Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 25;16(3):e0249249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249249

Sociodemographic characteristics and risk factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection in Luanda, Angola

Cruz S Sebastião 1,2,3, Zoraima Neto 2,*, Pedro Martinez 2, Domingos Jandondo 2, Janete Antonio 2, Manuela Galangue 2, Marcia de Carvalho 2, Kumbelembe David 2, Julio Miranda 2, Pedro Afonso 2, Luzia Inglês 2, Raisa Rivas Carrelero 2, Jocelyne Neto de Vasconcelos 1,2,*, Joana Morais 2,4,*
Editor: Muhammad Adrish5
PMCID: PMC7993870  PMID: 33765102

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the characteristics related to SARS-CoV-2 in Luanda, Angola. A total of 622 individuals were screened for SARS-CoV-2 from January to September 2020. Chi-square and logistic regression were used to identify the relationship between sociodemographic characteristics and SARS-CoV-2. Of the 622 tested, 14.3% tested positive. The infection rate was the same for both genders (14.3%). Individuals ≥40 years old, from non-urbanized areas, and healthcare professionals had a higher frequency of infection. The risk of infection was very high in individuals ≥60 years old (AOR: 23.3, 95% CI: 4.83–112), in women (AOR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.76–2.04), in Luanda (AOR: 7.40, 95% CI: 1.64–33.4), and healthcare professionals (AOR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.60–2.71), whereas a low risk was observed in individuals from urbanized areas (AOR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.26–0.75). Our results suggest that Angolan authorities should implement a greater effort in non-urbanized areas and among healthcare professionals since when these individuals presented any indication for a COVID-19 test, such as fever/cough/myalgia, they were more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than having some other cause for symptoms.

Introduction

The severe acute respiratory syndrome of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a new member of the family Coronaviridae [1, 2]. This new coronavirus was initially identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. The SARS-CoV-2 infection causes coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) [3]. Infected individuals may experience fever, dry cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, myalgia, diarrhea, and in severe cases, the SARS-CoV-2 infection causes viral pneumonia and leads to death [46]. By the end of October 2020, over 40 million infections and over a million deaths related to SARS-CoV-2 infection have been reported globally [7]. In Africa, the pandemic is increasing in the number of infections and deaths [7, 8].

The first cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Angola were detected in March 2020 at the Instituto Nacional de Investigação em Saúde (INIS), the national reference biomedical research institute located in Luanda, the capital city of Angola. By the end of October 2020, about 10 000 infections and 270 deaths related to SARS-CoV-2 infection had been reported [7]. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in Angola, the INIS was the only institution responsible for laboratory testing and surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 cases in the country.

Angola is a country in sub-Saharan Africa with more than 25 million inhabitants living in 18 provinces, with about 48% male inhabitants and 52% female, with an average age of 20.6 years. Luanda province is the most inhabited with about 7 million inhabitants [9]. A large proportion of the population from Luanda province lives in slums with poor basic sanitation and limited access to health care [10]. In addition, because of the oil trade, international business travelers have intensely visited the Luanda province, which could increase the chance of importing SARS-CoV-2 to the country’s capital and easily spread to other regions. At present, there is little information published on the sociodemographic characteristics, as well as, the risk factors associated with the emergence and spread of the SARS-CoV-2, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), such as Angola [11]. However, in this study, we investigate in detail the sociodemographic characteristics including risk factors related to the emergence and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in Luanda, the capital city of Angola.

Materials and methods

Study design and participants

This is a cross-sectional study performed with 622 individuals out of 16 028 individuals tested for the SARS-CoV-2 infection between January to September 2020 at Instituto Nacional de Investigação em Saúde (INIS), located in Luanda, the capital city of Angola. The INIS is an Angolan institute of scientific research directly subordinated and supported by the Angolan Ministry of Health, whose main objective is to generate, develop and disseminate scientific, technological, and strategic knowledge about health and its determinants, for strengthening public health policies and improving the national health system in Angola (http://www.inis.ao/index.php/institucional/o-instituto). The sociodemographic (age, gender, province, residence area, and occupation) and clinical characteristics (signs/symptoms and comorbidities at admission) of participants were collected by the research team using a structured questionnaire for the surveillance and investigation of SARS-CoV-2 cases. We did not develop a questionnaire as part of this study. The questionary used in the study was prepared and made available by the national public health directorate of Angola. However, the questionnaire was not validated prior to testing on study participants, since the questionnaire is validated by the national public health directorate of Angola for the surveillance and investigation of SARS-CoV-2 cases in Angola. The study protocol was reviewed by the scientific coordination of INIS and ethical approval was obtained from the national ethics committee of the Ministry of Health of Angola (nr.25/2020). The participants or legal guardians of minors were informed about the study and verbal consent was secured before being enrolled in the study. The information from the studied population was fully anonymized, used for the stated objectives, and kept confidential in the INIS.

Sample collection and laboratory testing

Smears or swabs from the upper respiratory tract were obtained in all participants during admission using the Viral Transport Media (VTM) 3 mL with a minitip flocked swab from the KaiBili (Hangzhou Genesis, China). People were tested for the following reasons as follows: if they had presumably COVID-19 suspicious syndrome; if they have been in contact with someone infected; or if they traveled to any country or region with active transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The smears or swabs were stirred in the transport solution to elute the cells that adhere to the swabs. Then, the swabs were kept in a sterile viral transport medium and transported immediately to the molecular biology laboratory of INIS. The viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) was manually extracted from 200μL of the liquid specimen using the Nucleic Acid Isolation or Purification Reagent produced by Da An Gene Co., Ltd. of Sun Yat-sen University (Da An Gene, China). The SARS-CoV-2 infection was screened and confirmed with real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay using the Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast RT-PCR System (Thermo Fisher Scientific), in the molecular biology laboratory of INIS, using a protocol previously described for the detection of 2019 novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) RNA (PCR-Fluorescence Probing) (Da an Gene, China) [12]. Briefly, the RT-PCR was carried out using 5μL of the extracted RNA from liquid specimen to each reaction tube in a final reaction volume of 25μL that contain specific primers and fluorescent probes targeting in vitro qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab and N genes. Cycling conditions consisted of 15 minutes at 50°C for reverse transcription and 15 minutes at 95°C for pre-denaturation, followed by 45 cycles of 15 seconds at 94°C and 45 seconds at 55°C, for nucleic acid amplification and fluorescence detection. The fluorescent dyes FAM, VIC, and Cy5 were used to detect light emissions. Positive and negative control samples were included for each RT-PCR assay. Specimens with cycle threshold (Ct) up to 40 were considered positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, whereas specimens with Ct value above 40 or without Ct value for the FAM and VIC dyes were considered negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Statistical analysis

The data were coded and analyzed using SPSS version 25 (IBM SPSS Statistics, USA). The normality of data distribution was checked using the values of skewness and kurtosis. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages, while continuous variables with the data normally distributed were presented as mean and standard deviation (SD). Chi-square (X2) test was used to compare frequencies and identify the relationship between categorical variables. Besides that, logistic regression analysis and odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to determine the strength and direction of the interaction between variables. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was used to check the quality of the model fit. All values shown are two-tailed and were considered statistically significant when p<0.05.

Results

Table 1 summarizes the sociodemographic characteristics and risk factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection in Luanda, Angola. A total of 622 individuals out of 16 028 individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 from January to September 2020 completed all sociodemographic and clinical data and were included in the analysis. Angola has a weak surveillance system in which lack of epidemiological data is a major problem that being the reason why only 622 individuals with complete epidemiological data were included in this paper. Of these, 244/622 (39.2%) were female and 378/622 (60.8%) were male. The age range varied between 1–92 years old, with an average of 32.3 ± 18.7. The study was predominated by adults aged 30–39 years (23.0%, 143/622), followed by individuals aged 40–49 years (16.2%, 101/622). Moreover, individuals from Luanda province (93.9%, 584/622), living in an urbanized area (75.1%, 467/622), and unemployed (73.0%, 454/622), were also predominant. A total of 89/622 (14.3%) of the studied population tested positive for RT-PCR against SARS-CoV-2. All individuals who tested positive by RT-PCR were placed in quarantine centers established by the Angolan Ministry of Health, for clinical follow-up and isolation. Upon entering quarantine in most cases we lost track of patients and it was not possible to do a follow-up of patients, to obtain the result of the disease severity, and the clinical outcome. The positivity rate by SARS-CoV-2 was the same for both genders (14.3%), while individuals over 40 years old, from rural areas in Luanda, and individuals involved in health care had a higher frequency of infection by SARS-CoV-2. Age and place of residence were statistically related to SARS-CoV-2 infection (p<0.05), while, gender, province, and occupation showed no relationship (p>0.05) with the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Besides that, our results showed that the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher in individuals with age equal or over 60 years [AOR: 23.3 (95% CI: 4.83–112), p<0.001], in women [AOR: 1.24 (95% CI: 0.76–2.04), p = 0.390], in individuals from Luanda province [AOR: 7.40 (95% CI: 1.64–33.4), p = 0.009], and in healthcare professionals [AOR: 1.27 (95% CI: 0.60–2.71), p = 0.529]. On the other hand, the risk of infection was lower in individuals from urbanized areas of Luanda [AOR: 0.44 (95% CI: 0.26–0.75), p = 0.002]. Moreover, our results also revealed that almost all (98.9%, 88/89) individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection at INIS, had symptoms related to COVID-19. There was only one individual who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection who was listed as asymptomatic. Even so, no significant relationship was observed (p>0.05) between sociodemographic characteristics and the worsening of the infection (Table 2). Cough (65.9%, 58/88), fever (43.2%, 38/88), headache (26.1%, 23/88), shortness of breath (18.2%, 16/88), malaise (17.0%, 15/88), and sore throat (12.5%, 11/88), were the most frequent signs and symptoms presented by the COVID-19 patients in Luanda (Table 3). Interestingly, we observed a relationship between Ct values and myalgia or arthralgia (p = 0.041) (Table 3).

Table 1. Sociodemographic characterization and risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Luanda, Angola.

Characteristics n (%) Test positivity to SARS-CoV-2 Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
No (%) Yes (%) p-value OR (95% CI) p-value AOR (95% CI) p-value
Overall 622 (100) 533 (85.7) 89 (14.3)
Age groups
    <10y 97 (15.6) 95 (97.9) 2 (2.1) <0.001 1 - 1 -
    10-19y 67 (10.8) 65 (97.0) 2 (3.0) 1.46 (0.20–10.6) 0.708 1.65 (0.23–12.1) 0.624
    20-29y 98 (15.8) 83 (84.7) 15 (15.3) 8.58 (1.90–38.7) 0.005 9.78 (2.13–44.9) 0.003
    30-39y 143 (23.0) 117 (81.8) 26 (18.2) 10.6 (2.44–45.6) 0.002 11.9 (2.30–52.2) 0.001
    40-49y 101 (16.2) 86 (85.1) 15 (14.9) 8.29 (1.84–37.3) 0.006 9.23 (2.01–42.3) 0.004
    50-59y 73 (11.7) 56 (76.7) 17 (23.3) 14.4 (3.21–64.8) <0.001 14.7 (3.20–67.2) 0.001
    ≥60y 43 (6.9) 31 (72.1) 12 (27.9) 18.4 (3.90–86.7) <0.001 23.3 (4.83–112) <0.001
Gender
    Female 244 (39.2) 209 (85.7) 35 (14.3) 0.984 1.01 (0.64–1.59) 0.984 1.24 (0.76–2.04) 0.390
    Male 378 (60.8) 324 (85.7) 54 (14.3) 1 - 1 -
Province
    Outside Luanda 38 (6.1) 36 (94.7) 2 (5.3) 0.100 1 - 1 -
    Luanda 584 (93.9) 497 (85.1) 87 (14.9) 3.15 (0.75–13.3) 0.119 7.40 (1.64–33.4) 0.009
Place of residence
    Rural area 155 (24.9) 125 (80.6) 30 (19.4) 0.038 1 - 1 -
    Urban area 467 (75.1) 408 (87.4) 59 (12.6) 0.60 (0.37–0.98) 0.040 0.44 (0.26–0.75) 0.002
Occupation
    Unemployed 454 (73.0) 396 (87.2) 58 (12.8) 0.149 1 - 1 -
    Healthcare professionals 51 (8.2) 40 (78.4) 11 (21.6) 1.88 (0.91–3.87) 0.087 1.27 (0.60–2.71) 0.529
    Others 117 (18.8) 97 (82.9) 20 (17.1) 1.41 (0.81–2.45) 0.227 1.14 (0.63–2.05) 0.673

aAdjusted for all the explanatory variables listed.

Bold results mean they were significant in the chi-square or logistic regression (p<0.05).

Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics related to disease severity among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Luanda, Angola.

Characteristics n (%) Symptomatic disease
No (%) Yes (%) p-value
Overall 89 (100) 1 (1.1) 88 (98.9)
Age groups
    <10y 2 (2.2) 0 (0.0) 2 (100) 0.545
    10-19y 2 (2.2) 0 (0.0) 2 (100)
    20-29y 15 (16.9) 1 (6.7) 14 (93.3)
    30-39y 26 (29.9) 0 (0.0) 26 (100)
    40-49y 15 (16.9) 0 (0.0) 15 (100)
    50-59y 17 (19.1) 0 (0.0) 17 (100)
    ≥60y 12 (13.5) 0 (0.0) 12 (100)
Gender
    Female 35 (39.3) 1 (2.9) 34 (97.1) 0.212
    Male 54 (60.7) 0 (0.0) 54 (100)
Province
    Outside Luanda 2 (2.2) 0 (0.0) 2 (100) 0.879
    Luanda 87 (97.8) 1 (1.1) 86 (98.9)
Place of residence
    Rural area 30 (33.7) 0 (0.0) 30 (100) 0.473
    Urban area 59 (66.3) 1 (1.7) 58 (98.3)
Occupation
    Unemployed 58 (65.2) 1 (1.7) 57 (98.3) 0.763
    Healthcare professionals 11 (12.4) 0 (0.0) 11 (100)
    Others 20 (22.5) 0 (0.0) 20 (100)

Table 3. Clinical characteristics at admission and their relationship with Ct value among COVID-19 patients in Luanda, Angola.

Signs, symptoms, and comorbidities All patients (n = 88) Ct value (SARS-CoV-2 N gene)
Ct ≤ 30 (%) Ct > 30 (%) p-value
Cough 58 (65.9%) 19 (32.8) 39 (67.2) 0.358
Fever (temperature ≥37.3°C) 38 (43.2%) 14 (36.8) 24 (63.2) 0.191
Headache 23 (26.1%) 8 (34.8) 15 (65.2) 0.522
Shortness of breath 16 (18.2%) 6 (37.5) 10 (62.5) 0.441
Malaise 15 (17.0) 7 (46.7) 8 (53.3) 0.111
Sore throat 11 (12.5%) 5 (45.5) 6 (54.5) 0.216
Runny nose 10 (11.4%) 3 (30.0) 7 (70.0) 0.973
Diarrhea 6 (6.8%) 3 (50.0) 3 (50.0) 0.255
Comorbidities 5 (5.7%) 3 (60.0) 2 (40.0) 0.124
    Diabetes 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0) 1 (100) 0.515
    Tuberculosis 1 (1.1%) 1 (100) 0 (0.0) 0.120
    Cardiac disease 1 (1.1%) 1 (100) 0 (0.0) 0.120
Myalgia or arthralgia 4 (4.5%) 3 (75.0) 1 (25.0) 0.041
Nausea or vomiting 4 (4.5%) 1 (25.0) 3 (75.0) 0.838
Joint pain 3 (3.4%) 0 (0.0) 3 (100) 0.254
Chest pain 3 (3.4%) 0 (0.0) 3 (100) 0.254
Chills 2 (2.3%) 0 (0.0) 2 (100) 0.354
Fatigue 1 (1.1%) 1 (100) 0 (0.0) 0.120

The bold result mean that was significant in the chi-square test (p<0.05).

Discussion

The results on COVID-19 obtained in this study seem to be valuable data that should be shared, especially since they are from under-resourced areas and are important for the present COVID-19 situation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that details the sociodemographic aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in Luanda, the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in Angola. In this study, the positive rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 14.3%. The positive rate was the same for both men and women and no relationship was observed between gender and vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection (p>0.05). Previous studies in Wuhan, China, found a higher positive rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in men compared to women [13]. Besides that, previous severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) pandemics were also mostly observed in men compared to women [1416]. Some studies reported that women have reduced susceptibility to contracting SARS-CoV-2 due to the protection provided by the activity of X-linked genes where several genes that encode molecules of the innate immune system are located and sex-specific steroids which modulate the innate and adaptive immune response against viral infections [16, 17]. However, our results even though no statistical significance indicated that the likelihood to test positive to SARS-CoV-2 infection could be higher in women (AOR: 1.24, p = 0.390) compared to men (Table 1). These results could indicate that there may be sex-dependent differences in the outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which emphasizes that gender might be a biological and social variable that should be considered in controlling the emergence and spread of viral infectious diseases in Luanda, the capital city of Angola [18].

A strong relationship between age and susceptibility to test positive to SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed in our study (p<0.001) (Table 1). Although positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection have been reported in patients of all ages, a higher positive rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed in adults (Table 1), which could show that in Luanda, there is a greater susceptibility for adult individuals to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to young individuals. On the other hand, it seems that younger individuals were more likely to be tested for symptoms that were not caused by COVID-19 than older individuals. We can also say that perhaps younger individuals had easier access to the tests, therefore, they had more mild and nonspecific symptoms. The positive rate of individuals under 20 years old was very low and varied between 2.1%–3.0%, while in individuals aged 20 to 30 years ranged from 15.3%–18.2%, individuals aged 40 to 50 years ranged from 14.9%–23.3%, and in adults age over 60 years and over was 27.9%. The individuals aged 60 or over (AOR: 23.3, p<0.001) were more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the group of young individuals under the age of 60. Our results agree with previous studies that found a high positive rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in older patients from China, Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, and Canada [19]. One of the reasons for adults or older adults to be the most vulnerable group to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection could be the fact that adults have weaker immune functions because immunosenescence increases with age. COVID-19 positivity rates may also be influenced by chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes, which are conditions that could worsen SARS-CoV-2 infection [20]. In fact, previous studies have shown a greater risk of viral infection and worse outcomes related to viral infection in older adults and adults who have certain comorbidities [21, 22].

Knowledge of sociodemographic characteristics that constitute the greatest risk of spread viral infectious disease in the community must be studied and presented to strengthen decision-making and ensure greater awareness about the COVID-19 pandemic in the community. Our study showed that Luanda province might be an independent predictor for SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR: 3.15, p = 0.119). Moreover, when adjusted with age, gender, place of residence, and occupation, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Luanda was 7.4 times (95% CI: 1.64–33.4, p = 0.009), compared to the infection rate outside Luanda. On the other hand, unlike other studies that did not show a relationship between place of residence and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, our results showed that the place of residence (rural or urbanized area) may be an important factor in the spread of viral infectious disease or SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. Individuals from urbanized areas seem to have less risk to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection (AOR: 0.44, p = 0.002), compared to individuals from rural areas (Table 1). These results were similar to those reported in Brazil, where a lower risk of infection was observed in the country’s capital compared to other regions [23]. The risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 amongst healthcare professionals could be high (AOR: 1.27, p = 0.529), compared to the unemployed and employees from other sectors (Table 1). At this time, healthcare professionals face considerable physical and mental stress, stigma, and pain for losing patients and healthcare colleagues who acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection or died of COVID-19 [8].

Currently, the world is facing a global pandemic of SARS-CoV-2, with many countries experiencing a second wave of infections [24]. In Angola, there is a continuous trend of an increase in the number of infections and deaths related to COVID-19 [7, 25]. Community transmission and increased screening capacity for SARS-CoV-2 can help explain the growing number of infected and deaths related to COVID-19 in Angola. The same pattern has been noticed in the African region, mainly in South Africa, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Botswana which also have community transmission and notable increases in cases of infection and deaths related to COVID-19 [7]. According to the COVID-19 daily update bulletin from the Ministry of Health of Angola, the COVID-19 pandemic in Luanda was asymptomatic in the first three months with positive patients reporting no symptoms [25], however, as the pandemic progressed more cases were linked to symptoms such as cough (65.9%), fever (43.2%), headache (26.1%), shortness of breath (18.2%), malaise (17.0%), and sore throat (12.5%) (Table 3). Our results are similar to previous studies who also reported a higher frequency of fever and cough in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 [46]. On the other hand, previous studies have shown high viremia after the virus enters the human body and that the main clinical manifestations resulting from high viral load are fever, sore throat, shortness of breath, fatigue, and diarrhea [26]. Besides that, previous studies also observed a higher frequency of clinical manifestations such as fever, cough, myalgia, fatigue, and diarrhea, in patients who died due to COVID-19 [4, 5]. Almost all individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 in our study had high Ct values for the SARS-CoV-2 N gene, which could indicate low viremia and mild or moderate disease. On the other hand, most patients with diarrhea, comorbidities, myalgia, and fatigue, had low Ct values, which could indicate high viremia and severe disease. Interestingly, low Ct values were significantly associated with myalgia or arthralgia which may be associated with high viremia or severe disease (p<0.05) (Table 3). Therefore, our results showed that the presence of myalgia or arthralgia might be an indication of high viremia or severe disease related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the relationship between clinical manifestations related to SARS-CoV-2 infection and the Ct values or viral load should be further studied to help healthcare professionals intervene immediately and to avoid unfavorable clinical outcomes. The high number of individuals detected with symptomatic infection in Luanda may be an indication that the population of Luanda is mostly looking for healthcare when the disease is at a severe stage. However, these data may not reflect the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic in Luanda, or in other provinces of Angola, since individuals tested in other health units responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in Angola were not included. Moreover, there has been a big gap in the country’s pandemic response capacity, mainly due to the lack of human resources and limited access to protective equipment for healthcare professionals, COVID-19 patients, and the general population. Containment measures such as the regular use of masks, the provision of soap and water for handwashing, and physical distance, these are low-cost interventions, but they represent major challenges in urbanized and non-urbanized regions of Luanda, the capital city of Angola. Therefore, failure to comply with the containment measures could lead to increased spread and deaths related to SARS-CoV-2 infection in Angola. On the other hand, the high exposure of healthcare professionals and the lack of protective equipment can be a crucial factor for increased SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality amongst healthcare professionals and their families [8]. However, we strongly suggest that the Ministry of Health of Angola should pay special attention to the safety of healthcare professionals, as well as their mental wellbeing. Moreover, increasing the number of professionals in health units in Luanda, as well as increasing access and availability of personal protective equipment, especially for healthcare professionals, must be guaranteed for their protection and to increment the response capacity of the COVID-19 pandemic in Angola. Furthermore, studies on the mental health of healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic should be carried out in Angola, to help define strategies to improve the response capacity.

The current study has potential limitations. Firstly, the study included only individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 at INIS. Secondly, the data of the individuals included in this study may not represent the whole population of Luanda or other provinces of Angola. Thirdly, with the lack of data on disease severity and the limited number of participants infected with SARS-CoV-2, it is difficult to assess disease severity and mortality. Finally, more detailed patient information, specifically SARS-CoV-2 viral load, length of stay in the hospital or quarantine centers, and clinical outcomes were not available at the time of analysis. Despite these limitations, this study allows for a primary assessment of the sociodemographic characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in Angola. However, future studies including more participants with more clinic and sociodemographic information, especially the viral load, length of stay in the hospital, and clinical outcome, should be carried out, to reinforce ongoing strategies to combat the COVID-19 pandemic in Angola. Besides that, retrospective studies capable of determining the exact period of introduction of SARS-CoV-2 in Angola must be carried out. On the other hand, genetic characterization of SARS-CoV-2 strains and the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 with vector-borne diseases should be explored, since the Luanda province is endemic in vector-borne diseases, especially dengue, zika, chikungunya, and malaria [27, 28].

Conclusions

Our results showed that age and other sociodemographic characteristics are important factors for the emergence and spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Luanda, the capital city of Angola. A greater effort to control the COVID-19 pandemic should be implemented in people from non-urbanized areas and among healthcare professionals, since when these individuals presented with an indication for COVID-19 testing such as cough, fever, and myalgias, that they were more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 rather than have some other cause for their symptoms. Further clinical and epidemiological studies are needed, for the deeper characterization of the groups most vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection in Angola. In addition, these studies will reinforce the information utilized for decision-making about the ongoing strategies to control the COVID-19 pandemic in Angola.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the Ministry of Health of Angola and partners to logistic support. Moreover, thank all the individuals from Luanda who participated freely in this study. Thanks to the research team of INIS and CISA for the technical support and data collection, and thank Joana Sebastião for scientific and logistic support.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

Decision Letter 0

Muhammad Adrish

4 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-36563

Sociodemographic characteristics and risk factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection in Luanda, Angola

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. dos Santos Sebastiao,

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 review concerns raised by the reviewers and provide point by point response in your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by March 3rd, 2021. 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,

Muhammad Adrish

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. Thank you for including your ethics statement: 'The participants or legal guardians of minors were informed about the study and ethical acceptance was obtained from the national ethics committee of the Ministry of Health of Angola (nr.25/2020).'

a. Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (i) whether consent was informed and (ii) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.  If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible.

5. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire prior to testing on study participants. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section.

6. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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: Overall this appears to be valuable data which should be shared, particularly given the paucity of data on covid from under resourced areas, but the manuscript appears to need major revisions.

Major comments:

1. The included population needs to be better defined, we need to know why people were tested. Table 2 describes this to some degree but it is not discussed in the text.

2. The conclusions of the manuscript seem to be based on the assumption that covid testing was done as a random sample survey of prevalence. What the data actually show is the positivity rate of people tested because of some, presumably, covid suspicious syndrome. There were only 5 individuals who tested positive who were listed as asymptomatic. Why were these 5 individuals tested then? We cannot conclude from these data that healthcare workers, older individuals and non-urban dwellers are at higher risk for covid. We can only conclude that when these individuals presented with an indication for covid testing such as fever/cough/myalgias, that they were more likely to test positive for covid rather than have some other cause for their symptoms. For example, it seems that younger individuals were more likely to be tested for symptoms which were not caused by covid than older individuals. Perhaps younger individuals had easier access to testing so more presented with mild, nonspecific symptoms. There are many potential explanations and confounders that make it impossible to conclude that older individuals were at higher risk of acquiring covid, though it is well established that there is higher risk of severe symptoms for older individuals.

Minor comments:

30: "screened" it does not appear that this was asymptomatic screening so I would use "tested".

41: Did you mean to say "new member of the coronavirus family"

131: With a p=3.9, there is very little value to saying that SARS-CoV-2 infection is higher in women

171: "The covid pandemic in Luanda was asymptomatic in the first three months" Do you have a reference for this?

Table 1: It may be more appropriate, because this was not a random screening but rather symptomatic testing to describe column one as "test positivity" rather than prevalence. Prevalence suggests a random survey screening.

Reviewer #2: As a preliminary paper it is fine. But this paper need some addition of some information and rearrangement.

1. Please add detail information of INIS in the introduction section and add the contribution of this institution for COVID-19. Why you chose this institute.

2. Who were those 16028 patients (line 56)? Add detail.

3. Were you take written consent from the participants for this study? add detail.

4. 1 of the positive participant had no symptom (line 110). Describe, why this asymptomatic participant was tested for COVID-19.

5. Were all participants are admitted in the hospital? what were the out come of the participants. If possible add the disease severity of all (89) participants, like severe or moderate or mild. In result section.

6. Concise the Discussion part. remove the result part from the discussion section and rearrange it.

Reviewer #3: Reviewer’s response:

The study to identify the parameters associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a part of Angola looks interesting to me. The findings of the paper are important for the present COVID situation. I believe that the findings would be helpful for future research in the same research arena. However, in terms of scientific context, this manuscript is well organized in some extent, although there are some drawbacks which must be addressed before being accepted to publish, such as:

A) The authors have used p values in abstract. It would be better for not using the p values in the contents of abstract.

B) The introduction part is too short. I think, the authors should include some relevant description of the sociodemographic status of Angola to provide an overview to the readers.

C) The primer and probe sequences used in the RT-PCR assay should also be mentioned in the manuscript/supplementary materials.

D) According to the lines 56-57, this ‘study was performed with 622 individuals out of 16028 individuals tested for the SARS CoV-2 infection between January to September 2020 in INIS’. On the other hand, in lines 119-120, ‘this study had the participation of 622 individuals out of a total of 16058 individuals screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR assay at INIS’. Why this anomaly of 16028 vs 16058? And most importantly, in which basis these 622 individuals were selected for the study and others were excluded? The inclusion of all the screened population might provide more significant information regarding the disease. The authors have to justify the sample size in this regard.

E) Have the authors checked the normality of data? If so, how? Why have the authors used chi square and logistic regression for analysis? Why not other statistical tools? A justification in the methods would be helpful. Regression analysis outputs (in details) could be included as an appendix in the supplementary materials. Structured questionnaire mentioned in line 63 by the authors could be added as supplementary materials.

F) In the beginning of the description part, what is the meaning of ‘extended’ descriptive study?

G) There are some grammatical errors/misuse (for example, in the line 41, there is an additional word ‘virus’, in the line 131 ‘despite’ is not a proper word to use here, etc) prevailed throughout the manuscript which must be corrected to clearly illustrate the facts and findings of the study to the readers. Moreover, rephrasing and improvement of writing have been suggested throughout the discussion to improve the quality of the article.

**********

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: Yes: Brett Williams

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Emtiaz Ahmed

[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 25;16(3):e0249249. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249249.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Feb 2021

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS AND EDITOR

“PONE-D-20-36563: Sociodemographic characteristics and risk factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection in Luanda, Angola.”

Editor Comments:

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 review concerns raised by the reviewers and provide point by point response in your revised manuscript.

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

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The manuscript was formatted according to PLOS ONE's style requirements.

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement: 'The participants or legal guardians of minors were informed about the study and ethical acceptance was obtained from the national ethics committee of the Ministry of Health of Angola (nr.25/2020).'

a. Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The ethics statement was reformulated in this version of the manuscript. The study protocol was reviewed by the scientific coordination of INIS and ethical approval was obtained from the national ethics committee of the Ministry of Health of Angola (nr.25/2020). The participants or legal guardians of minors were informed about the study and verbal consent was secured before being enrolled in the study. The information from the studied population was fully anonymized, used for the stated objectives, and kept confidential in the INIS. (lines 80 – 84)

b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research

Author replay: The amended statement in the Methods section was added to the Ethics Statement field of the submission form.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (i) whether consent was informed and (ii) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The additional details regarding participant consent were provided in this version of the manuscript. The study protocol was reviewed by the scientific coordination of INIS and ethical approval was obtained from the national ethics committee of the Ministry of Health of Angola (nr.25/2020). The participants or legal guardians of minors were informed about the study and verbal consent was secured before being enrolled in the study. The information from the studied population was fully anonymized, used for the stated objectives, and kept confidential in the INIS. (lines 80 – 84)

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text was reformulated. The participants or legal guardians of minors were informed about the study and verbal consent was secured before being enrolled in the study. The information from the studied population was fully anonymized, used for the stated objectives, and kept confidential in the INIS. (lines 82 – 84)

4. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. If the original language is written in non-Latin characters, for example Amharic, Chinese, or Korean, please use a file format that ensures these characters are visible.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. We did not develop a questionnaire as part of this study. The questionary used in the study was prepared and made available by the national public health directorate of Angola. This information was added in this version of the manuscript. (lines 76 – 77)

5. Please state whether you validated the questionnaire prior to testing on study participants. Please provide details regarding the validation group within the methods section.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The questionary used in the study was prepared and made available by the national public health directorate of Angola. However, the questionnaire was not validated prior to testing on study participants, since the questionnaire is validated by the national public health directorate of Angola for the surveillance and investigation of SARS-CoV-2 cases in Angola. This information was added in this version of the manuscript. (lines 76 – 80)

6. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. No specific funding was obtained for this study. This information was added in this version of the manuscript. (line 269)

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. No specific funding was obtained for this study and there are no correct grand numbers for the awards. This information was added in this version of the manuscript. (lines 269 – 270) The INIS is an Angolan institute of scientific research directly subordinated and supported by the Angolan Ministry of Health, whose main objective is to generate, develop and disseminate scientific, technological, and strategic knowledge about health and its determinants, for strengthening public health policies and improving the national health system in Angola (http://www.inis.ao/index.php/institucional/o-instituto). This information was added in this version of the manuscript. (lines 69 – 73)

Reviewers' comments:

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Overall this appears to be valuable data which should be shared, particularly given the paucity of data on covid from under resourced areas, but the manuscript appears to need major revisions.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments.

Major comments:

1. The included population needs to be better defined, we need to know why people were tested. Table 2 describes this to some degree but it is not discussed in the text.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text was reformulated. People were tested for the following reasons as follows: if they had presumably COVID-19 suspicious syndrome; if they have been in contact with someone infected; or if they traveled to any country or region with active transmission of SARS-CoV-2. This information was added in this version of the manuscript. (lines 88 – 90)

2. The conclusions of the manuscript seem to be based on the assumption that covid testing was done as a random sample survey of prevalence. What the data actually show is the positivity rate of people tested because of some, presumably, covid suspicious syndrome. There were only 5 individuals who tested positive who were listed as asymptomatic. Why were these 5 individuals tested then? We cannot conclude from these data that healthcare workers, older individuals and non-urban dwellers are at higher risk for covid. We can only conclude that when these individuals presented with an indication for covid testing such as fever/cough/myalgias, that they were more likely to test positive for covid rather than have some other cause for their symptoms. For example, it seems that younger individuals were more likely to be tested for symptoms which were not caused by covid than older individuals. Perhaps younger individuals had easier access to testing so more presented with mild, nonspecific symptoms. There are many potential explanations and confounders that make it impossible to conclude that older individuals were at higher risk of acquiring covid, though it is well established that there is higher risk of severe symptoms for older individuals.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text was reformulated.

Minor comments:

30: "screened" it does not appear that this was asymptomatic screening so I would use "tested".

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text was reformulated. (line 30)

41: Did you mean to say "new member of the coronavirus family"

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text was reformulated. The severe acute respiratory syndrome of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a new member of the family Coronaviridae. This information was added in this version of the manuscript. (lines 42 – 43)

131: With a p=3.9, there is very little value to saying that SARS-CoV-2 infection is higher in women

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text was reformulated.

171: "The covid pandemic in Luanda was asymptomatic in the first three months" Do you have a reference for this?

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. According to the COVID-19 daily update bulletin from the Ministry of Health of Angola, the COVID-19 pandemic in Luanda was asymptomatic in the first three months with positive patients reporting no symptoms. (lines 206 – 208). These data were obtained from the daily update of COVID-19 released by the National Directorate of Public Health of Angola. (Ministério da Saúde de Angola. Pandemia da COVID-19 em Angola. Boletin informativo 269: 16 de outubro de 2020. 2020;:58–9.)

Table 1: It may be more appropriate, because this was not a random screening but rather symptomatic testing to describe column one as "test positivity" rather than prevalence. Prevalence suggests a random survey screening.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text in Table 1 was reformulated and the word prevalence was removed.

Reviewer #2: As a preliminary paper it is fine. But this paper need some addition of some information and rearrangement.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments.

1. Please add detail information of INIS in the introduction section and add the contribution of this institution for COVID-19. Why you chose this institute.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The introduction section was reformulated and information about the INIS was included in this version of the manuscript. The first cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Angola were detected in March 2020 at the Instituto Nacional de Investigação em Saúde (INIS), the national reference biomedical research institute located in Luanda, the capital city of Angola. (lines 49 – 51) At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in Angola, the INIS was the only institution responsible for laboratory testing and surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 cases in the country. (lines 52 – 53) We chose this institution because the INIS is an Angolan institute of scientific research directly subordinated and supported by the Angolan Ministry of Health, whose main objective is to generate, develop and disseminate scientific, technological, and strategic knowledge about health and its determinants, for strengthening public health policies and improving the national health system in Angola (http://www.inis.ao/index.php/institucional/o-instituto). (lines 69 – 73)

2. Who were those 16028 patients (line 56)? Add detail.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text was reformulated. The 16028 patients were the total number of individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 from January to September 2020 at INIS. Angola has a weak surveillance system in which lack of epidemiological data is a major problem that being the reason why only 622 individuals with complete epidemiological data were included in this paper. This information was added in this version of the manuscript. (lines 119 – 121)

3. Were you take written consent from the participants for this study? add detail.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The participants or legal guardians of minors were informed about the study and verbal consent was secured before being enrolled in the study. The information from the studied population was fully anonymized, used for the stated objectives, and kept confidential in the INIS. This information was added in this version of the manuscript. (lines 82 – 84)

4. 1 of the positive participant had no symptom (line 110). Describe, why this asymptomatic participant was tested for COVID-19.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. People were tested for the following reasons as follows: if they had presumably COVID-19 suspicious syndrome; if they have been in contact with someone infected; or if they traveled to any country or region with active transmission of SARS-CoV-2. This information was added in this version of the manuscript. (lines 88 – 90)

5. Were all participants are admitted in the hospital? what were the out come of the participants. If possible add the disease severity of all (89) participants, like severe or moderate or mild. In result section.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text was reformulated. We agree that this data would be very important to be reported. All individuals who tested positive by RT-PCR were placed in quarantine centers established by the Angolan Ministry of Health, for clinical follow-up and isolation. Upon entering quarantine in most cases we lost track of patients and it was not possible to do a follow-up of patients, to obtain the result of the disease severity, and the clinical outcome. This information was added in this version of the manuscript. (lines 127 – 130)

6. Concise the Discussion part. remove the result part from the discussion section and rearrange it.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text in the Discussion section was reformulated, and the result part was removed from the

Discussion.

Reviewer #3: Reviewer’s response:

The study to identify the parameters associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a part of Angola looks interesting to me. The findings of the paper are important for the present COVID situation. I believe that the findings would be helpful for future research in the same research arena. However, in terms of scientific context, this manuscript is well organized in some extent, although there are some drawbacks which must be addressed before being accepted to publish, such as:

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments.

A) The authors have used p values in abstract. It would be better for not using the p values in the contents of abstract.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text in the abstract was reformulated and p values were removed.

B) The introduction part is too short. I think, the authors should include some relevant description of the sociodemographic status of Angola to provide an overview to the readers.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. In this version of the manuscript, the text in the introduction was reformulated and the sociodemographic status of the Angolan population was included to provide an overview to the readers. Angola is a country in sub-Saharan Africa with more than 25 million inhabitants living in 18 provinces, with about 48% male inhabitants and 52% female, with an average age of 20.6 years. Luanda province is the most inhabited with about 7 million inhabitants.[9] A large proportion of the population from Luanda province lives in slums with poor basic sanitation and limited access to health care.[10] In addition, because of the oil trade, international business travelers have intensely visited the Luanda province, which could increase the chance of importing SARS-CoV-2 to the country's capital and easily spread to other regions. (lines 54 – 59)

C) The primer and probe sequences used in the RT-PCR assay should also be mentioned in the manuscript/supplementary materials.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The SARS-CoV-2 infection was screened and confirmed with real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay using the Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast RT-PCR System (Thermo Fisher Scientific), in the molecular biology laboratory of INIS, using a protocol previously described for the detection of 2019 novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) RNA (PCR-Fluorescence Probing) (Da an Gene, China). (lines 94 – 98) Reference: Da An Gene. Instructions for use for Detection Kit for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) RNA (PCR-Fluorescence Probing). Sun Yat-sen Univ. 2019;4:75–84. https://www.who.int/diagnostics_laboratory/eual/eul_0493_141_00_detection_kit_for_2019_ncov_rna_pcr_flourescence_probing.pdf.

D) According to the lines 56-57, this ‘study was performed with 622 individuals out of 16028 individuals tested for the SARS CoV-2 infection between January to September 2020 in INIS’. On the other hand, in lines 119-120, ‘this study had the participation of 622 individuals out of a total of 16058 individuals screened for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-PCR assay at INIS’. Why this anomaly of 16028 vs 16058? And most importantly, in which basis these 622 individuals were selected for the study and others were excluded? The inclusion of all the screened population might provide more significant information regarding the disease. The authors have to justify the sample size in this regard.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text was reformulated in this version of the manuscript. The 16028 patients were the total number of individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 from January to September 2020 at INIS. Angola has a weak surveillance system in which lack of epidemiological data is a major problem that being the reason why only 622 individuals with complete epidemiological data were included in this paper. (line 119 – 121) People were tested for the following reasons as follows: if they had presumably COVID-19 suspicious syndrome; if they have been in contact with someone infected; or if they traveled to any country or region with active transmission of SARS-CoV-2. (lines 88 – 90)

E) Have the authors checked the normality of data? If so, how? Why have the authors used chi square and logistic regression for analysis? Why not other statistical tools? A justification in the methods would be helpful. Regression analysis outputs (in details) could be included as an appendix in the supplementary materials. Structured questionnaire mentioned in line 63 by the authors could be added as supplementary materials.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text in statistical analysis was reformulated. The normality of data distribution was checked using the values of skewness and kurtosis. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages, while continuous variables with the data normally distributed were presented as mean and standard deviation (SD). Chi-square (X2) test was used to compare frequencies and identify the relationship between categorical variables. Besides that, logistic regression analysis and odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to determine the strength and direction of the interaction between variables. This information was added in this version of the manuscript. (lines 108 – 114)

F) In the beginning of the description part, what is the meaning of ‘extended’ descriptive study?

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text was reformulated and the word “extended” was removed.

G) There are some grammatical errors/misuse (for example, in the line 41, there is an additional word ‘virus’, in the line 131 ‘despite’ is not a proper word to use here, etc) prevailed throughout the manuscript which must be corrected to clearly illustrate the facts and findings of the study to the readers. Moreover, rephrasing and improvement of writing have been suggested throughout the discussion to improve the quality of the article.

Author replay: The authors appreciate the comments. The text was reformulated and some grammatical errors were checked.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Muhammad Adrish

15 Mar 2021

Sociodemographic characteristics and risk factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection in Luanda, Angola

PONE-D-20-36563R1

Dear Dr. Cruz dos Santos Sebastião,

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,

Muhammad Adrish, MD, MBA, FCCP, FCCM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All queries have been answered by the authors

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

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: This paper is well written and preliminary information of the country was described. Will waiting for the next upcoming information in next paper.

Reviewer #3: Thanks to the authors for properly addressing the questions raised. However, I strongly recommend the authors to recheck carefully the reference styles as there are a few anomalies (for instance, Ref. No. 13 has additional pdf. link which is inappropriate). Please follow the PLOS ONE referencing style guidelines.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Emtiaz Ahmed

Acceptance letter

Muhammad Adrish

17 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-36563R1

Sociodemographic characteristics and risk factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection in Luanda, Angola

Dear Dr. Sebastião:

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. Muhammad Adrish

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES