Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Oct 11;16(10):e0258391. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258391

Common communicable diseases in the general population in France during the COVID-19 pandemic

Titouan Launay 1,*, Cécile Souty 1, Ana-Maria Vilcu 1, Clément Turbelin 1, Thierry Blanchon 1, Caroline Guerrisi 1, Thomas Hanslik 1, Vittoria Colizza 1, Isabelle Bardoulat 2, Magali Lemaître 2, Pierre-Yves Boëlle 1,3
Editor: Jeffrey Shaman4
PMCID: PMC8504745  PMID: 34634090

Abstract

In France, social distancing measures have been adopted to contain the spread of COVID-19, culminating in national Lockdowns. The use of hand washing, hydro-alcoholic rubs and mask-wearing also increased over time. As these measures are likely to impact the transmission of many communicable diseases, we studied the changes in common infectious diseases incidence in France during the first year of COVID-19 circulation. We examined the weekly incidence of acute gastroenteritis, chickenpox, acute respiratory infections and bronchiolitis reported in general practitioner networks since January 2016. We obtained search engine query volume for French terms related to these diseases and sales data for relevant drugs over the same period. A periodic regression model was fit to disease incidence, drug sales and search query volume before the COVID-19 period and extrapolated afterwards. We compared the expected values with observations made in 2020. During the first lockdown period, incidence dropped by 67% for gastroenteritis, by 79% for bronchiolitis, by 49% for acute respiratory infection and 90% for chickenpox compared to the past years. Reductions with respect to the expected incidence reflected the strength of implemented measures. Incidence in children was impacted the most. Reduction in primary care consultations dropped during a short period at the beginning of the first lockdown period but remained more than 95% of the expected value afterwards. In primary care, the large decrease in reported gastroenteritis, chickenpox or bronchiolitis observed during the period where many barrier measures were implemented imply that the circulation of common viruses was reduced and informs on the overall effect of these measures.

Introduction

The first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in France January 24th, 2020 [1]. Investigation of local transmission clusters started from this date on yet no measures were directed to reduce transmission in the general population. In early March 2020, the observation of an increased circulation of the disease by surveillance systems and in hospital admissions [24] led to stronger interventions and the promotion of standard barrier measures. A first national lockdown was adopted from March 17th to May 11th, during which mobility was restricted, schools, public services and shops were closed and telework widely adopted. At the end of the lockdown a national strategy of testing/tracing/isolating was implemented. The circulation of the COVID-19 remained at low levels during the summer months but showed renewed activity from the beginning of September and eventually led to a second lockdown from October 18th, to December 15th 2020.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is primarily via the respiratory route through direct or indirect contacts [5]. These transmission routes are the same for other respiratory viruses. Standard precautionary measures should therefore limit transmission for all these diseases. Indeed, mask wearing is thought to have an impact on the circulation of these viruses by limiting the emission of droplets [6, 7]. Handwashing may reduce direct transmission and contamination of surfaces, additionally limiting the transmission of viruses associated with the oro-fecal route. Other barrier measures, including physical distancing, may further reduce transmission [6, 7].

In France, the adoption of standard precautionary measures has been widely publicized with the population and highly adopted. Mask wearing was rare before March 2020, but the proportion of individual wearing a mask in public place increased from 25% to 58% between March 22 and April 20, 2020 [8]. Likewise the practice of handwashing increased, peaking during the first lockdown but decreased afterwards [8].

Here we aimed at describing how the spread of common communicable diseases changed during the COVID-19 epidemic in France. We focused on chickenpox, acute diarrhea, acute respiratory infections and bronchiolitis for which pre-COVID-19 surveillance was available. We used several data streams to investigate changes associated with different periods in the COVID-19 epidemic.

Materials and methods

Sources of data

All data were collected prospectively from January-2016 to December 2020 and presented by week (using the ISO-8601 system). When necessary, the computations described below were repeated by age groups or by administrative region.

During the pandemic, the general population was encouraged to consult with their GPs as usual [9]. No triage system for COVID-19 patients was put into place. Importantly, teleconsultations by phone or internet were reimbursed as normal visits.

Incidence of acute diarrhea (AD) and varicella was obtained from the Sentinelles network. The Sentinelles network has been monitoring common illnesses in primary care in France over the past 30 years [10]. Approximately 500 volunteer general practitioners (GPs, or about 1% of French GPs) take part in the surveillance system. Each week, GPs report the number of patients consulting for nine diseases or medical conditions. The case definition of AD was “at least three daily watery or nearly so stools, dating less than 14 days”. The case definition for chickenpox was “typical eruption (erythemato-vesicular during 3 to 4 days with a dessication phase) beginning suddenly, with moderate fever (37°5C – 38°C)”.

Incidence for Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) and bronchiolitis was obtained from IQVIA’s EMR database. This database collects medical information directly from electronic medical records from 1,200 GPs in France (approximately 2% of all French GPs). The panels of contributing GP are maintained as a representative sample of the primary care physician population according to 3 criteria known to influence prescribing: age, sex, and geographical distribution. Additionally, the patient population is representative of the country population according to age and gender distribution, as provided by national statistic authorities. For each medical consultation, anonymized patient data are collected, including gender, year of birth and diagnosis (ICD-10 code). Incidence in the IQVIA and Sentinelles network are based on clinical diagnoses. Additionally, in the Sentinelles network, a random subset of patients presenting with ARI symptoms undergo nasopharyngeal swabs followed by RT-PCR to test for 4 viruses (influenza, human metapneumovirus, respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus), and for SARS-CoV-2 since March 2020 [11].

Sales of selected drugs were obtained from IQVIA Pharmaone LMPSO (“Le Marché Pharmaceutique Sell Out”). This database provides prescription and over-the-counter drugs dispensing data from 14,000 pharmacies in France (60% of all French pharmacies). The data collected includes Ephmra ATC classification and the number of boxes sold per week and per region. We selected drugs frequently prescribed in the case of AD by ATC code level 3/4, including A03A (plain antispasmodic and anticholinergics), A07B (intestinal absorbent antidiarrheals), A04A9 (others antiemetics and antinauseants) and A07H (mobility inhibitors) [12].

Search query volume in the google search engine were obtained from the Google Trends website [13]. We looked for the keyword “gastro” which is commonly used for AD in France, “bronchiolite” and “varicelle” which are French for bronchiolitis and chickenpox. The keywords “gastro” and “varicelle” are known to have a high correlation with the incidence of acute diarrhea and chickenpox respectively [14]. Searches were limited to the French language and from locations in France.

The GrippeNet surveillance system provided the percentage of patients consulting with a general practitioner in case of influenza-like illness (ILI) symptoms. GrippeNet is a population-sourced surveillance system where over 6000 participants report current symptoms every week and medical consultations or treatment associated with these symptoms [15]. The ILI definition used in GrippeNet.fr is the combination of three criteria: the sudden onset of symptoms, at least one of the following signs: fever, chills, headache, myalgia or asthenia and at least one of the following respiratory symptoms: cough, sore throat, dyspnea.

We obtained data on the number of individuals hospitalized with COVID-19 from the French national site for open data [16] where information was available by day and administrative region. Incidence of hospitalization was computed with respect to the population of the corresponding region.

Statistical methods

Incidence of ARI, AD, chickenpox and bronchiolitis shows strong seasonal activity patterns [17, 18]. To describe changes from usual activity patterns, we split the data into two periods the “pre-COVID-19 period” (2016–2019) and the “COVID-19 period” (year 2020). A model was fitted to disease incidence, drug sales and search query volume in the pre-COVID-19 period using a linear trend and periodic regression terms as follows:

log(y(w))=a0+a1×w+a2×cos(2πw52+φ1)+a3×cos(4πw52+φ2)+ε(w)

where y(w) is the modelled quantity for week w and ε(w) a normally distributed random error. The coefficients of the regression were estimated by least squares minimization. Following the “Serfling” method used in the Sentinelles network [19], the fitted model was used to predict the expected value of yexp(w) over year 2020 as well as a 95% expected interval: yexp(w)±1,96×s where s is the residual standard deviation.

Year 2020 was split in several periods as indicated in Table 1, corresponding to changes in the national strategy to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 [20] and summer vacations. We computed the relative reduction between expected and observed values during each period as RR=1Σy(w)Σyexp(w) where the sum was over the weeks in each period.

Table 1. Time periods defined according to the adoption of mitigation measures against COVID-19 and summer vacations.

  Pre-lockdown Lockdown Post-lockdown Summer Vacation Autumn Lockdown2
Dates 1/1–17/3 17/3-11/5 11/5-6/7 6/7-1/9 1/9-14/10 14/10-15/12
Weeks 1–12 13–20 21–28 29–36 37–42 43–51
Limit mass gatherings          
School/Daycare closure        
Stay-at-Home / Teleworking / Public place closure        
Mask wearing            
School holiday            

Dark color corresponds with national implementation, light color with partial/regional implementation and white with no implementation.

Results

Acute diarrhea

The strong seasonal variations in all 3 indicators of AD (incidence, search query volume and drug sales) in the pre-COVID-19 years were well captured by the models (R2 = 0,79). Observed values for all weeks in the 2016–2019 period remained in the prediction intervals.

In year 2020, the 3 indicators for AD showed a similar change over time. AD Incidence was high in January, corresponding to a typical winter-time increase. AD incidence was close to the expected level in February, well within the 95% prediction limits. However, incidence dropped rapidly in the second half of March, synchronously with the national lockdown adoption in France (March 17th–week 12). A similar pattern was found for web-search engine queries and drug sales, with a drop synchronous with the lockdown (Fig 1). The AD incidence changed from 94/100,000 inhabitants (95% CI, [84, 104]) in week 11 to 25/100000 (95% CI, [20, 30]) in week 15. In this latter week, the reduction was 75% with respect to the expected incidence (101 (95% CI, [76, 136])). The overall pattern of change for AD series is summarized in Table 2 for all periods of interest. During the lockdown (March 17th–May 11th), AD incidence was 67% lower than expected. The reduction was smaller in the subsequent period (37%) and during the summer vacation (34%), but increased again during the second lockdown. The largest reduction was for children (0–14 years old) and young adults (15–44) (S2 Fig).

Fig 1. Acute diarrhea in France during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fig 1

(top) drug sales, (middle) Incidence in general practice and (bottom) search query volume.

Table 2. Difference between observed and expected cumulative incidence and number of GP’s consultation in France metropolitan.

Indicator Period Cumulative incidence (standard error) Cumulative expected incidence (standard error) Reduction (%)
Acute diarrhea (AD) Pre-lockdown 1901 (74) 1849 (351) -3
Lockdown 252 (24) 764 (144) 67
Post-lockdown 386 (31) 610 (115) 37
Summer vacation 422 (37) 643 (121) 34
Autumn 330 (25) 622 (117) 47
Lockdown 2 248 (20) 681 (129) 64
Acute respiratory infection (ARI) Pre-lockdown 5965 (73) 6884 (2910) 13
Lockdown 921 (23) 1804 (757) 49
Post-lockdown 571 (19) 1062 (446) 46
Summer vacation 648 (22) 1092 (458) 41
Autumn 1007 (22) 1166 (489) 14
Lockdown 2 691 (17) 1519 (638) 55
Chickenpox Pre-lockdown 165 (22) 245 (150) 33
Lockdown 23 (6) 235 (143) 90
Post-lockdown 6 (4) 198 (121) 97
Summer vacation 16 (8) 57 (35) 72
Autumn 22 (7) 26 (16) 18
Lockdown 2 34(7) 41 (25) 18
Bronchiolitis Pre-lockdown 124 (11) 157 (64) 21
Lockdown 12 (3) 57 (23) 79
Post-lockdown 11 (3) 33 (13) 67
Summer vacation 15 (3) 24 (10) 38
Autumn 28 (4) 37 (15) 24
Lockdown 2 16 (3) 73 (30) 78
Cumulative number of consultation per GP Cumulative expected Number of consultation per GP Reduction (%)
Consultation in primary care Pre-lockdown 1306 1326 1
Lockdown 581 803 28
Post-lockdown 753 766 2
Summer vacation 746 806 8
Autumn 665 646 -3
Lockdown 2 512 541 5

Drug sales showed a decrease during the first lockdown and returned closer to the expected level at the end of the summer vacation, remaining in the lower part of the expected interval throughout. For search query volume, the data returned to normal during the post-lockdown and summer vacation period, and decreased again in the second lockdown period (Fig 1).

There was some regional variation in the relative reduction in AD incidence: during the first lockdown, the reduction ranged from 35% to 75% (S3 Fig). We found that regions where COVID-19 circulation had been the largest in the first wave experienced the largest reduction in AD incidence (Pearson’s correlation coefficient with number of hospitalizations r = 0,59).

Chickenpox

The data for chickenpox for the pre-COVID-19 period (2016–2019) showed seasonal variations that were well captured by the models (R2 = 0,75). In 2020, chickenpox incidence rates in general practice were close to the expected level in the beginning of the year, and presented a sharp decrease during the first lockdown period (Fig 2). They were close to 0 during the whole first lockdown period and remained very low afterwards. Incidence rates were close to the expected level during the summer vacation, where disease incidence is always small and showed a renewed increase in the autumn period, although remaining close to the expected level. Overall, incidence rates dropped by 90% with respect to the expected level during the first lockdown period and by 97% during the post-lockdown (Table 2). The number of search engine queries showed similar changes over time (Fig 2), although the decrease compared to the expected level was less pronounced during the first lockdown period and a renewed reduction was observed in the two last periods (autumn and second lockdown).

Fig 2. Chickenpox in France during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fig 2

(top) Incidence in general practice and (bottom) search query volume.

The relative reduction in chickenpox incidence showed regional variation during the first lockdown, the reduction ranged from 50% to 90% (S4 Fig). No significant correlation was found between the chickenpox reduction and COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Bronchiolitis

The seasonal variation of bronchiolitis incidence for years 2016–2019 was well captured by the model (R2 = 0,84). Incidence of bronchiolitis decreased during the first lockdown (Fig 3). In autumn, where incidence was seen to increase in the past, the second lockdown occurred and a large decrease with respect to expected levels was noted. Overall, incidence dropped by 79% from the expected incidence during the first lockdown and by 78% during the second one. The search query volume for “bronchiolitis” showed a similar plunge during the second lockdown.

Fig 3. Bronchiolitis in France during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fig 3

(top) Incidence in general practice (IQVIA) and (bottom) search query volume.

As observed in the chickenpox and AD relative reduction, some regional variation can be observed in the bronchiolitis relative reduction, ranged from 45% to 75% during the first lockdown (S5 Fig). There was a positive correlation between the relative reduction and the number of hospitalizations but not statistically significant (Pearson’s correlation coefficient with number of hospitalizations r = 0,34).

ARI and consultations

The incidence rate of ARI was lower than the preceding years (Table 2). The decrease was smaller during the first lockdown (49%). Incidence was close to the expected after the Summer Holidays, but decreased again during the second lockdown. The regional variation observed for the relative reduction in ARI incidence ranged from 20% to 50% during the first lockdown (S6 Fig). We found that, in contrast to AD incidence reduction, regions where COVID-19 circulation had been the largest in the first wave experienced the lowest reduction in ARI incidence (Pearson’s correlation coefficient with number of hospitalizations r = -0,74).

We found that in the year 2020, patients presented with ARI symptoms who underwent a PCR test were most likely infected with SARS-CoV-2 or human metapneumoviruses, (S4 Fig) in sharp contrast with year 2019 where they were likely infected with influenza. In 2020, only two cases of influenza and one case of RSV were detected (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Number of viruses detected by virological confirmation in ARI consultation.

Fig 4

Consultation volume in the general population

In France, the number of consultations with GPs decreased from the expected during the first two weeks of the first lockdown, but started increasing again in the 5th week of the first lockdown. At the end of the first lockdown period, the number of consultations was again close to the expected, and has remained so ever since (Fig 5). The participatory surveillance system GrippeNet.fr, where participants indicated whether they contacted a GP in case of symptoms, showed that consultations with GPs for ARI did not change importantly over the first half of year 2020: in the pre-lockdown period, 32% of ARI patients consulted with a GP for that episode, it was 51% and 46% in the first lockdown and post-lockdown phase. An increase in the number of teleconsultations with GPs was observed over time (S1 Fig).

Fig 5. Number of general practitioner consultation in France during COVID-19 pandemic, IQVIA.

Fig 5

Discussion

Following the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 in France, a number of measures have been adopted to reduce transmission, culminating with a first national lockdown in March-May 2020. The main goal of these preventive measures was to slow down the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 by reducing the number of contacts between individuals. We found that during the same period of time, the circulation of other common communicable diseases presented major decreases from the expected. The relative decrease in incidence for AD (67%) and chickenpox (90%) during the lockdown period were of the same magnitude as the reduction of the reproduction ratio of COVID-19 (77%) [2].

Measuring the impact of interventions on the circulation of a communicable disease is difficult, for want of a clear reference situation. Here, we relied on data collected routinely by two surveillance systems in general practice, the Sentinelles network [21] and the EMR database from IQVIA, in the four years preceding 2020 and throughout year 2020. Both systems collect data directly from GPs, using standardized clinical case definitions for the Sentinelles network or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding for the EMR database. The two systems collect data independently. Incidence computed in the Sentinelles network gives an accurate picture of the epidemiology of common communicable diseases in France: for example, there is very good correlation between the Sentinelles AD incidence and the actual volume of drugs prescribed for AD episodes (rehydration and anti-vomiting) and with the number of emergency departments visits for AD [18], and the Sentinelles incidence of chickenpox also corresponds well with the epidemiology of the disease [17, 22], with rates following the pattern of school holidays as in most countries [23]. Both AD and chickenpox show strong seasonal patterns, which are however remarkably consistent from one year to the next. This provided a unique opportunity to compute the expected incidence of these diseases and provide reference numbers for comparison with the observed epidemiology during the COVID-19 period. We adopted a periodic regression analysis to capture the strong seasonal patterns of incidence and found that the fitted models and expected intervals were well calibrated. In the two first months of 2020, before intense circulation of COVID-19, the observed incidence of ARI, AD, chickenpox and bronchiolitis were well within the expected ranges.

Barrier measures have been adopted in France since the beginning of March 2020 [24], culminating with national lockdowns in two instances. These measures are expected to have an impact on the circulation of most directly and indirectly transmitted diseases. Swabs obtained from patients in the Sentinelles network show that the viruses circulating during the COVID-19 pandemic in ARI patients, were different than in the previous season, with neither influenza nor RSV in 2020 when these viruses had been the most frequent in 2019. We indeed observed that the incidence of ARI and bronchiolitis was less than expected during year 2020, as were the incidence of AD and chickenpox. The periods where restrictions were the strongest in the population corresponded with the largest reduction in incidence. For example, the reduction of AD was by 2/3 during the lockdown periods, but closer to 1/3 in the other periods. Childhood diseases almost vanished. Chickenpox, which circulates the whole year round in France, was reduced close to 0 during the periods where schools were closed. It increased again from September 2020 as children resumed going to school, although with levels less than the expected. Bronchiolitis, which affects mostly pre-school children, was almost absent during its period of main activity (October/November). For AD, which affects all age classes, we found that the reduction in incidence was largely in the children, less in adults and almost zero among the elderly. This is in line with the distribution of the number of contacts according to age [25]: Social distancing measures are likely to have had a larger impact on the young, who have a lot of contacts, than on others age classes. Interestingly, we found that regions where the reduction in incidence for AD was the largest were those where the COVID-19 epidemics had led to more hospitalizations. Population in the most affected regions may have had more incentive on adopting precautionary measures and respecting recommendations. Previous work found indeed that drops in mobility were larger in the regions mostly hit by the pandemic in the first wave [26]. Also, survey data indicates that adherence to preventive measures increases with personal experience of the disease, for example with a relative affected by COVID-19 [24].

The decrease in incidence as measured by the indicators in general practice could reflect a general reduction in consultations with general practitioners. Indeed, the number of visits decreased by approximately 29% in the first 5 weeks of the first lockdown, as measured by the IQVIA EMR database. This decrease was temporary and the consultation rate almost regained its expected level after 5 weeks, contrary to incidence of the monitored diseases that was affected during the whole period. The decrease in GP visits can have several reasons. First, patients may have avoided consultations despite the recommendations of national health authorities. Indeed, french GPs reported a reduction in activity during the first lockdown, with a decrease in consultations for chronic diseases and a rise in those for mental health issues [27]. A reduction in consultations for acute conditions such as ARI, AD, chickenpox or bronchiolitis may have taken place as well, although participants to the GrippeNet.fr participatory surveillance system reported consulting/teleconsulting with a GP in case of ARI as often before, during and after the lockdown (S1 Fig). Second, teleconsultations may not have been properly recorded in surveillance systems as they were rare before 2020. Indeed, teleconsultations increased from less than 40,000 in February 2020 to more than 2 million in March 2020 [28]. In all instances, consultations initially decreased less than disease incidence during the first lockdown: it was 30% when the reduction in disease incidence was twice as much. Furthermore, the reduction in consultations was less marked during the second lockdown, but the reduction in incidence of AD, bronchiolitis and ARI were almost the same than in the first lockdown. Consultations for acute respiratory infections, acute diarrhea, chickenpox and bronchiolitis correspond to less than 10% of the 200M GP consultations each year. GPs report that after the initial drop in visits during the first lockdown, there was an increase in consultations for COVID-19 and for mental health issues [29]. This increase may explain why the overall number of consultations regained expected levels after the first lockdown, when disease incidence did not. It is therefore unlikely that all reductions in disease incidence are a consequence of less consultations. The change similar to incidence seen in alternative sources of information also supports a real decrease. For example, search query volume has previously been correlated with the incidence of AD or chickenpox [14]. Here, the patterns in search query volume paralleled that of incidence, with large troughs during the time of lockdown. We also found that drugs typically prescribed in AD episodes were less dispensed in pharmacies during the lockdown. Last, the proportion of bronchiolitis visits in hospital emergency departments visits for the children under two years old remained far below the previous year: in 2020–2021, this proportion was less than 5% when it was around 15% in 2018–2019 [30].

A reduction of the circulation of common communicable disease has been observed in other countries. In Australia, strict control measures have been implemented such as working from home, closing national borders, limiting on social gatherings and school closure (in the Victoria’s state). Right after the travel and work restrictions were adopted, the circulation of Influenza viruses and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) dropped. During the same period, ILI consultations in 2020 remained far below the historical average [31]. Influenza detection was reduced by 99.4% and the RSV detection by 98% from the previous year, even though the number of swabs tested was higher than the previous year [32]. In Finland, restrictive measures to social distance were also implemented: school and national border closure, as well as work from home were recommended, and residents over 70 years were ordered to stay at home. The 2020 influenza season lasted only eight weeks (from peak to no case) compared to 13–20 weeks in the 4 previous years. A rapid decline was also observed in RSV circulation [33]. In Hong Kong, influenza transmission in the community dropped substantially after the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions in late January, with a reduction of 44% (95% CI 34–53%) [34]. This was observed while large adoption rates were recorded in the population for the use of preventive measures (e.g. use of mask and avoidance of crowded spaces). These changes may however not be present in all countries, depending on the circulation of SARS-CoV-2 and the adoption of mitigation measures.

The reduction in incidence for these common diseases finally raises the question of an eventual catch-up. It was predicted that substantial RSV outbreaks could occur in the coming years [35, 36]. AD, which is mainly caused by rotavirus, astroviruses and norovirus in the winter [37], could lead to similar changes. For chickenpox, where 90% of the french children are infected by age 10, more than half of the expected 600000 yearly cases did not occur in 2020. While the catch-up may be rapid in the coming years, a larger fraction may reach adulthood as non-immune and require vaccination to prevent complications.

Our study has the following limitations. First, incidence data is based on a case definition using clinical information only. Virological information was available for common respiratory viruses, but not for AD and chickenpox. Second, while our study consistently shows that the incidence of common infectious diseases was reduced during time periods where the strongest measures for COVID-19 were implemented, it does not allow causal interpretation. Third, the usage of search query terms for infectious diseases may have changed during the pandemic, reflecting anxiety more than disease. The query terms are however very specific french words for chickenpox, diarrhea and bronchiolitis. While the trends in search terms were similar to that of actual incidences, it could be due to changes in health seeking over the internet rather than actual changes in health conditions. Fourth, there was a global reduction in the overall number of GP consultations, especially at the beginning of the first lockdown. This likely contributed to the observed decrease in incidence. Finally, AD is known to be caused by multiple pathogens, viruses or bacteria [37, 38]. An overall decrease does not imply that all pathogens were equally affected.

Standard precautionary measures and social distancing in place today in many countries may have sufficient effect, at least temporarily, to hinder transmission of common winter viruses. Surveillance systems will be of interest in monitoring disease activity in the years to come.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Percentage of consultation for ILI syndrom in Grippenet cohort in France during COVID-19 pandemic.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Acute diarrhea in France during the COVID-19 pandemic, incidence rate by age in general practice.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Cumulated incidence of COVID-19 hospitalisations over the first lockdown period according to relative reduction in acute diarrhea incidence by administrative regions in France (r = 0,59).

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Cumulated incidence of COVID-19 hospitalisations over the first lockdown period according to relative reduction in chickenpox by administrative regions in France (r = -0,05).

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Cumulated incidence of COVID-19 hospitalisations over the first lockdown period according to relative reduction in bronchiolitis incidence by administrative regions in France (r = 0,34).

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Cumulated incidence of COVID-19 hospitalisations over the first lockdown period according to relative reduction in acute respiratory infection incidence by administrative regions in France (r = -0,74).

(TIF)

Data Availability

The acute gastroenteritis and the chickenpox incidence are available from the Sentinelles website: https://www.sentiweb.fr/france/fr/?page=table.

Funding Statement

IQVIA provided support in the form of salaries for authors ML and IB, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

References

Decision Letter 0

Jeffrey Shaman

24 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-16521

Common communicable diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic in the general population in France

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Launay,

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 respond to the reviewer comments on a point-by-point basis and revise the manuscript accordingly.  In addition, please vet the manuscript writing thoroughly for grammar and syntax.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 08 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,

Jeffrey Shaman

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 stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

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

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: "IQVIA"

a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. 

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: 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: This manuscript analyzed syndromic, prescription and online search data to examine patterns of some common groups of ailments pre and during the pandemic to see if trends changed. The 2020 year was divided up by when measures were in place, and history data was used as the comparator. In general, diarrheal, bronchial and respiratory diseases and chicken pox all declined; the effect was greatest for the first big lockdown. This first lockdown also had a drop in GP consultations, suggesting some of the drop could have been the result of changes in health seeking behaviors. The ongoing decline in illness despite the return of GP consultations lend support that the mitigation effects interrupted disease transmission for other viral diseases.

Specific comments

Line 1. I would add “in France” to the title.

Line 38. I am not sure what you mean by “…in line with the extent of implemented measures.” It seems like this was unprecedented territory so not sure how this was assessed. I realize it may be explained in the paper but probably best to reword for the abstract.

Line 39. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see the age specific results anywhere in the paper.

Line 43. I think you “imply” or “indirectly show” that other viruses decreased in circulation. You don’t actually present any viral data; also, this is an ecological analysis, so you are really only showing correlation and not causation.

Line 54. Do you mean “remained closed” or just “closed?” If this was the first closing, then you should reword.

Line 59-60. Awkward phrasing, please revise.

Line 68. Change to “decreased.”

Line 76. Somewhere in the methods you need to indicate what the public was told to do for routine health care. Were people told not to seek care? Were they told to call instead of seek care? Were all non-urgent medical issues triaged to a central location that would no be picked up routine systems. The issue is that you need to be able to tease out the role of changing in health seeking behavior vs. a true decrease in actual illnesses. Your data on GP consultations also get at this issue. Also, did you consider having a control illness that might not have expected to have changes due to the social distancing measures put in place? This would be one way to tease out a true decline vs. one due to changes in health seeking behaviors. You allude to this (line 300) but I would like it might be easy to add to the analysis.

Line 78. Please indicate somewhere in the methods whether any of these data sources include laboratory results.

Line 159, line 190-191, line 200. It says “…Error! Reference source not found.”

Line 245-246. When you say “indirect evidence of the effect of mitigation measures” do you mean on SARS-CoV-2? You need to be clear. I think these findings are indirect evidence of reducing the burden of illness from the diseases you were analyzing (it’s indirect because it’s ecological and you don’t have any lab data). You did not really analyze any COVID data in this paper, so I think that is a bit off topic. This is again stated in line 337 and I would revise it here too. If you wanted to look at the effect on COVID then you should include those data as well and make that a central objective up front.

Line 286. I think you mean “adherence” instead of “adhesion.”

Line 339. I might add “at least temporarily” since we don’t really know how long the effects will last, and in fact some viruses are returning.

I think you need a limitations paragraph. A few limitations I can think of are 1) ecological analysis, 2) no laboratory data, 3) some of the illnesses and very broad groups that may be affected differently by the mitigation measures (e.g., ARI could include COVID-19 but it also might include rhino/enteroviruses which have been shown to be less impacted by the measures).

Reviewer #2: This manuscript uses multiple lines of evidence (search engine query volume, general practitioner incidence reports, and drug sales) to document a reduction in diarrhea, chickenpox, bronchiolitis, and acute respiratory infections during France’s COVID-19 lockdowns. Although this finding is not entirely surprising, it is important that these major epidemiological shifts be documented and studied. The statistical approach employed by the authors is sound and well-reasoned, and the article is well written. Please see the suggestions below:

1. There should be a discussion of study limitations. For instance, one limitation that immediately stands out is the fact that most measures of disease incidence included in the study are indirect (drug sales, and search engine volume). Physician reported incidence is also in a way indirect as these only survey a limited number of physicians and may be subject to bias. In the absence of laboratory data showing decreased isolation of specific pathogens in a well sampled population, the conclusions should be interpreted with caution and these limitations mentioned.

2. Over the counter drug purchases are an imperfect sentinel for disease as drugs may have been purchased in anticipation of disease or in response to media reports etc. Likewise, search terms may reflect anxiety regarding COVID and not necessarily reflect disease. Did the authors take this into account when selecting their search terms?

3. Regional variation for diarrhea, chickenpox, bronchiolitis, and acute respiratory infections are referenced frequently but these data are not shown. Suggest showing these regional data (perhaps in supplemental table format) and referencing these data when these variations are mentioned.

4. It is somewhat surprising that symptom search terms did not increase during periods of heavy COVID transmission, given that many individuals likely had COVID or were researching COVID. The potential contribution of COVID disease or concern about COVID disease on the data should be discussed.

5. The authors should discuss the fact that their results may not be applicable to other locations, given potentially unique characteristics of the COVID-19 epidemic in France or differences in country response.

6. Did food consumption patterns change significantly during lockdown? It is possible that people still bought food from the same stores, etc. The authors should discuss hypotheses for why diarrhea rates declined. Fecal oral transmission via food likely persisted to some degree, whereas person-to-person contact (a key route of viral gastroenteritis transmission) likely declined. As viral, bacterial, or parasitic causes are not distinguished by the authors methodology, it is possible (even likely) that some pathogens declined in incidence while others remained the same. This should be discussed.

7. The authors show that clinic visits dropped during the first lockdown but were otherwise at roughly the same levels during COVID as prior years. This would seem to contradict the sharp decreases in incidence of common infections (diarrhea, acute respiratory infections, etc), as estimated by drug sales, search queries, and general practitioner incidence reports. These infections presumably account for a large share of clinic visits. How do the authors explain this?

A few specific minor suggestions below:

Line 57: please state when the second lock-down ended.

Line 67: please provide a reference for the statement regarding mask wearing rates.

Line 86: “at least three daily watery or nearly so stools” -typo?

Lines 159, 190, and 220: references not loaded correctly

Lines 223-226: this sentence does not make sense. Should the second “AD” be “ARI”?

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 11;16(10):e0258391. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258391.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Aug 2021

Reviewer 1 :

- Line 1. I would add “in France” to the title.

We changed the title to : Common communicable diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic in the general population, in France.

- Line 38. I am not sure what you mean by “…in line with the extent of implemented measures.” It seems like this was unprecedented territory so not sure how this was assessed. I realize it may be explained in the paper but probably best to reword for the abstract.

We changed to : “Reductions with respect to the expected incidence reflected the strength of implemented measures.”

- Line 39. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see the age specific results anywhere in the paper.

Age specific results were only described in the Acute diarrhea section (line 172-173) and in figure S2, as bronchiolitis and chickenpox are only seen in the young.

- Line 43. I think you “imply” or “indirectly show” that other viruses decreased in circulation. You don’t actually present any viral data; also, this is an ecological analysis, so you are really only showing correlation and not causation.

We changed to : “In primary care, the large decrease in reported gastroenteritis, chickenpox or bronchiolitis observed during the period where many barrier measures were implemented imply that the circulation of common viruses was reduced and informs on the overall effect of these measures.”

- Line 54. Do you mean “remained closed” or just “closed?” If this was the first closing, then you should reword.

We changed to : ”A first national lockdown was adopted from March 17th to May 11th, during which mobility was restricted, schools, public services and shops were closed and telework widely adopted.”

- Line 59-60. Awkward phrasing, please revise.

We changed to : “These transmission routes are the same for other respiratory viruses. Standard precautionary measures should therefore limit transmission for all these diseases.”

- Line 68. Change to “decreased.”

We changed to “decreased”.

- Line 76. Somewhere in the methods you need to indicate what the public was told to do for routine health care. Were people told not to seek care? Were they told to call instead of seek care? Were all non-urgent medical issues triaged to a central location that would no be picked up routine systems.

During the pandemic, the general public was encouraged to keep consulting with their GPs as normal.(https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/actualites/presse/communiques-de-presse/article/covid-19-et-continuite-des-soins-continuer-de-se-soigner-un-imperatif-de-sante) No triage system was set up that would explain a drop in consultations. Importantly, teleconsultation is reimbursed as normal visits.

This is mentioned at the beginning of the Methods:

“During the pandemic, the general population was encouraged to consult with their GPs as usual. No triage system was put into place. Importantly, teleconsultations by phone or internet were reimbursed as normal visits.”

The issue is that you need to be able to tease out the role of changing in health seeking behavior vs. a true decrease in actual illnesses. Your data on GP consultations also get at this issue. Also, did you consider having a control illness that might not have expected to have changes due to the social distancing measures put in place? This would be one way to tease out a true decline vs. one due to changes in health seeking behaviors. You allude to this (line 300) but I would like it might be easy to add to the analysis.

We only had data on infectious diseases, so that it was not possible to use other conditions for control. Regarding the drop in consultations with GPs, it was large for 5 weeks after the first lockdown started, but consultations regained their expected level afterwards, contrary to incidence for the monitored diseases. In the discussion, we listed several explanations that contributed to the initial drop, and we acknowledged that renunciation to care was one of them. We reinforced in the discussion that part of the observed decrease could be due to change in health seeking behavior, quoting official sources on the role of GPs during the first lockdown.

We changed the discussion to :

“This decrease was temporary and the consultation rate almost regained its expected level after 5 weeks, contrary to incidence of the monitored diseases that was affected during the whole period. The decrease in GP visits can have several reasons. First, patients may have avoided consultations despite the recommendations of national health authorities. Indeed, french GPs reported a reduction in activity during the first lockdown, with a decrease in consultations for chronic diseases and a rise in those for mental health issues[26]. A reduction in consultations for acute conditions such as ARI, AD, chickenpox or bronchiolitis may have taken place as well, although participants to the GrippeNet.fr participatory surveillance system reported consulting/teleconsulting with a GP in case of ARI as often before, during and after the lockdown (Figure S1).”

and

“Our study has the following limitations. First, incidence data is based on a case definition using clinical information only. Virological information was available for common respiratory viruses, but not for AD and chickenpox. Second, while our study consistently shows that the incidence of common infectious diseases was reduced during time periods where the strongest measures for COVID-19 were implemented, it does not allow causal interpretation. Third, the usage of search query terms for infectious diseases may have changed during the pandemic, reflecting anxiety more than disease. The query terms are however very specific french words for chickenpox, diarrhea and bronchiolitis. While the trends in search terms were similar to that of actual incidences, it could be due to changes in health seeking over the internet rather than actual changes in health conditions. Fourth, there was a global reduction in the overall number of GP consultations, especially at the beginning of the first lockdown. This likely contributed to the observed decrease in incidence. Finally, AD is known to be caused by multiple pathogens, viruses or bacteria[35,36]. An overall decrease does not imply that all pathogens were equally affected.”

- Line 78. Please indicate somewhere in the methods whether any of these data sources include laboratory results.

We only have virological data for a sample of patients presenting with ARI. Indeed in the Sentinelles network, a random subset of patients presenting with ARI symptoms undergo nasopharyngeal swabs followed by RT-PCR to test for 4 viruses (influenza, human metapneumovirus, respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus). SARS-CoV-2 was added in March 2020.

We now report the changes in viruses isolated before the COVID-19 pandemic and after.

We added a sentence in the methods :

“Incidence in the IQVIA and Sentinelles network are based on clinical diagnoses. Additionally, in the Sentinelles network, a random subset of patients presenting with ARI symptoms undergo nasopharyngeal swabs followed by RT-PCR to test for 4 viruses (influenza, human metapneumovirus, respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus), and for SARS-CoV-2 since March 2020 [11].”

And in the results :

“We found that in the year 2020, patients presented with ARI symptoms who underwent a PCR test were most likely infected with SARS-CoV-2 or human metapneumoviruses, (Figure S4) in sharp contrast with year 2019 where they were likely infected with influenza. In 2020, only two cases of influenza and one case of RSV were detected (Fig 4).”

And in the discussion :

“Swabs obtained from patients in the Sentinelles network show that the viruses circulating during the COVID-19 pandemic in ARI patients, were different than in the previous season, with neither influenza nor RSV in 2020 when these viruses had been the most frequent in 2019.”

- Line 245-246. When you say “indirect evidence of the effect of mitigation measures” do you mean on SARS-CoV-2? You need to be clear. I think these findings are indirect evidence of reducing the burden of illness from the diseases you were analyzing (it’s indirect because it’s ecological and you don’t have any lab data). You did not really analyze any COVID data in this paper, so I think that is a bit off topic. This is again stated in line 337 and I would revise it here too. If you wanted to look at the effect on COVID then you should include those data as well and make that a central objective up front.

We now removed references to the efficiency of control measures for COVID-19.

We changed line 245-246 to : “We found that during the same period of time, the circulation of other common communicable diseases presented major decreases from the expected.”

- Line 286. I think you mean “adherence” instead of “adhesion.”

We changed to adherence : “Also, survey data indicates that adherence to preventive measures increases with personal experience of the disease, for example with a relative affected by COVID-19[23].”

- Line 339. I might add “at least temporarily” since we don’t really know how long the effects will last, and in fact some viruses are returning.

I think you need a limitations paragraph. A few limitations I can think of are 1) ecological analysis, 2) no laboratory data, 3) some of the illnesses and very broad groups that may be affected differently by the mitigation measures (e.g., ARI could include COVID-19 but it also might include rhino/enteroviruses which have been shown to be less impacted by the measures).

We added a limitation paragraph :

“Our study has the following limitations. First, incidence data is based on a case definition using clinical information only. Virological information was available for common respiratory viruses, but not for AD and chickenpox. Second, while our study consistently shows that the incidence of common infectious diseases was reduced during time periods where the strongest measures for COVID-19 were implemented, it does not allow causal interpretation. Third, the usage of search query terms for infectious diseases may have changed during the pandemic, reflecting anxiety more than disease. The query terms are however very specific french words for chickenpox, diarrhea and bronchiolitis. While the trends in search terms were similar to that of actual incidences, it could be due to changes in health seeking over the internet rather than actual changes in health conditions. Fourth, there was a global reduction in the overall number of GP consultations, especially at the beginning of the first lockdown. This likely contributed to the observed decrease in incidence. Finally, AD is known to be caused by multiple pathogens, viruses or bacteria[35,36]. An overall decrease does not imply that all pathogens were equally affected. “

Reviewer 2 :

- 1. There should be a discussion of study limitations. For instance, one limitation that immediately stands out is the fact that most measures of disease incidence included in the study are indirect (drug sales, and search engine volume). Physician reported incidence is also in a way indirect as these only survey a limited number of physicians and may be subject to bias. In the absence of laboratory data showing decreased isolation of specific pathogens in a well sampled population, the conclusions should be interpreted with caution and these limitations mentioned.

We added a limitation in a specific paragraph.

“Our study has the following limitations. First, incidence data is based on a case definition using clinical information only. Virological information was available for common respiratory viruses, but not for AD and chickenpox.“

We now report the changes in viruses isolated before the COVID-19 pandemic and after.

We added a sentence in the methods :

“Incidence in the IQVIA and Sentinelles network are based on clinical diagnoses. Additionally, in the Sentinelles network, a random subset of patients presenting with ARI symptoms undergo nasopharyngeal swabs followed by RT-PCR to test for 4 viruses (influenza, human metapneumovirus, respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus), and for SARS-CoV-2 since March 2020 [11].”

And in the results :

“We found that in the year 2020, patients presented with ARI symptoms who underwent a PCR test were most likely infected with SARS-CoV-2 or human metapneumoviruses, (Figure S4) in sharp contrast with year 2019 where they were likely infected with influenza. In 2020, only two cases of influenza and one case of RSV were detected (Fig 5).”

And in the discussion :

“Swabs obtained from patients in the Sentinelles network show that the viruses circulating during the COVID-19 pandemic in ARI patients, were different than in the previous season, with neither influenza nor RSV in 2020 when these viruses had been the most frequent in 2019.”

- 2. Over the counter drug purchases are an imperfect sentinel for disease as drugs may have been purchased in anticipation of disease or in response to media reports etc. Likewise, search terms may reflect anxiety regarding COVID and not necessarily reflect disease. Did the authors take this into account when selecting their search terms?

The search terms we used are really the french words used to describe AD and chickenpox. These terms have been shown to accurately reflect incidence of the two diseases[1]. Since 2009 the same keywords for Acute diarrhea and chickenpox are used in routine to compare the incidence and the search trend and we kept the same method for 2020.

The sanitary situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, may have an impact in the search trends, nevertheless the correlation with the incidence remained high in 2020 suggesting that the reduction in search trends is a consequence to the reduction of viruses circulation.

We added a limitation in a specific paragraph.

“Third, the usage of search query terms for infectious diseases may have changed during the pandemic, reflecting anxiety more than disease. The query terms are however very specific french words for chickenpox, diarrhea and bronchiolitis. While the trends in search terms were similar to that of actual incidences, it could be due to changes in health seeking over the internet rather than actual changes in health conditions.”

- 3. Regional variation for diarrhea, chickenpox, bronchiolitis, and acute respiratory infections are referenced frequently but these data are not shown. Suggest showing these regional data (perhaps in supplemental table format) and referencing these data when these variations are mentioned.

The regional variation in Diarrhea incidence are presented in the figure S2 in the supporting information. We added the corresponding figure for chickenpox, bronchiolitis and acute respiratory infection.

- 4. It is somewhat surprising that symptom search terms did not increase during periods of heavy COVID transmission, given that many individuals likely had COVID or were researching COVID. The potential contribution of COVID disease or concern about COVID disease on the data should be discussed.

The search terms “varicelle” (chickenpox), “bronchiolite” (bronchiolitis) correspond to the disease name and not symptoms. These are unlikely to be used in the place of COVID-19. The term “gastro” (acute diarrhea) could indeed be a symptom of COVID-19.

We included a limitations paragraph where this was discussed.

“Third, the usage of search query terms for infectious diseases may have changed during the pandemic, reflecting anxiety more than disease. The query terms are however very specific french words for chickenpox, diarrhea and bronchiolitis. While the trends in search terms were similar to that of actual incidences, it could be due to changes in health seeking over the internet rather than actual changes in health conditions.”

- 5. The authors should discuss the fact that their results may not be applicable to other locations, given potentially unique characteristics of the COVID-19 epidemic in France or differences in country response.

We added at the end of the discussion :

“These changes may however not be present in all countries, depending on the circulation of SARS-CoV-2 and the adoption of mitigation measures.”

- 6. Did food consumption patterns change significantly during lockdown? It is possible that people still bought food from the same stores, etc. The authors should discuss hypotheses for why diarrhea rates declined. Fecal oral transmission via food likely persisted to some degree, whereas person-to-person contact (a key route of viral gastroenteritis transmission) likely declined. As viral, bacterial, or parasitic causes are not distinguished by the authors methodology, it is possible (even likely) that some pathogens declined in incidence while others remained the same. This should be discussed.

We included a limitations paragraph where this was discussed.

“Finally, AD is known to be caused by multiple pathogens, viruses or bacteria[35,36]. An overall decrease does not imply that all pathogens were equally affected.”

- 7. The authors show that clinic visits dropped during the first lockdown but were otherwise at roughly the same levels during COVID as prior years. This would seem to contradict the sharp decreases in incidence of common infections (diarrhea, acute respiratory infections, etc), as estimated by drug sales, search queries, and general practitioner incidence reports. These infections presumably account for a large share of clinic visits. How do the authors explain this?

The general practitioner were in the front line during the COVID-19 pandemic. The public was encouraged to keep consulting and teleconsultations was fully reimbursed. Furthermore, the consultations for mental health issue increase, especially during the first lockdown.

Only 8% of the general practitioner reported a 10 hours per week decrease in their volume of work after the first lockdown. During the second lockdown this ratio fall to 3%. According to 54% of the general practitioner, the number of patients consulting for mental health issue increased during the first lockdown. This ratio rose to 72% during the second Lockdown.

Some of these elements were added to the discussion : “Furthermore, the reduction in consultations was less marked during the second lockdown, but the reduction in incidence of AD, bronchiolitis and ARI were almost the same than in the first lockdown. Only 8% of the general practitioner reported a 10 hours per week decrease in their volume of work after the first lockdown. During the second lockdown this ratio fall to 3%. According to 54% of the general practitioner, the number of patients consulting for mental health issue increased during the first lockdown. This ratio rose to 72% during the second lockdown [29], implying that consultations almost regained expected levels afterwards but disease incidence did not.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Jeffrey Shaman

27 Sep 2021

Common communicable diseases in the general population in France during the COVID-19 pandemic

PONE-D-21-16521R1

Dear Dr. Launay,

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,

Jeffrey Shaman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

**********

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: The authors did a nice job responding to the reviewer suggestions. I have no further comments.

**********

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

Acceptance letter

Jeffrey Shaman

1 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-16521R1

Common communicable diseases in the general population in France during the COVID-19 pandemic

Dear Dr. Launay:

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

Prof. Jeffrey Shaman

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 Fig. Percentage of consultation for ILI syndrom in Grippenet cohort in France during COVID-19 pandemic.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Acute diarrhea in France during the COVID-19 pandemic, incidence rate by age in general practice.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Cumulated incidence of COVID-19 hospitalisations over the first lockdown period according to relative reduction in acute diarrhea incidence by administrative regions in France (r = 0,59).

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Cumulated incidence of COVID-19 hospitalisations over the first lockdown period according to relative reduction in chickenpox by administrative regions in France (r = -0,05).

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Cumulated incidence of COVID-19 hospitalisations over the first lockdown period according to relative reduction in bronchiolitis incidence by administrative regions in France (r = 0,34).

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Cumulated incidence of COVID-19 hospitalisations over the first lockdown period according to relative reduction in acute respiratory infection incidence by administrative regions in France (r = -0,74).

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The acute gastroenteritis and the chickenpox incidence are available from the Sentinelles website: https://www.sentiweb.fr/france/fr/?page=table.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES