, tacrolimus and mTOR inhibitors [36] have in vitro activity against other coronaviruses. Furthermore, immunosuppressive regimens might be beneficial preventing or in the event of a cytokine storm. Our cohorts median time from transplant was 6 years, with no documented recent episodes of rejection; and therefore not in the maximum period of immunosuppression.

Older age, maximum serum C-reactive protein and serum creatinine levels were associated with mortality. Older age has been related to worse prognosis in several studies [2,3739]. C-reactive protein, a protein whose expression is driven by IL-6, is a biomarker of severe infection that has been associated with the inflammation cytokine storm related to COVID-19 [40].

Similarly, acute kidney injury has been associated with an increased risk of death in critically ill patients with pneumonia [41,42]. The SOT cohort also had significantly higher rate of chronic kidney disease, without having an impact on the overall mortality.

Our study has several strengths and limitations. We were able to analyze all consecutive admissions during the study period, being one of the first studies comparing transplant patients to non-transplant patients. However, there are several limitations; first of all, as it is a single-centre study, our findings may be attributable to institution-specific variables and secondly, it may not reflect the epidemiology of different centers and/or geographical areas, thus more extensive data are needed to confirm these results. In addition, given the small sample size of our study; we cannot exclude a type 2 error.

To conclude, the clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection in SOT recipients appears to be similar to that observed in the non-transplant population, even though COVID-19 specific treatment was different between SOT recipients and non-transplant patients. Older age, serum creatinine and C-reactive protein levels were associated with higher mortality. Solid organ transplant recipients did not experience worse outcomes.

Supporting information

S1 File

(SAV)

Acknowledgments

Hospital Clínic COVID-19 research group: Albiac L1, Agüero D1, Ambrosioni J1, Blanco JL1, Cardozo C1, Chumbita M1, De la Mora L1, García-Alcaide F1, García-Pouton N1, González-Cordón A1, Hernández-Meneses M1, Inciarte A1, Laguno M1, Leal L1, Macaya I1, Mallolas J1, Martínez E1, Martínez M1, Meira F1, Miró JM1, Mensa J1, Moreno-Martínez A1, Moreno-García E1, Morata L1, Martínez JA1, Puerta-Alcalde P1, Rico V1, Rojas J1, Solá M1, Torres B1, Torres M1, Ana García4, Perez-Villa F4, Navasa M4, Bayès B2, Cucchiari D2, Esforzado N2, Guillen E2, Molina A2, Montagud-Marrahi E2, Oppenheimer F2, Piñeiro GJ2, Poch E2, Revuelta I2, Rodas L2, Torregrosa JV2, Ugalde-Altamirano J2, Ventura-Aguiar P2, Hurtado JC3, Fernandez M3, Mosquera MM3.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report [Internet]. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200304-sitrep-44-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=783b4c9d_6.
  • 2.Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, Fan G, Liu Y, Liu Z, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395(10229):1054–62. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pereira MR, Mohan S, Cohen DJ, Husain SA, Dube GK, Ratner LE, et al. COVID-19 in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: Initial Report from the US Epicenter. Am J Transplant. 2020;20(7):1800–8. 10.1111/ajt.15941 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tschopp J, L’Huillier A, Mombelli M, Mueller N, Khanna N, Garzoni C, et al. First experience of SARS-CoV-2 infections in solid organ transplant recipients in the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study. Am J Transplant. 2020;20(10):2876–86. 10.1111/ajt.16062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ali T, Al-Ali A, Fajji L, Hammad E, Nazmi A, Alahmadi I, et al. Coronavirus Disease-19: Disease Severity and Outcomes of Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: Different Spectrums of Disease in Different Populations? Transplantation. 2021. 10.1097/TP.0000000000003433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Favà A, Cucchiari D, Montero N, Toapanta N, Centellas FJ, Vila-Santandreu A, et al. Clinical characteristics and risk factors for severe COVID-19 in hospitalized kidney transplant recipients: A multicentric cohort study. Am J Transplant. 2020. 10.1111/ajt.16246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mehta SA, Leonard J, Labella P, Cartiera K, Soomro I, Neumann H, et al. Outpatient management of kidney transplant recipients with suspected COVID-19—Single-center experience during the New York City surge. Transpl Infect Dis. 2020. 10.1111/tid.13383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Demir E, Uyar M, Parmaksiz E, Sinangil A, Yelken B, Dirim AB, et al. COVID-19 in kidney transplant recipients: A multicenter experience in Istanbul. Transpl Infect Dis. 2020. 10.1111/tid.13371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Caillard S, Anglicheau D, Matignon M, Durrbach A, Greze C, Frimat L, et al. An initial report from the French SOT COVID Registry suggests high mortality due to COVID-19 in recipients of kidney transplants. Kidney Int. 2020;98(6):1549–58. 10.1016/j.kint.2020.08.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fernández‐Ruiz M, Andrés A, Loinaz C, Delgado JF, López-Medrano F, San Juan R, et al. COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients: a single-center case series from Spain. Am J Transplant. 2020;20(7):1849–58. 10.1111/ajt.15929 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Latif F, Farr MA, Clerkin KJ, Habal MV., Takeda K, Naka Y, et al. Characteristics and Outcomes of Recipients of Heart Transplant with Coronavirus Disease 2019. JAMA Cardiol. 2020;13(e202159). 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2159 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Abrishami A, Samavat S, Behnam B, Arab-Ahmadi M, Nafar M, Sanei Taheri M. Clinical Course, Imaging Features, and Outcomes of COVID-19 in Kidney Transplant Recipients. Eur Urol. 2020;78(2):281–6. 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Alberici F, Delbarba E, Manenti C, Econimo L, Valerio F, Pola A, et al. A single center observational study of the clinical characteristics and short-term outcome of 20 kidney transplant patients admitted for SARS-CoV2 pneumonia. Kidney Int. 2020;97(6):1083–8. 10.1016/j.kint.2020.04.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hoek RAS, Manintveld OC, Betjes MGH, Hellemons ME, Seghers L, van Kampen JAA, et al. Covid-19 in solid organ transplant recipients: A single center experience. Transpl Int. 2020;33(9):1099–105. 10.1111/tri.13662 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Travi G, Rossotti R, Merli M, Sacco A, Perricone G, Lauterio A, et al. Clinical outcome in solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19: A single-center experience. Am J Transplant. 2020;20(9):2628–9. 10.1111/ajt.16069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cravedi P, Mothi SS, Azzi Y, Haverly M, Farouk SS, Pérez-Sáez MJ, et al. COVID-19 and kidney transplantation: Results from the TANGO International Transplant Consortium. Am J Transplant. 2020;20(11):3140–8. 10.1111/ajt.16185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Akalin E, Azzi Y, Bartash R, Seethamraju H, Parides M, Hemmige V, et al. Covid-19 and Kidney Transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(25):2475–7. 10.1056/NEJMc2011117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mamode N, Ahmed Z, Jones G, Banga N, Motallebzadeh R, Tolley H, et al. Mortality Rates in Transplant Recipients and Transplantation Candidates in a High-prevalence COVID-19 Environment. Transplantation. 2021;105(1):212–5. 10.1097/TP.0000000000003533 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Richardson S, Hirsch JS, Narasimhan M, Crawford JM, McGinn T, Davidson KW, et al. Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area. JAMA. 2020. April 22;323(20):2052–9. 10.1001/jama.2020.6775 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Aslam S. Guidance from the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation regarding the SARS CoV-2 pandemic. https://ishlt.org/ishlt/media/documents/SARS-CoV-2_-Guidance-for-Cardiothoracic-Transplant-and-VAD-centers.pdf.
  • 21.Wang Y, Zhang D, Du G, Du R, Zhao J, Jin Y, et al. Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10238):1694. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31022-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.WHO Solidarity Trial Consortium, Pan H, Peto R, Henao-Restrepo A-M, Preziosi M-P, Sathiyamoorthy V, et al. Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19—Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results. N Engl J Med. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Spinner CD, Gottlieb RL, Criner GJ, Arribas López JR, Cattelan AM, Soriano Viladomiu A, et al. Effect of Remdesivir vs Standard Care on Clinical Status at 11 Days in Patients with Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA—J Am Med Assoc. 2020;324(11):1048–57. 10.1001/jama.2020.16349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tomazini BM, Maia IS, Cavalcanti AB, Berwanger O, Rosa RG, Veiga VC, et al. Effect of Dexamethasone on Days Alive and Ventilator-Free in Patients with Moderate or Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and COVID-19: The CoDEX Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA—J Am Med Assoc. 2020;324(13):1307–16. 10.1001/jama.2020.17021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Villar J, Ferrando C, Martínez D, Ambrós A, Muñoz T, Soler JA, et al. Dexamethasone treatment for the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(3):267–76. 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30417-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sterne JAC, Murthy S, Diaz J V., Slutsky AS, Villar J, Angus DC, et al. Association between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality among Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Meta-analysis. JAMA—J Am Med Assoc. 2020;324(13):1330–41. 10.1001/jama.2020.17023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, Mehta AK, Zingman BS, Kalil AC, et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19—Final Report. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(19):1813–26. 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Dimopoulos G, de Mast Q, Markou N, Theodorakopoulou M, Komnos A, Mouktaroudi M, et al. Favorable anakinra responses in severe COVID-19 patients with secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Cell Host Microbe. 2020;28(1):117–23. 10.1016/j.chom.2020.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Aouba A, Baldolli A, Geffray L, Verdon R, Bergot E, Martin-Silva N, et al. Targeting the inflammatory cascade with anakinra in moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia: case series. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(1):1381–2. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217706 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Day JW, Fox TA, Halsey R, Carpenter B, Kottaridis PD. IL-1 blockade with anakinra in acute leukaemia patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia appears safe and may result in clinical improvement. Br J Haematol. 2020;190(2):e80–3. 10.1111/bjh.16873 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Filocamo G, Mangioni D, Tagliabue P, Aliberti S, Costantino G, Minoia F, et al. Use of anakinra in severe COVID-19: a case report. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;96:607–9. 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Franzetti M, Pozzetti U, Carugati M, Pandolfo A, Molteni C, Faccioli P, et al. Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist anakinra in association with remdesivir in severe Coronavirus disease 2019: A case report. Int J Infect Dis. 2020. 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Colaneri M, Bogliolo L, Valsecchi P, Sacchi P, Zuccaro V, Brandolino F, et al. Tocilizumab for Treatment of Severe COVID-19 Patients: Preliminary Results from SMAtteo COvid19 REgistry (SMACORE). Microorganisms [Internet]. 2020. May 9 [cited 2020 May 24];8(5). Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32397399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Toniati P, Piva S, Cattalini M, Garrafa E, Regola F, Castelli F, et al. Tocilizumab for the treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia with hyperinflammatory syndrome and acute respiratory failure: A single center study of 100 patients in Brescia, Italy. Autoimmun Rev [Internet]. 2020. May 3 [cited 2020 May 24];102568. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32376398. 10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102568 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Xu X, Han M, Li T, Sun W, Wang D, Fu B, et al. Effective treatment of severe COVID-19 patients with tocilizumab. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 2020. May 19 [cited 2020 May 24];117(20):10970–5. Available from: http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.2005615117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tanaka Y, Sato Y, Sasaki T. Suppression of coronavirus replication by cyclophilin inhibitors. Viruses. 2013;5(5):1250–60. 10.3390/v5051250 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chen T, Wu D, Chen H, Yan W, Yang D, Chen G, et al. Clinical characteristics of 113 deceased patients with coronavirus disease 2019: Retrospective study. BMJ. 2020;386:m1091. 10.1136/bmj.m1091 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Guo T, Fan Y, Chen M, Wu X, Zhang L, He T, et al. Cardiovascular Implications of Fatal Outcomes of Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5(7):811–8. 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Shi S, Qin M, Shen B, Cai Y, Liu T, Yang F, et al. Association of Cardiac Injury with Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5(7):802–10. 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0950 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Moore BJB, June CH. Cytokine release syndrome in severe COVID-19. Science (80-). 2020;368(6490):473–4. 10.1126/science.abb8925 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Li G, Cook DJ, Thabane L, Friedrich JO, Crozier TM, Muscedere J, et al. Risk factors for mortality in patients admitted to intensive care units with pneumonia. Respir Res. 2016;17(1):80. 10.1186/s12931-016-0397-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Rodriguez A, Lisboa T, Blot S, Martin-Loeches I, Solé-Violan J, De Mendoza D, et al. Mortality in ICU patients with bacterial community-acquired pneumonia: When antibiotics are not enough. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(3):430–8. 10.1007/s00134-008-1363-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Tzevat Tefik

25 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-31759

No increased risk of mortality in solid organ transplant patients with COVID-19

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bodro,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 09 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,

Tzevat Tefik, MD

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. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium [Hospital Clínic COVID-19 research group]. 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.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

Thank you for this submission evaluating COVID-19 in solid organ transplantation patients.

I have some major concerns regarding your submission:

I think that the methods section should be changed extensively. Many details given at results section were not defined at methods section. This made me confused when reading results section. I could not clearly understand where some findings came from. Examples of these and my other concerns are given below:

Results section:

-Line 140: Which organs have been transplanted in patients with double transplant? Please define.

- Line 159: What do you mean by biologic therapy? Please define.

-Line 167: p value is higher than 0.05 so it cannot be concluded as higher length of hospital stay in transplant patients.

-Table 1 and Table 2: I am not sure if clinical outcomes section is necessary as you also compared mortality between two groups. The definition of these outcomes is not given. A patient could be transferred to intensive care unit but I cannot understand if s/he was intubated or discharged or died so accepting these as outcomes made me confused.

- What is the difference between median follow-up section in Table 1 and median days of hospitalization? Follow- up is longer than the other variable. Did you follow up patients after discharge? Please define these variables.

- Table 2: What is the criteria for remdesivir therapy? Did some patients receive both remdesivir and lopinavir/ritonavir? If yes, what was the criteria for this condition?

Table 2: What do you mean by higher laboratory values during admission? How did you select parameters in the table? For the parameters, which one did you put in statistical analysis as most probably a patient had multiple lymphocyte, D-dimer, etc. values.

Line 176: Even though emphasized in the abstract, I think less importance was given to Ordinary Scale Determination in the results section. It has been discussed in discussion section. I am not sure if you could compare the groups’ Ordinary Scale Determination statistically but without a “p” value, it is not so valuable.

Table 4: Performing a multi variable comparison is important in studies like this. However, there should be a rationale to create groups and this rationale should be defined at methods section. For example, what was the reason to group age into two according to 63 years? This is valid for C-reactive protein, creatinine, lymphocyte, ferritin, D-dimer.

Table 5: Why did you analyze 36 of transplanted patients? How did you exclude other 5 patients? What was the aim of this test as you have already given all statistical analysis with 41 transplanted patients?

Discussion section:

-Why did not all transplanted patients have lopinavir/ritonavir treatment? Please give some details fort his condition.

-Hydroxychloroquine was advised to be not given at 04 July and lopinavir/ritonavir was advised to be not given at 06 July by World Health Organization. I respect your treatment at that time as most of medical practitioners used these drugs at that time. However, I think that you should add this fact to discussion section

Reviewer #2: My concerns were below.

Introduction

1. Authors should clearly define the purpose of the study and why these authors conducted this research.

2. As I know that solid organ transplant recipients have more comorbid diseases than patients without SOT. The authors should point to this issue in a separate paragraph in this section.

Material and method

1. I recommend authors to use subtitles. Subheadings; patient selection, treatment, outcomes, hospitalization, and ICU admission may use.

2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined in this section.

3. The selection of the patients without SOT should be defined in this section, and criteria for a propensity score match should be defined.

4. Study endpoints should be clearly stated.

5. Authors should refer to the selection criteria of the patients without SOT.

Results

1. The diabetes rate in Table 1 is misspelled.

2. After the propensity score match, the differences in covid-19 treatment should be explained.

3. Kaplan Meier analysis can be useful for determining differences in mortality between groups.

Patients with macrophage activation syndrome due to COVID-19 can be shown in the tables.

Discussion

1. The mortality rate of SOT recipients with COVID-19 was lower than in some of the previous articles. The authors must find out what factors can be associated with these differences.

2. The authors should discuss the impact of chronic kidney disease on covid 19 mortality in a separate paragraph.

3. Treatment modalities of the patients should be discussed in a separate paragraph.

4. The authors did not perform a power analysis before calculation, and the results may have been determined due to the second type of statistical error analysis. Therefore, authors should not use exact expressions.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript has conclusions similar to other large SOT cohorts that transplant itself does not necessarily increase risk for COVID-19 associated morbidity / mortality, and that other factors such as age and comorbidities play a role. While I agree with a propensity-matched score approach, the study has significant limitations including lack of information on key transplant-related variables (immunosuppression, timing from transplant, rejection) as well as the severity of illness in the non-transplant group.

Line 59: Mortality rate of 7% is higher than most estimates, although there are some studies were case fatality rate was that high. Suggest finding more accurate estimate.

Lines 89-97: Is there a reason that the authors did not use World Health Organization ordinal scale 0-8 that is current reference for clinical severity?

Lines 103: What “anti-cytokine” therapy was used?

Lines 131-132: how were the variables for propensity score matching chosen?

Line 140: What does “double transplant” mean? Is it a patient who has had 2 sequental transplants (e.g. 2 kidney transplants after a single failed grafts) or 2 organs (like kidney-pancreas)?

Line 145: How was it determined that the patients had Strep pneumo co-infection? Was urinary antigen testing or culture used, and what imaging corresponded to make diagnosis?

Line 146: Table 1 should include characteristics for the non-SOT group, with p-values. By definition, outcomes should not be included in Table 1. The authors are also clearly missing some important variables relevant to the degree of immunosuppression of SOT recipients such as time from transplant, induction regimen used, maintenance immunosuppression, presence / absence of rejection, recent treatment for rejection.

Line 172: It is very interesting to compare the characteristics of SOT and non-SOT groups. It appears that the non-SOT group was quite sick with 23% of patients experiencing septic shock, and higher baseline mortality. This should be considered when interpreting the study

Line 260-263: The finding of differences in therapy is not significant other than the fact that it outlines the differences in practice at this one center.

Line 263-265: There ARE therapies that have been shown to be beneficial in RCTs: remdesivir and dexamethasone.

Line 279: The fact that transplant mortality was similar to other centers I think emphasizes that non-transplant mortality in this cohort was high.

Line 298: Authors should include in limitation that there was routine use of agents without proven efficacy, and some with associated harm (protease inhibitors, hydroxychloroquine, anti-cytokine agents) were used as part of the institution’s standard of care.

Comment: This manuscript appears to be written by non-native speaker. Please check for spelling and grammatical errors.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

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

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review of the article.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 3;16(3):e0247251. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247251.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Dec 2020

Barcelona, December, 2020

Editors

Plos One

Ref.: Ms. No. PONE-D-20-31759

Dear Editors,

Thank you very much for your review of our manuscript entitled “No increased risk of mortality in solid organ transplant patients with COVID-19”. We truly think that your review has helped us to improve the article. According to your indications we provide a point-by-point response to your comments.

We look forward to hearing from you,

Sincerely,

Marta Bodro

Infectious Diseases Department

Hospital Clínic de Barcelona

Barcelona, Spain

martabodro@gmail.com

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: Dear authors,

Thank you for this submission evaluating COVID-19 in solid organ transplantation patients.

I have some major concerns regarding your submission:

I think that the methods section should be changed extensively. Many details given at results section were not defined at methods section. This made me confused when reading results section. I could not clearly understand where some findings came from. Examples of these and my other concerns are given below:

R: We would like to thank reviewer one for the very useful comments. We have rewritten the methods section, including subheadings, hoping it reads more clearly now.

Results section:

-Line 140: Which organs have been transplanted in patients with double transplant? Please define.

R: We have included in the results section, that 2 of the SOT patients were combined liver-kidney transplant. Page 7, lines 173

- Line 159: What do you mean by biologic therapy? Please define.

R: We changed the term biologic therapy to “anti-cytokine therapy” throughout the manuscript. Anti-cytokine therapy includes tocicizumab, anakinra and baricitinib, as these were the available drugs in our center. This has been included in the methods section.

-Line 167: p value is higher than 0.05 so it cannot be concluded as higher length of hospital stay in transplant patients.

R: According to your suggestion we clarified that sentence. Page 9, lines 200

-Table 1 and Table 2: I am not sure if clinical outcomes section is necessary as you also compared mortality between two groups. The definition of these outcomes is not given. A patient could be transferred to intensive care unit but I cannot understand if s/he was intubated or discharged or died so accepting these as outcomes made me confused.

R: We removed outcomes from Table 1 and have given exact definitions of the outcomes in the methods section:

5) Patients hospitalized in ICU or non-ICU hospital ward, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen,

6) Patients hospitalized in ICU requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation,

7) Patients hospitalized in ICU, requiring Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or mechanical ventilation and additional organ support (e.g. vasopressors, renal replacement therapy)

- What is the difference between median follow-up section in Table 1 and median days of hospitalization? Follow- up is longer than the other variable. Did you follow up patients after discharge? Please define these variables.

R: All patients were followed-up after discharge for 2 months. We included this information at the methods section. Page 5, line 116.

- Table 2: What is the criteria for remdesivir therapy? Did some patients receive both remdesivir and lopinavir/ritonavir? If yes, what was the criteria for this condition?

R: Remdesivir therapy was prescribed if patients presented with: a) 7 days of symptoms or less, b)room air oxygen saturation of < 94%, c) glomerular filtration >30 (mL/min), and d) liver function tests < 5 times the upper normal limit according to Spanish Protocol from AEMS (Spanish Agency of Drugs and Heath Products) in addition to the standard of care.

Page 5, lines 129-133. Remdesivir was added to standard of care at the time of the study. We included this information in the Methods section.

Table 2: What do you mean by higher laboratory values during admission? How did you select parameters in the table? For the parameters, which one did you put in statistical analysis as most probably a patient had multiple lymphocyte, D-dimer, etc. values.

R: In case of C-reactive protein, D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin and troponin we selected the highest laboratory value during hospitalization. And in case of lymphocyte count we selected the lowest laboratory value. We clarified this in the method section. Page 4,lines 107-108.

Line 176: Even though emphasized in the abstract, I think less importance was given to Ordinary Scale Determination in the results section. It has been discussed in discussion section. I am not sure if you could compare the groups’ Ordinary Scale Determination statistically but without a “p” value, it is not so valuable.

R: We agree with the reviewer that statistically we could not compare the groups using OSD (we followed the advice of a statistics expert), so, unfortunately we were unable to show a p value. Nevertheless we hope the table illustrates the progress of patients in both groups during hospitalization until discharge. Table 2 includes p values for related outcomes such as need for mechanical ventilation, or death.

Table 4: Performing a multi variable comparison is important in studies like this. However, there should be a rationale to create groups and this rationale should be defined at methods section. For example, what was the reason to group age into two according to 63 years? This is valid for C-reactive protein, creatinine, lymphocyte, ferritin, D-dimer.

R: In the comparative analysis, we used the chi-square test with Yate’s correction for categorical variables. Depending on their homogeneity, continuous variables were compared using the t test or Mann-Whitney test. Statistically significant variables in the univariate analysis including median age and sex were entered into a multivariate model using logistic regression analysis, and the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. We selected median values in continuous variables to perform table 4. For instance, we selected 63 years because it was the median age of the cohort and the same reason was applied for the other variables. We clarified this on the methods section.

Table 5: Why did you analyze 36 of transplanted patients? How did you exclude other 5 patients? What was the aim of this test as you have already given all statistical analysis with 41 transplanted patients?

R: In addition to usual statistical analysis to compare the transplant and non-transplant groups, we performed a propensity score match analysis to reduce possible bias between the two groups. For this reason, variables were balanced and we were only able to include 36 transplanted patients for the propensity score analysis.

Discussion section:

-Why did not all transplanted patients have lopinavir/ritonavir treatment? Please give some details fort his condition.

R: Our first hospital protocol (from February to May 2020) consisted of lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg BID for 7-14 days plus hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h on the first day, followed by 200 mg/12h for the next 4 days. Nevertheless, due to lopinavir/ritonavir interactions (especially with immunosuppressive therapy) some patients did not receive lopinavir/ritonavir as for their treating physician choice. We clarified that. Page 5, lines 120.

-Hydroxychloroquine was advised to be not given at 04 July and lopinavir/ritonavir was advised to be not given at 06 July by World Health Organization. I respect your treatment at that time as most of medical practitioners used these drugs at that time. However, I think that you should add this fact to discussion section

R: We clarified this at the discussion section (page 20, line 307-309).

Reviewer #2: My concerns were below.

We would like to thank reviewer two for the very useful comments. We have incorporated the suggestions to our manuscript.

Introduction

1. Authors should clearly define the purpose of the study and why these authors conducted this research.

R: According to your suggestion we included a final sentence in the introduction section. Page 3, lines 73-75.

2. As I know that solid organ transplant recipients have more comorbid diseases than patients without SOT. The authors should point to this issue in a separate paragraph in this section.

R: We included a new paragraph. Page 3, lines 66-68.

Material and method

1. I recommend authors to use subtitles. Subheadings; patient selection, treatment, outcomes, hospitalization, and ICU admission may use.

R: Thank you for your suggestion; we have divided the methods section into paragraphs with subheadings, and incorporated subheadings in the tables.

2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined in this section.

R: Since it was an observational study, all patients admitted to our hospital with COVID-19 during the study period were included. We have clarified this in the methods section.

3. The selection of the patients without SOT should be defined in this section, and criteria for a propensity score match should be defined.

R: Propensity score matching was calculated using the following parameters: age, sex, hypertension, lung disease, use of anti-cytokine therapies, baseline OSD and OSD during hospitalization. We selected these variables because they were associated with worse outcomes in previous studies and we wanted to evaluate the effect of adjuvant therapies.

4. Study endpoints should be clearly stated.

R: We have added the study endpoints at the introduction section.

5. Authors should refer to the selection criteria of the patients without SOT.

R: All patients admitted to our hospital with COVID-19 during the study period were included. We have clarified this in the methods section

Results

1. The diabetes rate in Table 1 is misspelled.

R: Thank you for pointing it out, we have corrected the rate.

2. After the propensity score match, the differences in covid-19 treatment should be explained.

R: Anti-cytokine therapy was one of the parameters used for the propensity score analysis, and therefore there were no differences between the groups.

3. Kaplan Meier analysis can be useful for determining differences in mortality between groups.

R: According to your suggestion we performed a Kaplan Meier analysis. Figure 1.

Patients with macrophage activation syndrome due to COVID-19 can be shown in the tables.

R: Unfortunately we were unable to retrieve interleukin levels of all included patients. Instead we included other markers of a hyper inflammatory state such as ferritin levels, d-dimer and C-reactive protein. We believe these markers reflect common practices in most centers, as very few are able to quantify interleukins.

The hyperinflammatory syndrome observed in COVID-19 shares similarities with other hyperinflammatory disorders, such as secondary haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, macrophage activation syndrome, macrophage activation-like syndrome of sepsis, and cytokine release syndrome. Nevertheless, these disorders, sometimes known as cytokine storm syndromes, share overlapping clinical manifestations and a common pathway of macrophage activation and a self-perpetuating cycle of cytokine production, but consensus agreement is lacking with regard to classification and diagnostic criteria. (Webb et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2020 Dec; 2(12) ).

Discussion

1. The mortality rate of SOT recipients with COVID-19 was lower than in some of the previous articles. The authors must find out what factors can be associated with these differences.

R: We have added the following paragraph to the discussion “Our mortality rate is similar to other transplant cohorts (3,4,10). However, other cohort have reported much worse outcomes, with mortality ranging from 28 to 67% (5,7). These differences might me explained by demographic differences, including limited heath resources in the context of an overstretched health system in the peak of the pandemic”. Page 21, lines 324-328

2. The authors should discuss the impact of chronic kidney disease on covid 19 mortality in a separate paragraph.

R: We have included baseline chronic kidney disease in both groups and added a sentence in the discussion. Page 21, line 340

3. Treatment modalities of the patients should be discussed in a separate paragraph.

R: We have included a new paragraph discussing COVID-19 therapies. Page 20, lines 301-314

4. The authors did not perform a power analysis before calculation, and the results may have been determined due to the second type of statistical error analysis. Therefore, authors should not use exact expressions.

R: We agree with reviewer and introduced limitations of this study at the discussion section, and have rephrased conclusions accordingly.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript has conclusions similar to other large SOT cohorts that transplant itself does not necessarily increase risk for COVID-19 associated morbidity / mortality, and that other factors such as age and comorbidities play a role. While I agree with a propensity-matched score approach, the study has significant limitations including lack of information on key transplant-related variables (immunosuppression, timing from transplant, rejection) as well as the severity of illness in the non-transplant group.

R: We have included more variables related to transplantation, including immunosuppressive regimen, time from transplant and previous episodes of rejection (3 months prior to admission). Table 1.

Line 59: Mortality rate of 7% is higher than most estimates, although there are some studies were case fatality rate was that high. Suggest finding more accurate estimate.

R: We have included a paragraph in the discussion were we speculate on the rate of mortality of our cohort compared to other cohorts. Page 21, lines 324-328

Lines 89-97: Is there a reason that the authors did not use World Health Organization ordinal scale 0-8 that is current reference for clinical severity?

R: We agree with reviewer three that WHO ODS is the reference, and have changed it.

Lines 103: What “anti-cytokine” therapy was used?

R: We have specified the anticytokine therapies available at our center at the time of our study in the methods section.

Lines 131-132: how were the variables for propensity score matching chosen?

R: We performed the propensity score match to reduce possible bias between 2 groups and we chose age, gender, comorbidities, anti-cytokine therapy and mortality because we thought that these variables could be related with outcomes. In terms of treatment we only chose anti-cytokine therapy because no one in the transplant group received remdesivir.

Line 140: What does “double transplant” mean? Is it a patient who has had 2 sequental transplants (e.g. 2 kidney transplants after a single failed grafts) or 2 organs (like kidney-pancreas)?

R: We have included in the results section, that 2 of the SOT patients were combined liver-kidney transplant. There were no sequential transplants. Page 7, lines 173.

Line 145: How was it determined that the patients had Strep pneumo co-infection? Was urinary antigen testing or culture used, and what imaging corresponded to make diagnosis?

R: To diagnose Strep pneumo co-infection the patients had to meet 2 criteria:

1. Culture from the respiratory tract or positive urinary antigen.

2. Chest X-ray or CT scan suggestive of bacterial pneumonia.

We added these diagnostic criteria to methods section. Page 5, lines 110-112.

Line 146: Table 1 should include characteristics for the non-SOT group, with p-values. By definition, outcomes should not be included in Table 1. The authors are also clearly missing some important variables relevant to the degree of immunosuppression of SOT recipients such as time from transplant, induction regimen used, maintenance immunosuppression, presence / absence of rejection, recent treatment for rejection.

R: We included this information and deleted outcomes from table 1

Line 172: It is very interesting to compare the characteristics of SOT and non-SOT groups. It appears that the non-SOT group was quite sick with 23% of patients experiencing septic shock, and higher baseline mortality. This should be considered when interpreting the study

R: We have added a sentence in the discussion section pointing out this data.

Line 260-263: The finding of differences in therapy is not significant other than the fact that it outlines the differences in practice at this one center.

R: We specifiied in the methods section the protocol that was being used in the time of the study, as recommendations on the treatment with COVID-19 continues to change. Physicians might be more cautious when using certain new antimicrobials in SOT patients, and drug interactions definitely play a role. We thought it was important to highlight these differences.

Line 263-265: There ARE therapies that have been shown to be beneficial in RCTs: remdesivir and dexamethasone.

R: We changed this sentence, and have included references with the studies that support the use of these drugs. Page 20, lines 310-311.

Line 279: The fact that transplant mortality was similar to other centers I think emphasizes that non-transplant mortality in this cohort was high.

R: The mortality rate of this cohort was studied during the first wave of COVID-19 was 14.5%. It does not differ from other series published in the same period.

Line 298: Authors should include in limitation that there was routine use of agents without proven efficacy, and some with associated harm (protease inhibitors, hydroxychloroquine, anti-cytokine agents) were used as part of the institution’s standard of care.

R: We have added the following sentences: “We did find differences in the use of COVID-19 adjuvant therapy that was considered standard of care at the time of the study in the two groups. Transplant patients received significantly less lopinavir/ritonavir, and more anakinra compared to non-transplant patients. The important drug-drug interactions of lopinavir/ritonavir with immunosuppressant medications could have influenced physicians on prescribing this drug (12). Remdesivir which has been shown to reduce the time to clinical improvement, was not administered to SOT patients, possibly as a result of higher incidence, of chronic kidney disease and acute kidney injure, that contraindicate the use of this drug (13). Randomized control trials with lopinavir/ritonavir and azythromycin as adyuvant therapy for COVID-19 have shown no benefit, and some have shown deleterious effects, and therefore they are no longer being used”.

Comment: This manuscript appears to be written by non-native speaker. Please check for spelling and grammatical errors.

R: According to your suggestion the manuscript was revised by a native English speaker.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Tzevat Tefik

25 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-31759R1

No increased risk of mortality in solid organ transplant patients with COVID-19

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bodro,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 11 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,

Tzevat Tefik, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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: Dear authors,

Thank you very much for your efforts to revise the manuscript.

I think the final form of the article may be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #2: My concerns were below:

Title 

The title describes no increased risk of mortality, but authors must clearly define the group of the patient which, was shared the same risk of mortality between the solid organ recipient. I think that "No increased risk of mortality in solid organ transplant patients with COVID-19 compared to the non-solid organ transplant patients with COVID-19" or "A propensity score-matched analysis of mortality in solid organ transplant patients with COVID-19 compared to the non-solid organ transplant patients" may be better options.

Abstract

The authors defined the risk factors of mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. On the other hand, this issue is not written in this part. Authors should re-write or remove this sentence.

If this sentence is removed, criteria for a propensity score match would be useful for the readers.

 Introduction

Some of the major articles in this issue could not be referenced.

doi:10.1111/ajt.16185, 

doi:10.1056/NEJMc2011117, 

doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000003533, 

doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000003433, 

doi:10.1111/ajt.16246, 

doi:10.1111/tid.13383, 

doi:10.1111/tid.13371, 

doi:10.1016/j.kint.2020.08.005 

maybe added to the references

Two sentences that began "The main objective" and "the aim of the study" were defined the same thing. The paragraph which began with "the main objective" may remove.

"Furthermore, besides immunosuppressive regimens, transplant recipients usually present more comorbidities such as hypertension and diabetes, possibly influencing the outcome of patients with COVID-19. On the other hand, any propensity score match analysis was not performed in mortality of solid organ recipients compared to non-solid organ transplant patients before." may be a better option.

Material and methods

Serum may be added before the laboratory measurements; such as C-reactive protein, creatinine.

All patients were followed-up at least after discharge for two months.

There must be an anticoagulation and ventilation protocol for COVID-19 which, must be described in the material and method section.

Result

The authors must describe why they measure in mean and SD for table 1 and median and IQR for table 2?

Twenty-one patients were diagnosed with pulmonary emboli, does the patient screen for pulmonary emboli, or are they have any symptoms? This issue must be described in the material and method section.

Table 2 should be re-calculated after propensity score-matched analysis.

Discussion

These mortality differences might be explained by the recipient and donor age, donor type, and the number of comorbid diseases.

One of the major limitations of the study, was the small sample size which, was not clearly described in this section. As I mentioned in the previous review, it may cause a type 2 error.

**********

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 Mar 3;16(3):e0247251. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247251.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


25 Jan 2021

Dear editor,

Thank you for considering our revised-manuscript entitled “No increased risk of mortality in solid organ transplant patients with COVID-19”. Following your instructions we have addressed the new comments from reviewer 2 in a point-to-point fashion that we are attaching.

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: My concerns were below:

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. We hope we have addressed all the concerns, and that the manuscript reads more clear now.

1) Title

The title describes no increased risk of mortality, but authors must clearly define the group of the patient which, was shared the same risk of mortality between the solid organ recipient. I think that "No increased risk of mortality in solid organ transplant patients with COVID-19 compared to the non-solid organ transplant patients with COVID-19" or "A propensity score-matched analysis of mortality in solid organ transplant patients with COVID-19 compared to the non-solid organ transplant patients" may be better options.

Authors: thank you for the suggestion. We have modified the title accordingly to: "A propensity score-matched analysis of mortality in solid organ transplant patients with COVID-19 compared to the non-solid organ transplant patients".

2) Abstract

The authors defined the risk factors of mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. On the other hand, this issue is not written in this part. Authors should re-write or remove this sentence.

If this sentence is removed, criteria for a propensity score match would be useful for the readers.

Authors: We have included your suggestion in the abstract.

3) Introduction

Some of the major articles in this issue could not be referenced.

doi:10.1111/ajt.16185,

doi:10.1056/NEJMc2011117,

doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000003533,

doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000003433,

doi:10.1111/ajt.16246,

doi:10.1111/tid.13383,

doi:10.1111/tid.13371,

doi:10.1016/j.kint.2020.08.005

maybe added to the references

Authors: We have added the suggested references.

Two sentences that began "The main objective" and "the aim of the study" were defined the same thing. The paragraph which began with "the main objective" may remove.

Authors: We have deleted the paragraph that reviewer 2 mentioned.

"Furthermore, besides immunosuppressive regimens, transplant recipients usually present more co-morbidities such as hypertension and diabetes, possibly influencing the outcome of patients with COVID-19. On the other hand, any propensity score match analysis was not performed in mortality of solid organ recipients compared to non-solid organ transplant patients before." may be a better option.

Authors: we have replaced the paragraph as suggested by reviewer 2

4) Material and methods

Serum may be added before the laboratory measurements; such as C-reactive protein, creatinine.

Authors: we have added serum before the laboratory measurements.

All patients were followed-up at least after discharge for two months.

There must be an anticoagulation and ventilation protocol for COVID-19 which, must be described in the material and method section.

Authors: We have described the anticoagulation and ventilation protocol in the methods section.

5) Results

The authors must describe why they measure in mean and SD for table 1 and median and IQR for table 2?

Authors: We have changed data. All measures were calculated in median and IQR.

Twenty-one patients were diagnosed with pulmonary emboli, does the patient screen for pulmonary emboli, or are they have any symptoms? This issue must be described in the material and method section.

Authors: We have specified that only certain patients are screened for PE, ie: if there is clinical suspicion.

Table 2 should be re-calculated after propensity score-matched analysis.

Authors: In table 2 we compared the two groups before applying the propensity score-matched analysis. Comparison of transplant and non-transplant population after applying a propensity score analysis, using only variables we considered that could influence outcomes is shown in table 5.

6) Discussion

These mortality differences might be explained by the recipient and donor age, donor type, and the number of co-morbid diseases.

One of the major limitations of the study, was the small sample size which, was not clearly described in this section. As I mentioned in the previous review, it may cause a type 2 error.

Authors: We have highlighted in the limitations the small sample size might cause a type 2 error.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS one re-review.docx

Decision Letter 2

Tzevat Tefik

4 Feb 2021

A propensity score-matched analysis of mortality in solid organ transplant patients with COVID-19 compared to non-solid organ transplant patients

PONE-D-20-31759R2

Dear Dr. Bodro,

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,

Tzevat Tefik, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #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 #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 #2: I believe that manuscript has been considerably improved, and grateful to the authors for their patience. I think that the article satisfied the standards for acceptance for PLOS ONE.

**********

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 #2: No

Acceptance letter

Tzevat Tefik

18 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-31759R2

A propensity score-matched analysis of mortality in solid organ transplant patients with COVID-19 compared to non-solid organ transplant patients

Dear Dr. Bodro:

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. Tzevat Tefik

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

    (SAV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review of the article.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS one re-review.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES