Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jul 22;16(7):e0254246. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254246

Mortality and associated risk factors of COVID-19 infection in dialysis patients in Qatar: A nationwide cohort study

Tarek Abdel Latif Ghonimi 1, Mohamad Mahmood Alkad 1, Essa Abdulla Abuhelaiqa 1, Muftah M Othman 1, Musab Ahmed Elgaali 1, Rania Abdelaziz M Ibrahim 1, Shajahan M Joseph 1, Hassan Ali Al-Malki 1, Abdullah Ibrahim Hamad 1,*
Editor: Bijan Najafi2
PMCID: PMC8297751  PMID: 34293004

Abstract

Context

Patients on maintenance dialysis are more susceptible to COVID-19 and its severe form. We studied the mortality and associated risks of COVID-19 infection in dialysis patients in the state of Qatar.

Methods

This was an observational, analytical, retrospective, nationwide study. We included all adult patients on maintenance dialysis therapy who tested positive for COVID-19 (PCR assay of the nasopharyngeal swab) during the period from February 1, 2020, to July 19, 2020. Our primary outcome was to study the mortality of COVID-19 in dialysis patients in Qatar and risk factors associated with it. Our secondary objectives were to study incidence and severity of COVID-19 in dialysis patients and comparing outcomes between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. Patient demographics and clinical features were collected from a national electronic medical record. Univariate Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate potential risk factors for mortality in our cohort.

Results

76 out of 1064 dialysis patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 (age 56±13.6, 56 hemodialysis and 20 peritoneal dialysis, 56 males). During the study period, 7.1% of all dialysis patients contracted COVID-19. Male dialysis patients had double the incidence of COVID-19 than females (9% versus 4.5% respectively; p<0.01). The most common symptoms on presentation were fever (57.9%), cough (56.6%), and shortness of breath (25%). Pneumonia was diagnosed in 72% of dialysis patients with COVID-19. High severity manifested as 25% of patients requiring admission to the intensive care unit, 18.4% had ARDS, 17.1% required mechanical ventilation, and 14.5% required inotropes. The mean length of hospital stay was 19.2 ± -12 days. Mortality due to COVID-19 among our dialysis cohort was 15%. Univariate Cox regression analysis for risk factors associated with COVID-19-related death in dialysis patients showed significant increases in risks with age (OR 1.077, CI 95%(1.018–1.139), p = 0.01), CHF and COPD (both same OR 8.974, CI 95% (1.039–77.5), p = 0.046), history of DVT (OR 5.762, CI 95% (1.227–27.057), p = 0.026), Atrial fibrillation (OR 7.285, CI 95%(2.029–26.150), p = 0.002), hypoxia (OR: 16.6; CI 95%(3.574–77.715), p = <0.001), ICU admission (HR30.8, CI 95% (3.9–241.2), p = 0.001), Mechanical ventilation (HR 50.07 CI 95% (6.4–391.2)), p<0.001) and using inotropes(HR 19.17, CI 95% (11.57–718.5), p<0.001). In a multivariate analysis, only ICU admission was found to be significantly associated with death [OR = 32.8 (3.5–305.4), p = 0.002)].

Conclusion

This is the first study to be conducted at a national level in Qatar exploring COVID-19 in a dialysis population. Dialysis patients had a high incidence of COVID-19 infection and related mortality compared to previous reports of the general population in the state of Qatar (7.1% versus 4% and 15% versus 0.15% respectively). We also observed a strong association between death related to COVID-19 infection in dialysis patients and admission to ICU.

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection emerged in Wuhan, China in December 2019 and has spread rapidly worldwide [1, 2]. On March 11, 2020, WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic. COVID-19 is a single-strain RNA virus that typically causes respiratory damage in humans and animals. Severe infections can lead to multisystem disorders. The clinical presentation is highly variable, from an asymptomatic or very mild course (80%) to severe involvement with unilateral or bilateral pneumonia (15%) and a very serious course with acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring ventilatory support in the intensive care unit (ICU) in 3–5% of cases [1, 3]. In severe cases of COVID-19, the immune response can trigger a strong inflammatory reaction accompanied by a cytokine storm that may worsen respiratory symptoms leading to death [13]. The mortality rate in the general population ranges from 1.4% to 8% [1, 3], and it increases significantly in patients requiring ICU admission [3].

Patients with kidney disease appear to be at high risk for COVID-19 and its related complications, as most of them are elderly and have multiple comorbidities, and some of them might be taking immunosuppressive drugs to treat an autoimmune disease or a failed kidney allograft [4]. Dialysis patients have additional risk factors, including chronic immune dysfunction, the need to go to the hospital for hemodialysis (HD), and sharing rooms with other patients [5]. Therefore, once infected, dialysis patients become itinerant sources of spreading the infection within this high-risk group. Thus, it can be stated that a dialysis unit is suitable to collect the epidemiology of COVID-19. Reports suggest a more severe disease course in patients with chronic kidney disease [6]; however, outcomes in dialysis patients are still unclear, with earlier small case series suggesting a milder course [7].

The state of Qatar has a total population of 2,723,624 [8], with 878 HD and 186 PD patients. The country has three renal centers; the largest is found in the Hamad General Hospital, which runs four satellite hemodialysis units. The other two centers are in the Al-khor Hospital and Al Wakrah Hospital. All dialysis patients who contracted COVID-19 infection dialyzed in a 6-station mobile dialysis unit until they became COVID-19 PCR negative to limit the spread of the disease.

The purpose of this study is to determine the incidence and mortality of covid-19 infection in patients under dialysis in the state of Qatar.

Materials and methods

Study design and population

This was an observational, analytical, retrospective, nationwide study from the state of Qatar. It was done by the Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC), the only healthcare provider for peritoneal and hemodialysis in Qatar. We included all end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on maintenance dialysis therapy who tested positive for COVID-19 from February 1, 2020 to July 19, 2020. Patients older than 18 years who had received dialysis for more than 1 month in any of the country’s ambulatory dialysis units were enrolled in the study. The study protocol was approved by the local clinical research ethics committee (MRC-05-161) and the Medical Research Center (MRC-01-20-679). The study passed through a fast track with approval number MRC-05-161, it was the initial approval from the hospital committee, and the IRB on 20 July 2020. It was only approved on an expedited basis; however, all the study documents were approved by the Medical Research Center (MRC) through the normal process with tracking number (MRC-01-20-679) on 24 July 2020. As per the approval, the study meets the waiver criteria of informed consent, and all data were fully anonymized before we accessed them.

Outcomes

1- Primary outcomes

Determine the mortality rate of dialysis patients with COVID-19 infection and associated risk factors. Mortality (death rate) was calculated per the following equation:

Deathrate=Numberofdieddialysispatientswithcovid19+veTotalNumberofdialysispatientswithcovid19+ve×100

2- Secondary outcomes

a-Determine the incidence of COVID-19 infection in dialysis patients in Qatar and assess its risk factors with comparison of COVID19 positive dialysis cohort to dialysis patients with no COVID19 (control).

b- Assess the severity of COVID-19 in dialysis patients and its related complications such as the incidence of hypoxia, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, need for inotropes for resistant hypotension or shock, incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and length of hospital stay.

c- Compare the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in peritoneal dialysis (PD) and HD patients.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The study enrolled all eligible Dialysis patients in Qatar whether they undergo hemodialysis or peritoneal for dialysis treatment. To be eligible, the participant should be 18 years of age or older, diagnosed with end-stage renal disease that requires dialysis, receiving chronic maintenance hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis for at least 1 month and diagnosed with acute COVID-19 infection. Participants were excluded if they are less than 18 years of age, had acute kidney injury that led hemodialysis requirement during COVID19 infection, or recent kidney transplant and stopped receiving dialysis, or an end stage renal disease started dialysis treatment for less than one month.

We only included those who a positive COVID-19 test from (February 2020 –July 2020).

Study methodology and data collection

All data including demographics, clinical features, laboratory and radiological findings, treatment schemes, and mortality rates were collected from a national-based electronic medical record (Cerner-North Kansas City, MO, USA). Data has been accessed from 25 July- 25 October 2020. Methods for laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection have been described elsewhere [9]. The only method used in the state of Qatar by the Ministry of Public Health to diagnose COVID-19 is the gold standard, which is the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay of nasopharyngeal swab specimens following either routine screening (patients with exposure or at high risk) or acute presentation. Testing was performed at different locations (dialysis centers, emergency departments, and healthcare centers).

Routine blood examinations included complete blood count (CBC), coagulation profile (Prothrombin Time (PT), (partial thromboplastin time (PTT), International Normalized Ratio (INR), D-dimer (DD), and serum biochemistry including liver function tests, creatine kinase, LDH, total proteins, albumin, C-reactive protein (CRP), and ferritin. Laboratory parameters were taken upon diagnosis (baseline) and at 1 week after clinical onset. Peak values of different inflammatory markers such as white blood cells, peak serum ferritin level, peak CRP level, and peak interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels during COVID19 illness were also reported in this study.

We reviewed the chest X-ray reports of patients on admission and throughout their hospital stay. Chest radiography was classified as normal, unilateral pulmonary infiltrate, or bilateral pulmonary infiltrates.

Dialysis scheme

During admission, all patients received 4-hour dialysis sessions, 3 times per week (our standard of care). The dialysis prescription was individualized according to the previous patient regimes and clinical status during admission.

Statistical analysis

The qualitative variables are presented with their frequency distributions. Quantitative variables are summarized as mean ± SD or median and interquartile range. The association between qualitative variables was evaluated using Chi square or Fisher’s exact test. Quantitative variables were analyzed using Student’s t-test and/or an analysis of variance.

Univariate Cox regression analysis was used to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 21.0; Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was defined as a 2-sided P value <0.05.

Results

1- Patients characteristics, demographics and clinical presentation

Out of 1064 dialysis patients, 93/1064, (8.7%) were diagnosed with COVID-19; 76/93, (81.7%) of them (65/76, (85.5%) hemodialysis and 11/76 (14.5%) peritoneal dialysis) fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the study and were included in the analysis (Fig 1). In patients with COVID19 on dialysis, most were men (n = 56; 74%), most patients were from the Middle East (n = 34; 45%) or South Asian background (n = 26; 34%). The mean age of the patients was 56.5±13.6 years old. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (98.7%) and diabetes mellitus (65.7%). Most patients received influenza and pneumococcal vaccines (68% and 76%, respectively). The most common clinical presentations upon diagnosis were fever (57.9%), cough (56.6%), and shortness of breath (25%). The baseline characteristics of dialysis patients with COVID-19 are summarized in (Table 1).

Fig 1. Study flow diagram shows total enrolled dialysis patients with COVID19 between February 1st, 2020 to July 19th, 2020.

Fig 1

Table 1. Shows demographics and comorbidities of dialysis patients with COVID-19 (study cohort) with comparison to dialysis patients without COVID19 (control group) in the state of Qatar.

Dialysis with COVID19 (76 patients) Dialysis without COVID19 (control) (988 patients) P Value
Age 56.5±13.6 years 57.5+/-14.9 years 0.432
Sex:
Male 56 (73.6) 567 (57.3)
Female 20 (26.3) 421 (42.6) 0.005
Ethnic group:
Middle east 34 (44.7) 731 (74) 0.0001
South Asia 26 (34.2) 148 (15) 0.0001
East Asia 9 (11.8) 89 (9) 0.433
Others 7 (9.2) 20 (2) 0.0001
Source of SARS–Cov2 infection: NA
Recent travel 2 (2.6)
Contact with patient 18 (23.7)
Unknown 56 (73.7)
Comorbidities:
DM 48 (65.7) 632 (64) 0.887
Hypertension 75 (98.7) 968 (98) 0.668
IHD 19 (25) 257(26) 0.846
CHF 2 (2.6) 30 (3) 0.842
COPD 2 (2.6) 21 (2.1) 0.770
Asthma 7 (9.2) 27 (2.7) 0.001
H/O DVT 4 (5.3) *
Atrial Fibrillation 8 (10.5) 30 (3) 0.006
Dialysis modality:
HD 65 (85.6) 810 (82) 0.436
PD 11 (14.4) 178 (18)
SARS-Co2 symptoms at diagnosis: NA
Fever 44 (57.9)
Cough 43 (56.6)
GIT symptoms 7 (9.2)
Sore throat 8 (10.5)
SOB 19 (25)
Myalgia 1 (1.3)
Body pain 4 (5.3)
Asymptomatic 11 (14.5)
Dialysis access”
CVC 24 (31.5) 275 (27.8) 0.483
AVF 39 (51.3) 512 (51.8) 0.311
AVG 2 (2.6) 23 (2.3) 0.866
PD 11 (14.4) 178 (18) 0.436
H/o renal Transplantation 2 (5.3) 46 (4.6) 0.421
H/O immunosuppression 4 (2.6) *
Cyclosporine 2 (2.6) *
Tacrolimus 2 (2.6) *
Steroid 2(2.6) *
H/O ACE/ARB pre-diagnosis 11 (14.5) *
ACE/ARB held after diagnosis 4 (5.3) *
Vaccination:
Flu vaccine 52 (68.4) 893 (92) 0.0001
Pneumococcal vaccine 58 (76.3) 951 (98) 0.0001

NA data not applicable to this group.

* Data not available.

DM, diabetes mellitus; IHD, ischemic heart disease; CHF, congestive heart failure; COPD, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; HD, hemodialysis; PD, Peritoneal dialysis; SARS-Co2, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 of the genus Betacorona virus; GIT, gastrointestinal tract, SOB, shortness of breath; CVC, central venous catheter; AVF, arteriovenous fistula; AVG, arteriovenous graft; ACE, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blockers.

2- Primary outcomes

Eleven patients out of seventy-six (14.5%) died (non-survivor) of COVID-19 among our dialysis patients during study period. Non survivors dialysis patients with COVID-19 were significantly of older age (65.7-year-old in non-survivor group versus 54.9-year-old in survivor group; p = 0.005), had history of atrial fibrillation (36% versus 6%; p = 0.03), dialyzing using a central venous catheter (54% vs. 26%, p = 0.048), had a history of deep venous thrombosis (18% vs. 3%, p = 0.038), hypoxia upon presentation (82% versus 14%; p<0.001) and the presence of lung infiltrates on a chest x-ray (100% versus 68%; p = 0.05) compared to survivors. (Table 2). Non-survivors also had significantly lower day7 lymphocyte counts and higher values for ferritin, creatinine kinase (CPK), D-dimer, ALT, AST, and IL-6 levels and higher peak CRP, and higher baseline lactate and LDH in comparison to survivors. (Table 2).

Table 2. Shows comparison of survivors to non-survivors with COVID19 using T-test for continuous variables and Chi-square statistical analysis for categorical variables.

Variable Survivor (65) Non survivor (11) P
Age 54.9±13.6 65.7±2.9 0.005
Gender:
Male 46 10 0.161
Female 19 1
Diabetes 43 (67.1) 5 (45.4) 0.188
hypertension 64 (98.4) 11 (100) 0.679
Nationality:
Citizens 18 (27.6) 2 (18.1) 0.508
Expatriates 47 (72.3) 9 (81.8)
Ischemic Heart Disease 14 (21.5) 5 (45.4) 0.09
Congestive Heart Failure 1 (1.5) 1 (9.0) 0.148
COPD 1 (1.5) 1 (8.0) 0.148
Atrial Fibrillation 4 (6.15) 4 (36.3) 0.03
Bronchial Asthma 5 (7.69) 2 (18.1) 0.266
History of deep venous thrombosis 2 (3.0) 2 (18.1) 0.038
Received Flu Vaccine 42(64.6) 10 (90.9) 0.083
Received pneumococcal vaccine 51 (78.4) 7 (63.6) 0.285
Dialysis Modality:
Hemodialysis 55 (84.6) 10 (90.9) 0.5
Peritoneal dialysis 10 (65.0) 1 (9.0)
Dialysis Access:
Central venous catheter 18 (27.7) 6 (54.5) 0.048
Arteriovenous fistula 35 (53.8) 4 (36.3)
Arteriovenous graft 2 (3.0) 0 (0)
Peritoneal dialysis 10 (15.3) 1(9)
History of kidney transplant 3 (4.6) 1 (9.0) 0.539
Steroid 1 (1.5) 1 (9.0) 0.148
Symptoms at diagnosis:
SOB 1 1 0.195
Fever 38 6 0.970
Cough 34 9 0.028
Sore throat 7 1 0.350
Myalgia 1 0 0.326
Body pain 4 0 0.257
Vomiting 6 1 0.350
Diarrhea 6 1 0.950
Hypoxia 9 (13.8) 9 (81.8) <0.001
Admission to ICU 10(15) 10(90) <0.0001
Mechanical ventilation 4(6) 10(90) <0.0001
Inotropes 1(2) 10(90) <0.0001
Chest x ray: 0.05
Normal 21 (32.3) 0 (0)
Unilateral 9 (13.8) 1 (9.0)
Bilateral 35 (53.8) 10 (90.9)
WBC base 6.7±2.8 6.0±3.1 0.598
WBC after 7 days 6.2±4.1 9±4.5 0.269
WBC peak 9.9±7.6 21.9±10 0.058
Lymphocytes base 1.2±0.63 0.88±0.65 0.945
Lymphocytes after 7 days 1.07±0.76 0.58±0.25 0.019
HB base 11.5±1.6 11.3±1.7 0.583
HB after 7 days 10.1±3.2 10.7±2.0 0.656
PLT base 221.1±262 164±86.2 0.787
PLT after 7 days 207.8±103.9 149.9±96.7 0.497
PT base 6.9±7.2 18.2±11.9 0.218
PT after 7 days 7.3±13.8 20.4±11.8 0.616
PTT base 19.3±19.0 38.6±10.0 <0.001
PTT after 7 days 13.7±17.2 47.6±25.3 0.466
INR base 0.59±0.61 1.5±0.99 0.172
INR after 7 days 0.54±1.0 1.7±0.99 0.388
Ferritin base 1188.4±230.1 4774.4±9357.3 <0.001
Ferritin after 7 days 1492.5±2865.1 11923.5±20982 <0.001
Ferritin Peak 2469.4±4792.7 23575±22875.1 <0.001
Fibrinogen base 1.83±6.0 3.2±2.2 0.597
Fibrinogen after 7 days 1.3±2.4 3.8±2.2 0.422
CRP base 41.6±63.6 77.2±83.4 0.192
CRP after 7 days 45.6±68.3 113.4±85.9 0.214
CRP peak 74.5±94.5 477.1±871.2 <0.001
CPK base 126.1±516.4 883.1±1699.9 <0.001
CPK after 7 days 15.4±43.1 632±1849.4 <0.001
LDH base 136.5±169.8 424.1±365.3 0.025
LDH after 7 days 106.5±194.2 374.2±286.3 0.054
D-Dimer base 0.797±1.23 12.0±18.8 <0.001
D-Dimer after 7 days 0.569±0.90 3.0±2.2 <0.001
Lactate base 0.42±0.68 1.2±1.8 <0.001
Lactate after 7 days 1.5±4.9 0.38±0.67 0.086
ALT base 20.6±15.0 40.1±50.9 <0.001
ALT after 7 days 20.7±14.2 251±709 <0.001
AST base 24.7±15.7 77.3±83.5 <0.001
AST after 7 days 25.1±18.4 696.2±2091 <0.001
IL-6 Base 16.7±40.9 340.2±918.7 0.001
IL-6 after 7 days 57.6±350.7 66.8±132.9 0.952
IL-6 Peak 460.7±2056 3270±5240 <0.001
O2 saturation base 95.7±8.1 93.6±18.4 0.533
O2 saturation after 7 days 94.0±8.4 93.4±4.3 0.977
Albumin base 32.6±6.7 24.4±11.4 0.091
Albumin after 7 days 27.6±16.1 23.5±5.5 0.790

Univariate Cox regression analysis (Table 3A) for risk factors associated with COVID-19-related death in dialysis patients showed statistically significant increases in risks with age (OR 1.077, CI 95%(1.018–1.139), p = 0.01), CHF and COPD (both same OR 8.974, CI 95% (1.039–77.5), p = 0.046), history of DVT (OR 5.762, CI 95% (1.227–27.057), p = 0.026), Atrial fibrillation (OR 7.285, CI 95%(2.029–26.150), p = 0.002), hypoxia (OR: 16.6; CI 95%(3.574–77.715), p = <0.001), ICU admission (HR30.8, CI 95% (3.9–241.2), p = 0.001), Mechanical ventilation (HR 50.07 CI 95% (6.4–391.2)), p<0.001) and using inotropes(HR 19.17, CI 95% (11.57–718.5), p<0.001). Laboratory values associated with significant risk for non-survivors were peak WBC peak level (OR 1.079, CI 95%(1.032–1.127), p = 0.001), fibrinogen level at day 7 (OR 1.28, CI 95%(1.065–1.545), p = 0.009) and D-dimer level both at baseline (OR 1.4, CI 95% (1.2–1.63) and on day 7 (OR 1.89, CI 95% (1.424–2.51).

Table 3. Shows hazard ratios for risk factors in non-survivor group using (A) univariate and (B) multivariate.

Cox regression analysis. A. shows hazard ratios for risk factors in non-survivor group using univariate Cox regression analysis. B. A forward stepwise multivariate cox regression analysis model to examine the association between the different statistically significant variables in the univariate analysis (Table 3A, p < 0.05) and mortality in dialysis patients infected with COVID-19.

Variable HR 95% CI P
A
Age 1.077 1.018–1.139 0.010
Gender 3.112 0.389–24.3 0.279
Ethnic group 0.646 0.296–1.1412 0.273
Diabetes 0.503 0.153–1.651 0.257
Hypertension 21.081 0.142–84.742 0.733
IHD 2.485 0.750–8.109 0.137
CHF 8.974 1.039–77.508 0.046
COPD 8.974 1.039–77.508 0.046
H/o DVT 5.762 1.227–27.057 0.026
AF 7.285 2.029–26.150 0.002
Flu vaccine 5.336 0.682–41.720 0.111
Dialysis modality 1.250 0.158–9.895 0.833
Dialysis Access 0.719 0.337–1.536 0.395
ACEi use 1.517 0.356–7.051 0.595
Hypoxia 16.666 3.574–77.715 <0.001
X RAY findings 4.234 0.820–21853 0.085
ICU admission 30.823 3.93–241.211 0.001
Mechanical ventilation 50.074 6.408–391.294 <0.001
Using Inotropes 19.178 11.57–718.503 <0.001
WBC 0.887 0.702–1.120 0.312
WBC peak 1.079 1.032–1.127 0.001
Lymphocytes 0.341 0.008–1.318 0.119
Lymphocytes peak 0.371 0.130–1.071 0.067
HB 0.973 0.675–1.402 0.882
Platelets 0.997 0.989–1.005 0.465
Ferritin 1.000 1.000–1.000 0.053
Ferritin peak 1.000 1.000–1.000 <0.001
Fibrinogen 1.019 0.957–1.085 0.561
Fibrinogen 7 days 1.283 1.065–1.545 0.009
CRP base 1.005 0.999–1.011 0.114
CRP peak 1.001 1.000–1.001 0.020
CK base 1.001 1.000–1.001 0.001
CK after 7 days 1.010 1.004–1.017 0.001
LDH base 1.002 1.001–1.004 <0.001
LDH after 7 days 1.003 1.001–1.006 0.002
D-Dimer base 1.404 1.209–1.631 <0.001
D-Dimer 7 days 1.891 1.424–2.512 <0.001
IL-6 base 1.001 1.000–1.001 0.037
IL-6 peak 1.000 1.000–1.000 0.013
Albumin base 0.962 0.916–1.010 0.117
Albumin 7 days 1.004 0.955–1.057 0.866
ALT base 1.014 1.002–1.026 0.026
ALT after 7 days 1.002 1.001–1.003 0.002
AST base 1.014 1.006–1.021 >0.001
AST after 7 days 1.001 1.000–1.000 0.002
Lactate base 1.867 1.269–2.748 0.002
Lactate 7 days 0.897 0.674–1.094 0.455
B
Age 1.02 (0.95, 1.09) 0.62
H/o DVT 1.93 (0.14, 25.87) 0.62
AF 2.15 (0.26, 17.67) 0.48
ICU Admission 32.75 (3.51, 305.35) 0.002

COPD, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; SOB, shortness of breath; WBC, white blood cells; HB, hemoglobin; PLT, platelets; PT, prothrombin time; PTT, partial thromboplastin time; INR, international normalized ratio; CRP, c-reactive protein; CPK, Creatine phosphokinase; CK, creatine kinase; LDH, Lactate dehydrogenase; ALT, alanine transaminase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; IL, interleukin; O2, oxygen.

The cox regression analysis summarized in Table 3A was a univariate analysis and did not account for potential cofounders. Therefore, we constructed in this revision a forward stepwise multivariate cox regression analysis model to further examine the association between the different statistically significant variables in the univariate analysis (Table 3A, p < 0.05) and mortality in dialysis patients infected with COVID-19 (Table 3B). The model initially included clinical variables that were statistically significant (p<0.05) and that were thought to be clinically relevant and not collinear. ICU admission was found to be the only clinical variable significantly associated with death [OR = 32.8 (3.5–305.4), p = 0.002)] (Table 3B). Then we tried to add the blood investigation variables that were statistically significant in the univariate analysis (Table 2A, p<0.05) to the model. However, the model became unstable due to our small sample size as well as the collinearity between ICU admission and inflammatory and thrombotic blood markers such as lactate, CRP, IL-6, D-dimer and ferritin.

3- Secondary outcomes

A- Incidence

Seventy-six patients out of 1064 total dialysis patients (7.1%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 in the study period. (Fig 2) shows accumulative cases of COVID-19 (total) and monthly incidence of COVID-19 positive dialysis patients in the state of Qatar during the study period.

Fig 2. Accumulative cases and monthly incidence of COVID-19 positive dialysis patients in the state of Qatar during study period.

Fig 2

Compared to patients on dialysis in Qatar who did not have COVID-19 (control group), our cohort with COVID-19 had significantly more males, South Asian background, asthma and atrial fibrillation, and less patients of Middle East background and vaccination for influenza or pneumonia. Most comorbid conditions, age and vascular access type where not different between the two groups. Significantly more men than women on dialysis had COVID-19 (9% of all male dialysis population (56 out of 623) versus 4.5% in females (20 out of 441; p = 0.015, OR 1.89, p = 0.017). Table 1 details comparison of our COVID-19 positive dialysis patients versus COVID negative dialysis patients (control).

B- Severity and complications

Although only 18 (23.7%) of COVID-19 patients had documented hypoxia (O2 saturation ≤ 95%), 55(72.4%) had pneumonia during their COVID-19 course (mostly bilateral (45(82%) of them). Only 21 patients (27.6%) had normal chest X ray. Nineteen patients (25%) required admission to the intensive care unit (with length of stay (LOS) in ICU of 15+/-11 days before death or transfer to general floor); 14 patients (18.4%) had ARDS, 13 (17.1%) required mechanical ventilation, 11 patients (14.5%) required inotropes to treat severe hypotension and 1 patient (1.3%) had deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Length of hospital stay varied with a mean of 19.2 ± -12 days. Patients admitted to ICU had longer total hospital LOS compared to patients admitted to general floor (31.5+/-8 versus 17.1+/-11 respectively, p = 0.0014). Laboratory tests showed some trend for increase in inflammatory markers in day 7 and peak values compared to baseline values. Fig 3 shows baseline laboratory test that changed significantly compared to either day7 (lymphocyte and Albumin levels) or peak value (WBC, ferritin, CRP and IL-6).

Fig 3. Laboratory tests of dialysis patients with COVID19 with comparison of baseline and day 7 (for lymphocyte and Albumin levels) and baseline and peak value (for WBC, ferritin, CRP and IL-6).

Fig 3

C- Comparison of PD versus HD

Eleven PD patients versus 65 HD patients were diagnosed with COVID-19. COVID19 infection affected 5.9% (11/186) of all patients with PD versus 7.4% (65/878) of the total HD patients (p = 0.3). See (Tables 1 and 4) and (Fig 1). Mortality among COVID-19 positive cases was 9%(1/11) in PD compared to 15%(10/76) in HD (p = 0.5). Table 4 showed not statistically significant different among PD and HD COVID-19 patients in most characteristics (demographics, comorbidities, presenting symptoms, primary and secondary outcomes etc.) except for more diarrhea in PD patients (p = 0.029). Interestingly, PD COVID-19 patients had statistically significant higher peak WBC counts and higher creatinine kinase, ferritin, LDH, lactate, ALT, AST, and IL-6 levels upon admission (base) compared to HD COVID-19 patients.

Table 4. Demographic, clinical, laboratory and radiological features in hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients.
HD (65) PD (11) P
Age 65.6±14.3 55.4±8.5 0.108
Male/female 47/18 9/2 0.508
Ethnic groups:
Middle east 33 (50.7) 1 (9.0) 0.014
South Asia 21 (32.3) 5 (45.4)
East Asia 5 (7.6) 4 (36.3)
Others 6 (9.2) 1 (9.0)
Covid19 source:
Recent travel 2 (3.0) 0 0.734
Close contact 16 (24.6) 2 18.1)
Unknown 47 (72.3) 9 (81.8)
Comorbidities:
Diabetes 40 (61.5) 8 (72.7) 0.477
Hypertension 64 (98.4) 11 (100) 0.679
IHD 17 (26.1) 2 (18.1) 0.572
CHF 2 (3.0) 0 0.555
COPD 2 (3.0) 0 0.555
Asthma 7 (10.7) 0 0.253
H/o DVT 4 (6.1) 0 0.398
AF 8 12.3) 0 0.219
H/o Flu vaccine 43 (66.1) 9 (81.8) 0.301
H/o Pneumonia vaccine 46 (70.7) 10 (90.9) 0.218
H/o Renal Tx 4 (6.1) 0 0.398
ACEI before Covid 3 (4.6) 8 (72.7) <0.001
ACEI held after infection 0 4 (36.3) <0.001
Covid19 Symptoms:
SOB 2 (3.0) 0 0.566
Fever 38 (58.4) 6 (54.5) 0.719
Cough 36 (55.3) 7 (63.6) 0.687
Vomiting 2 (3.0) 0 0.467
Diarrhea 4 (6.1) 3 (27.2) 0.029
Sore throat 7 (10.7) 1 (9.0) 0.824
Body pain 4 (6.1) 0 0.576
Myalgia 0 1 (9.0) 0.043
Asymptomatic 11 (16.9) 0 0.133
Hypoxia 14 (21.5) 4 (36.3) 0.285
Outcomes:
Mortality 10 (15.3) 1 (9.0) 0.583
ICU admission 16 (24.6) 3 (27.2) 0.833
ARDS 1 (1.5) 0 0.668
DIC 0 1 (9.0) 0.014
Ventilation 12 (18.4) 1 (9.0) 0.674
Inotropes 10 (15.3) 1 (9.0) 0.583
Chest X ray:
No changes 18 3 (27.2) 0.903
Unilateral infiltrate 9 1 (9.0)
Bilateral infiltrate 38 11 (100)
Hospital stay (days) 19.0±13.1 19.5±8.6 0.134
Quarantine days 5.4±9.3 1.8±4.8 0.043
O2 Saturation base % 95.9±18.4 93.3±2.2 0.320
O2 saturation 7 days % 92.9±18.4 97.3±2.2 0.212
WBC base 6.5±2.7 7.5±7.7 0.181
WBC after 7 days 6.0±3.6 10.1±6.2 0.012
WBC peak 11.0±8.1 15.7±12.8 0.014
Lymphocyte base 1.17±0.659 1.2±0.603 0.754
Lymphocyte after 7 days 1.02±0.751 0.89±0.61 0..498
HB base 11.5±1.7 11.4±1.03 0.170
HB after 7 days 10.1±3.3 10.5±1.0 0.081
Platelets base 213.1±263.9 211.1±64.5 0..564
Platelets after 7 days 193.6±102.3 233.9±114.4 0.657
PT base 8.7±9.3 7.7±6.1 0.363
PT after 7 days 9.6±15.2 6.7±6.5 0.352
PTT base 22.2±19.6 21.4±17.0 0.384
PTT after 7 days 18.4±21.9 19.6±23.2 0.817
INR base 0.74±0.79 0.65±0.52 0.330
INR after 7 days 0.73±1.15 0.56±0.54 0.378
Ferritin base 1424.1±2484.3 3381.7±9510.9 0.001
Ferritin after 7 days 3283.8±9581.3 1338.0±2021.0 0.301
Ferritin peak 5665.3±12153.5 4690.0±11963.3 0.895
Fibrinogen base 1.9±6.0 2.3±2.7 0.949
Fibrinogen after 7 days 1.6±2.4 2.4±3.1 0.191
CRP base 47.3±70.2 44.3±49.2 0.634
CRP 7 after 7 days 57.9±78.7 40.7±41.3 0.140
CRP peak 138.8±387.3 97.7±83.4 0.484
CK base 151.9±689.2 730.9±1334.2 0.002
CK after 7 days 111.3±768.1 652.0±107.3 0.632
LDH base 148.7±170 350.6±415.3 0.006
LDH after 7 days 131.8±216.5 224.9±287.7 0.102
D-Dimer base 2.6±8.6 1.1±2.0 0.361
D-Dimer after 7 days 0.88±1.4 1.14±1.6 0.546
Lactate base 0.48±0.87 1.0±1.4 0.016
Lactate after 7 days 1.59±4.9 0.41±0.72 0.094
ALT base 21.2±16.9 36.8±48.2 0.003
ALT after 7 days 55.6±293.8 44.5±52.8 0.649
AST base 29.9±34.9 47.0±55.3 0.048
AST after 7 days 135.6±865.0 43.7±31.0 0.459
IL-6 base 20.9±57.8 315.5±922.0 <0.001
IL6 after 7 days 64.2±354.2 27.8±30.6 0.339
IL-6 peak 759.5±2443.2 1504.8±4820.6 0.091
Albumin base 32.6±9.1 28.0±4.4 0.216
Albumin after 7 days 24.3±11.5 24.6±6.5 0.031

IHD, ischemic heart disease; CHF, congestive heart failure; COPD, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; AF, atrial fibrillation; Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) s; WBC, white blood cells; HB, hemoglobin; PLT, platelets; PT, prothrombin time; PTT, partial thromboplastin time; INR, international normalized ratio; CRP, c-reactive protein; CPK, Creatine phosphokinase; CK, creatine kinase; LDH, Lactate dehydrogenase; ALT, alanine transaminase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; IL, interleukin; O2, oxygen.

Discussion

In this study, we described the clinical course and outcome of COVID-19 infection in dialysis patients in Qatar. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to be conducted at a national level considering the effect of COVID-19 on the dialysis population in an entire country.

The main risk groups for mortality and developing complications during the COVID-19 pandemic are the elderly and people with chronic health conditions [9]. Dialysis patients are expected to be more likely to develop COVID-19, given their limited ability to self-isolate as they require frequent visits to health care facilities. Our dialysis patients had almost twice the number of COVID-19 patients compared to the general population in Qatar. Incidence of COVID19 was 7.1% in our dialysis cohort versus 4% in nationwide [10]. They are also expected to suffer more complications and mortality, given their age and comorbidities. Our dialysis patients had approximately a hundred times higher risk of death compared to the general population in Qatar based on available national data (15% in our dialysis cohort versus 0.15% countrywide) [10].

The mean age of dialysis patients with COVID-19 was 56.5±13.6 years compared to the mean age of 58 years in the dialysis population in Qatar [11]. Approximately three-quarters of the infected patients were males, although they represent just over half of our dialysis cohort. This is probably because males in Qatar are more socially active, as they are breadwinners. Women usually abide to the COVID-19 preventative measures [12]. In our study, males tended to have a higher risk of death, which replicates data from previous reports [13]. In the deceased patient group, there was a trend for more males than females, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.161).

Patients from the Middle East had a lower incidence of COVID-19 infection compared to patients from South Asia or East Asia in our study. This is likely to be explained by the effect of socioeconomic status. Oh et al. found that lower socioeconomic status was associated with a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 in South Korea especially in the older population [14] while Hawkins et al. found that lower education levels, median income and poverty rate were strongly associated with higher rate COVID-19 cases [15].

Comorbidity profiles and dialysis modality were comparable in our general dialysis population [16]. PD patients had trend toward less incidence and lower mortality rates than HD patients but was not statistically significant. This result though is consistent with the study by M Sachdeva et al. which suggested that hospitalized patients on PD had a relatively mild course [17]. The only PD patient who died had PD-related fungal infection, and his PD catheter was removed before switching to HD.

About two-thirds of the patients who were on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors continued on this class of medications. This is in keeping with recent evidence suggesting that renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitors are associated with reduced mortality in patients with sepsis [18].

Our patients presented with a similar profile of clinical symptoms compared to other diagnosed patients in the country [19]. Three-quarters of patients had a radiological evidence of the disease in their lungs. Most patients experienced bilateral changes. This is similar to previous report by Vancheri et al. [20] who described that among 240 patients with COVID19 who underwent chest X ray, 73.3% showed bilateral lung alteration (infiltrates, reticular or ground glass opacity) with only 25% showed negative X ray.

PD patients had similar demographics, comorbidities, presenting symptoms (except for more diarrhea), and secondary outcomes including hospital length of stay compared to HD patients. We noticed that our PD COVID-19 patients had statistically significant higher peak WBC counts and higher base creatinine kinase, ferritin, LDH, lactate, ALT, AST, and IL-6 levels compared to HD COVID-19 patients. This unexpected observation did not reflect differences in outcomes between the two groups and need to be studied on a larger group to confirm this finding.

Among all comorbidities, only atrial fibrillation and deep venous thrombosis were significantly associated with mortality. The percentage of AF in non-survivors was higher than that reported previously in Italy [21]. This could be due to the small sample size. As expected, non-survivors had evidence of association with multiple inflammatory markers (low lymphocyte count and high levels of ferritin, peak CRP, Creatine Kinase, IL6, D-dimer, AST and ALT). Mortality was associated with older age and dialysis via a central venous catheter in hemodialysis patients. Our patients with central venous catheters tended to be generally older and frailer. Although Qatar has one of the lowest COVID-19-related mortality rates in the world (0.15%), the mortality rate among our dialysis patients was significantly higher (14.5%). Still, this remains lower than most international figures reported in Spain, Italy, and Turkey (Mortality rate of 30.4%, 40% and 13% respectively) [2224].

Our study has some limitations, the most important of which is its observational nature. Some clinical data, such as symptoms at presentation, may have been missing. It is also likely that we missed asymptomatic patients who might constitute up to 25% according to a systematic review by W Koh et al. [25]. There was no screening program that might have included these patients. Despite this, it is the only study on COVID-19 and dialysis at a national level. It is also unique in that it includes dialysis patients with both modalities.

Conclusion

We are presenting the first study on COVID-19-related outcomes in dialysis patients in the state of Qatar. There was a high incidence of COVID-19 infection and a much higher mortality rate compared to the general population of Qatar. Dialysis patients also had prolonged hospitalization and multiple COVID-19-related complications. Special care is needed to prevent COVID-19 infection in dialysis patients to prevent this severe course and outcomes.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We profusely thank all the contributors from HMC for their excellent efforts and continue to support Ms. Mathew M (RN), Mr. Aly S (RN), Dr. Tawhid H (MD), Ms. YASIN S (RN), Ms LONAPPAN V (RN), Mr Farooqi F (CH) Ateya H (RN). We greatly thank Dr. Mohamed Elshazly for performing further statistical analysis. We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Grasselli G, Zangrillo A, Zanella A, et al. COVID19 Lombardy ICU Network. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of 1591 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy Region, Italy. JAMA. 2020;323:1574–1581 doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.5394 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Yi Y, Lagniton PNP, Ye S, et al. COVID19: what has been learned and to be learned about the novel coronavirus disease. Int J Biol Sci. 2020;16:1753–1766. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.45134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Madjid M, Safavi-Naeini P, Solomon SD, et al. Potential effects of coronaviruses on the cardiovascular system: a review. JAMA Cardiol 2020. Jul 1;5(7):831–840 doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Naicker S, Yang CW, Hwang SJ, et al. The novel corona- virus 2019 epidemic and kidneys. Kidney Int. 2020;97: 824–828. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2020.03.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Vaziri ND, Pahl MV, Crum A, Norris K. Effect of uremia on structure and function of immune system. J Ren Nutr. 2012;22:149–156. doi: 10.1053/j.jrn.2011.10.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Henry BM, Lippi G. Chronic kidney disease is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19) infection. Int Urol Nephrol. 2020. Jun;52(6):1193–1194 doi: 10.1007/s11255-020-02451-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wang R, Liao C, He H, et al. COVID19 in hemodialysis patients: a report of 5 cases. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020. Jul;76(1):141–143 doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.03.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Planning and Statistics Authority, State of Qatar. https://www.psa.gov.qa/en/statistics1/StatisticsSite/Pages/Population.aspx
  • 9.Williamson E.J., Walker A.J., Bhaskaran K. et al. Factors associated with COVID19-related death using OpenSAFELY. Nature 584, 430–436 (2020). doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2521-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.24- Worldometers.info, 30 March, 2021, Dover, Delaware, U.S.A. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/qatar/
  • 11.Ali AlSahow, Muna AlRukhaimi, Jamal Al Wakeel et al. Demographics and key clinical characteristics of hemodialysis patients from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries enrolled in the dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study phase 5 (2012–2015). Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2016;27(6 Suppl 1): S12–S23 doi: 10.4103/1319-2442.194885 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.George M Bwire: Coronavirus: Why Men are More Vulnerable to Covid-19 Than Women? SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine volume 2, pages 874–876 (2020) doi: 10.1007/s42399-020-00341-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jin JM , Peng B, Wei H et al.: Gender differences in patients with COVID19: focus on severity and mortality. Front. Public Health. 2020;8:152. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tak Kyu Oh , Jae-Wook Choi, In-Ae Song: Socioeconomic disparity and the risk of contracting COVID-19 in South Korea: an NHIS-COVID-19 database cohort study. BMC Public Health (2021) 21:144 doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10207-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hawkins R. B., Charles E. J., Mehaffey J. H.: Socio-economic status and COVID-19–related cases and fatalities. Public Health, Volume 189, December 2020, Pages 129–134 doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.09.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shaheen FA, Al Wakeel J, Al-Ghamdi SM et al. ; GCC-DOPPS 5 Study Group. Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular comorbidities in hemodialysis patients from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries enrolled in the dialysis outcome and practice pattern study phase 5. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2016. Nov;27(6 Suppl 1):S24.- . doi: 10.4103/1319-2442.194886 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sachdeva M, Uppal N,N, Hirsch J et al. : COVID19 in Hospitalized Patients on Chronic Peritoneal Dialysis: A Case Series. Am J Nephrol 2020;51:669–674. doi: 10.1159/000510259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wan-Ting Hsu, Brandon Patrick Galm, Gregory Schrank et al.: Effect of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors on Short-Term Mortality After Sepsis. A Population-Based Cohort Study. Hypertension. 2020;75(2):483–491 doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.13197 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Omrani A, Muna A. Almaslamani, Joanne Daghfal et al.: The First Consecutive 5000 Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 from Qatar; a Nation-wide Cohort Study. BMC Infectious Diseases volume 20, Article number: 777 (2020) doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-05511-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Vancheri S.G., Savietto G., Ballati F. et al. Radiographic findings in 240 patients with COVID19 pneumonia: time-dependence after the onset of symptoms. Eur Radiol 30, 6161–6169 (2020). doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06967-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Onder G, Rezza G, Brusaferro S.: Case-Fatality Rate and Characteristics of Patients Dying in Relation to COVID19 in Italy. JAMA. 2020;323(18):1775–1776. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4683 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Marian Goicoechea, Luis Alberto Sanchez Camara et al. COVID19: Clinical course and outcomes of 36 hemodialysis patients in Spain. Kidney International (2020) 98, 27–34; doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2020.04.031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fontana F, Giaroni F, M Frisina, Alfano G, Mori G, Lucchi L, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection in dialysis patients in northern Italy: a single-centre experience. Clinical Kidney Journal, 2020, vol. 13, no. 3, 334–339. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfaa084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sipahi S et al. Characteristics and mortality determinants of COVID19 patients undergoing hemodialysis. Turk J Med Sci; Sept 2020. doi: 10.3906/sag-2006-54 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Koh WC , Naing L, Rosledzana MA, Alikhan MF, Chaw L, Griffith M, et al. What do we know about SARS- CoV-2 transmission? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the secondary attack rate, serial interval, and asymptomatic infection. medRxiv 2020.05.21.20108746;. 10.1101/2020.05.21.20108746 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Decision Letter 0

Bijan Najafi

17 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-00180

Incidence and Outcomes of COVID19 Infection in Dialysis Patients in Qatar: A nationwide Cohort Study.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hamad,

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 May 01 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,

Bijan Najafi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Thanks for contributing your original study to PLOS One. It was reviewed by two experts with complementary expertise relevant to the scope of this study. Both reviewers agreed that the study is novel, has potential impact and high significance. There were however few concerns voiced by both reviewers which should be addressed before recommending the manuscript for acceptance in PLOS One. Please note that some of the specific comments of the reviewer #2 were placed by mistake in another section that may not be visible to you. I requested the editorial office to make those comments visible to author. In addition, I listed those comments in the following to avoid further delay in decision:

"Additional Comments from the Reviewer#2"

The authors explain the incidence and mortality of dialysis patients with COVID-19 as well as associated risk factors

The main claims of the paper are predictors of mortality of covid-19 infection in patients with dialysis in the state of Qatar. However, regression analysis did not include potential confounders that may have caused influence with associated mortality. The baseline characteristics significantly different between groups should undergo a selection method (i.e., pairwise, forward, etc) to be included as covariates for regression analysis.

Technical clarifications: The authors should clarify the definition of general population. It seems that this term was used for the control group as means of dialysis patients without covid-19 infection. There are sections of the text where the authors mention general population as the overall population in Qatar, regardless of dialysis. Incidence should be calculated between those patients under dialysis with and without covid-19, and mortality between survivors vs non-survivors under dialysis infected with covid-19.

Data presentation: This study requires more clarity on weather mortality association was assessed with chi2 or univariate regression analysis.

1. TITLE

Please include mortality in the title since the paper is focused in associated death risk.

2. ABSTRACT

Methods: Recommended to emphasize these patients were on maintenance dialysis therapy. Please mention univariate regression analysis in this section since line 97 is a result of this test.

Results: Line 89: Do the authors refer as patients under dialysis without covid-19 as general population?

3. INTRODUCTION

Line 129: Does general population mean patients under dialysis? The abstract is using “general population” as control, thus, it is understood that those patients were also under dialysis.

Line 141: Recommended to not include objectives in this section since this overlap with the primary and secondary outcomes mentioned in the methods section. Recommended to substitute with “The purpose of this study is to determine the incidence and mortality of covid-19 infection in patients under dialysis in the state of Qatar".

4. METHODS

Please describe the exclusion criteria from Figure 2 in this section.

The primary outcome (mortality) is not clear. Recommended to include the biostatistical equation for mortality.

Line 206: What about predictors for incidence?

Did the authors performed a regression analysis adjusted to potential confounders?

5. RESULTS

Line 212: The abstract mentions 56 patients with HD, and 20 with PD. Please revise.

Lines 214, 215, 216: Please include denominators for sample size (n/N, %).

Primary outcome: Please utilize denominators in this paragraph as well. Again, line 231 refers to general population in Qatar regardless of dialysis.

Recommended to report significant associations with mortality from table 2 as text.

Line 241-244: Report p-value and 95% CI next to OR.

Secondary outcomes: Line 257-260 please elaborate.

Line 262: include objective data for total dialysis population.

Recommended to include association of risk factors with incidence of covid-19 in patients with dialysis.

Severity and complications: Please include denominators (n/N) next to %

What was the mean ICU length of stay in those 19 patients admitted?

Comparison of PD vs HD: line 287, 289: it cannot be claimed that incidence is lower since difference was not significant.

Line 292: What do the authors mean by comparable?

Line 292, 293, 295 and 296: Please include objective data.

6. DISCUSSION

Line 312-316 should be moved to the introduction section.

321: general population with or without dialysis?

331: Please substitute “ten times greater” by “showed a trend of” since p value was not significant.

335: Please describe the socioeconomic status from reference 13.

348: Please include the x-ray previous reports from reference 18.

352: Peak levels for blood workout in HD vs baseline levels in PD is not a fair comparison. In addition, it is not recommended to state “higher peaks” if difference was not significant.

355: DVT and AF were significantly associated with mortality in chi2 test, but regression analysis was not performed nor reported. Therefore, if the authors use chi2 to report association with mortality, then all chi2 values should also be included. This means chest x ray, and all significant laboratory findings. Recommended to perform regression analysis for all variables.

357: The only significant differences of peak levels for non-survivors were CRP, ferritin, il-6, and WBC count, the rest of the inflammatory markers were not higher. In addition, peak levels for CK, WBC, D-dimer, liver enzymes were not reported. Where is this information coming from? Please revise.

363: Case fatality rate should be reported in the results section. This data was not described before.

7. TABLES

Table 1: The article compares patients under dialysis with and without covid-19 throughout the manuscript (incidence). It is recommended to compare both populations in table 1, including baseline laboratory findings (bloodwork).

Table 2 (Mortality): Recommended to describe those significant associations in regression analysis in the Results section. Please be specific for regression model or chi2. This creates confusion.

Table 3: Recommended to remove table 3 and report complications as text in the Results section. Moreover, it is recommended to illustrate in a figure those laboratory findings that were significantly different (t-test) between baseline and 7 days.

8. FIGURES

Figure 1. Please use a standard flow chart for retrospective studies. Recommended to remove inclusion and exclusion criteria (this should be explained as text). Recommended to include the number (n=971) of the first filter of excluded patients with reason of exclusion. Same for those excluded after “assessed for eligibility”.

The authors provide a good plan to associate mortality of covid-19 dialysis patients with risk factors and laboratory work. This study requires more clarity on weather association was assessed with chi2 or regression analysis. In addition, potential confounders in baseline characteristics between dialysis patients with or without covid-19 (as suggested table 1) should be considered within the model. Lastly, those significant associations with mortality and incidence (after revision) in regression analysis should be further discussed in the correspondent section.

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 stating in the text of your manuscript "the study meets the waiver criteria of informed consent, and all data were fully anonymized before we accessed them". Please also add this information to your ethics statement in the online submission form.

3. Thank you for providing the date(s) when patient medical information was initially recorded. Please also include the date(s) on which your research team accessed the databases/records to obtain the retrospective data used in your study."

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The manuscript was well written and highlighted the risk of COVID-19 in people undergoing maintenance dialysis. The results of this manuscript can facilitate in taking appropriate measures to minimize the risk of COVID-19 infection in high risk population. However, authors should address for typo in the abstract and inconsistent fonts within the text before submitting.

Reviewer #2: The authors provide a good plan to associate mortality of covid-19 dialysis patients with risk factors and laboratory work. This study requires more clarity on weather association was assessed with chi2 or regression analysis. In addition, potential confounders in baseline characteristics between dialysis patients with or without covid-19 (as suggested table 1) should be considered within the model. Lastly, those significant associations with mortality and incidence (after revision) in regression analysis should be further discussed in the correspondent section.

**********

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: Ram Kinker Mishra

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 Jul 22;16(7):e0254246. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254246.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 May 2021

Dear Professor Bijan:

I like to thank you and the respected reviewers for your hard work to review our manuscript. We tried to answer and implement all valuable comments made by the reviewers.

I like to emphasize on few major comments made by the reviewers:

1- regarding statistical analysis: it was redone and details as requested.

2- regarding general population: we clarified that general population in text meant people of Qatar and removed it from the result part. We mentioned it in the discussion to highlight differences in Qatar of general population to dialysis patients (our study cohort).

3- We added control group (dialysis patients not infected with COVID19) as suggested and compared risk factors as suggested by reviewers.

4- Ethics approval

Ethical approval for the conduct of the study was obtained from Institutional review Board (IRB) of Medical Research Center (MRC) of Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC) (approval Number: MRC-05-161) On 20 July 2020. All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the good clinical practice and comparable ethical standards.

- All comments has been addressed within the revised manuscript with track changes.

Thank you for considering our manuscript for publication in your esteemed journal.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PLOS1.docx

Decision Letter 1

Bijan Najafi

9 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-00180R1

Mortality and associated risk factors of COVID-19 infection in dialysis patients in Qatar: a nationwide cohort study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hamad,

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 ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 24 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bijan Najafi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thanks for your efforts in addressing the initial concerns voiced by the reviewers. One of the reviewers raised additional concerns which are valid and should be addressed before I could recommend the acceptance of your manuscript. I however evaluate these concerns to be minor.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: Authors have addressed my comments adequately. However, I would recommend to chek for inconsistent fonts within the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: This article is well written. The authors made a great effort to address the previous comments of the reviewers. General population and control group for incidence concerns have been addressed. There is an intention to describe mortality and associated risks. Incidence was reported, however associated risks for incidence were not analyzed with regression, thus, any statement related to associated risks for incidence should be avoided throughout the manuscript. Additionally, the regression analysis for mortality is still hesitant for potential confounders.

Abstract

The abstract should follow a proper sequence. Title says “mortality and associated risks”, but the context says “incidence and outcomes”; these are not the same. Methods is not describing the primary (mortality and associated risk factors [page 19]) and secondary (a, b, and c) outcomes; this creates confusion on what the results are describing. In the results: “Male patients had double risk for contacting COVID-19”. This is an associated risk for incidence, not mortality. Do the authors mean risk for death? The authors should include the associated risk factors for mortality described in page 19/table 2A. The conclusion should state “higher incidence compared to the general population of Qatar” since the 7.1% is higher than prior reports (4%). Same for mortality (15% vs 0.15%). Recommended to clarify these “high” numbers are compared to nationwide.

Body of manuscript

Statistical analysis

The survivor vs non-survivor cohorts have vast significant differences/trends for baseline values (Page 18 and 19/Table 2). Did the cox regression analysis include those as potential confounders for associated risk factors for mortality? Did the authors perform a selection method (i.e., forward, backward, stepwise) to determine truly potential confounders from table 2?

Results

Denominator in line 221 and the flow chart is 1064. The abstract and other sections have 1068, please revise.

For secondary outcome C (line 380), recommended to describe only significant values within the text to avoid confusion.

Discussion

Line 468: Recommended to avoid using “some association”. Whether there is an association or not.

470: “Mortality was more associated with older age and dialysis”. What do the authors mean as “more”. Again, associations should be determined or not. Are these results described previously?

474: Recommended to report the percentages for case fatality rate of Spain, Italy, and Turkey.

Figure 1: I believe there is a typo on the screening box. “tested negative” should be “positive”??

Figure 3: Recommended to use panel labels for each graph (A, B, C, etc). Error bars for albumin and lymphocytes show non-significant difference. Please revise.

**********

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 Jul 22;16(7):e0254246. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254246.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


22 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-00180R1

Mortality and associated risk factors of COVID-19 infection in dialysis patients in Qatar: a nationwide cohort study

PLOS ONE

Dear Editor in Chief and Esteemed Reviewers:

Thank you for your valuable review and feedback

please find our rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised 'Response to Reviewers'.

I want to highlight that we had help from a statistician this time (we added acknowledgment) to fulfill the valuable recommendations of reviewers.

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct.

We reviewed and updated all references as per journal guidelines. We checked and found no reference has been retracted

I would recommend to check for inconsistent fonts within the manuscript.

thank you for your valuable comment. We made changes necessary as recommended.

Abstract

The abstract should follow a proper sequence. Title says “mortality and associated risks”, but the context says “incidence and outcomes”; these are not the same.

Thank you for this valued observation. We agree with comment. text changed as recommended.

Methods is not describing the primary (mortality and associated risk factors [page 19]) and secondary (a, b, and c) outcomes; this creates confusion on what the results are describing.

Agree with remark. Primary and secondary objectives added to methods

In the results: “Male patients had double risk for contacting COVID-19”. This is an associated risk for incidence, not mortality. Do the authors mean risk for death?

Thank you for this comment. We rephrased to double the incidence to make it clear and not related to mortality and avoid any confusion.

The authors should include the associated risk factors for mortality described in page 19/table 2A.

Agree with your valuable observation. We added the most important significant risk factors from Table 2A (now 3A) as advised. Also added result from new table 3B (multivariate Cox regression analysis).

The conclusion should state “higher incidence compared to the general population of Qatar” since the 7.1% is higher than prior reports (4%). Same for mortality (15% vs 0.15%). Recommended to clarify these “high” numbers are compared to nationwide.

Thank you for your comment. We added and rephrased the conclusion in the abstract as suggested.

Body of manuscript

Statistical analysis

The survivor vs non-survivor cohorts have vast significant differences/trends for baseline values (Page 18 and 19/Table 2). Did the cox regression analysis include those as potential confounders for associated risk factors for mortality? Did the authors perform a selection method (i.e., forward, backward, stepwise) to determine truly potential confounders from table 2?

Thank you for your valuable comments. The cox regression analysis summarized in table 2A (now changed to 3A) was a univariate analysis and did not account for potential cofounders. Therefore, we constructed in this revision a forward stepwise multivariate cox regression analysis model to further examine the association between the different statistically significant variables in the univariate analysis (Table 2A, p < 0.05) and mortality in dialysis patients infected with COVID-19. The model initially included clinical variables that were statistically significant (p<0.05) and that were thought to be clinically relevant and not collinear. ICU admission was found to be the only clinical variable significantly associated with death [OR = 32.8 (3.5-305.4), p=0.002)] (Table 3B). Then we tried to add the blood investigation variables that were statistically significant in the univariate analysis (Table 2A, p<0.05) to the model. However, the model became unstable due to our small sample size as well as the collinearity between ICU admission and inflammatory and thrombotic blood markers such as lactate, CRP, IL-6, D-dimer and ferritin.

Results

Denominator in line 221 and the flow chart is 1064. The abstract and other sections have 1068, please revise.

Agree and we commend you for sharp observation and we apologize for the typo. all corrected to the correct number 1064.

For secondary outcome C (line 380), recommended to describe only significant values within the text to avoid confusion.

Thank you for the comment. We summarized (very brief) non-significant difference in one sentence and kept the significant ones as advised. For incidence and mortality, we kept it to highlight these important factors though it was not statistically significant.

Discussion

Line 468: Recommended to avoid using “some association”. Whether there is an association or not.

Agree with comment. We rephrased to association with multiple inflammatory markers

470: “Mortality was more associated with older age and dialysis”. What do the authors mean as “more”. Again, associations should be determined or not. Are these results described previously?

Appreciate this observation. We removed more as advised.

474: Recommended to report the percentages for case fatality rate of Spain, Italy, and Turkey.

Done as recommended (as mortality rate in Turkey study was lower than ours, we refrased the sentence to lower than most international figures.

Figure 1: I believe there is a typo on the screening box. “tested negative” should be “positive”??

Yes and again thank you for your close observation and sorry for the typo. Changes to positive.

Figure 3: Recommended to use panel labels for each graph (A, B, C, etc).

Graph labeled as recommended.

Error bars for albumin and lymphocytes show non-significant difference. Please revise

Agree with valuable comment. After consulting with our statistician and reanalysis, we adjusted the graph

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2nd response to reviewer.docx

Decision Letter 2

Bijan Najafi

24 Jun 2021

Mortality and associated risk factors of COVID-19 infection in dialysis patients in Qatar: a nationwide cohort study

PONE-D-21-00180R2

Dear Dr. Hamad,

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,

Bijan Najafi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for your efforts in addressing the remaining concerns voiced by the reviewers. After reviewing the latest version and your response letter I believe your revision is responsive to all remaining critiques and your study has sufficient scientific merit, high novelty, and high significance in furthering our understanding about the impact of COVID-19 on patients receiving HD process. Thus I recommend acceptance of your latest revision of your manuscript in the current form. Congratulation!

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Bijan Najafi

1 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-00180R2

Mortality and associated risk factors of COVID-19 infection in dialysis patients in Qatar: a nationwide cohort study

Dear Dr. Hamad:

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. Bijan Najafi

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 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PLOS1.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2nd response to reviewer.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