Psychosocial stress and neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations among women living with or without HIV.

OBJECTIVE: Women living with HIV (WLWH) experience psychosocial stress related to social-structural vulnerabilities. To investigate neuroendocrine pathways linking stress and increased cardiovascular disease risk among WLWH, we evaluated associations between psychosocial stress (i.e., perceived stress, posttraumatic stress, and experiences of race- and gender-based harassment) and a composite neuroendocrine biomarker index among WLWH and women without HIV.
METHODS: In 2019-2020, Women's Interagency HIV Study participants in Washington, DC completed a questionnaire and provided blood and 12-hour overnight urine samples for testing of serum dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S) and urinary free cortisol, epinephrine, and norepinephrine. Psychosocial stress was measured using the Perceived Stress Scale, PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version, and Racialized Sexual Harassment Scale. Latent profile analysis was used to classify participants into low (38%), moderate (44%), and high (18%) stress groups. Composite biomarker index scores between 0-4 were assigned based on participants' number of neuroendocrine biomarkers in high-risk quartiles (≥75th percentile for cortisol, epinephrine, and norepinephrine and ≤25th percentile for DHEA-S). We evaluated associations between latent profile and composite biomarker index values using multivariable linear regression, adjusting for socio-demographic, behavioral, metabolic, and HIV-related factors.
RESULTS: Among 90 women, 62% were WLWH, 53% were non-Hispanic Black, and median age was 55 years. In full multivariable models, there was no statistically significant association between psychosocial stress and composite biomarker index values among all women independent of HIV status. High (vs. low) psychosocial stress was positively associated with higher mean composite biomarker index values among all monoracial Black women (adjusted β = 1.32; 95% CI: 0.20-2.43), Black WLWH (adjusted β = 1.93; 95% CI: 0.02-3.83) and Black HIV-negative women (adjusted β = 2.54; 95% CI: 0.41-4.67).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a null association in the overall sample, greater psychosocial stress was positively associated with higher neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations among Black women, highlighting a plausible mechanism by which psychosocial stress could contribute to cardiovascular disease risk.

Introduction

Over the last two decades, the aging of people living with HIV (PLWH) and the widespread use of antiretroviral therapy have been accompanied by a decrease in AIDS-related deaths and a concomitant increase in deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease (CVD) and other non-AIDS-related chronic conditions [1, 2]. PLWH have an elevated risk of subclinical atherosclerosis and atherosclerotic CVD, attributed in large part to chronic inflammation and immune activation [3-5]. Cisgender women living with HIV (WLWH) have an approximately three-times greater CVD risk compared with HIV-negative women [6-9], suggesting that the HIV-associated CVD risk is greater among women compared with men, the etiology of which is not well understood [10].

Psychosocial stress is one CVD risk pathway that remains understudied among WLWH, despite WLWH and particularly WLWH of color being disproportionately affected [11]. Forms of psychosocial stress experienced by WLWH include those directly related to managing one’s HIV diagnosis (e.g., rigid medication regimens, side effects, sense of physical vulnerability based on immunodeficiency), those indirectly related (e.g., stigma, emotional challenges), and intersecting social-structural vulnerabilities related to interdependent and mutually constitutive identities such as being female, Black or Hispanic, and HIV-positive [12-19]. Experiences of abuse and trauma are also common among WLWH. In a meta-analysis of studies conducted among WLWH, there was a high estimated overall prevalence of intimate partner violence (55%), sexual abuse (35%), physical abuse (55%), and recent posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (30%) [11].

At the end of 2019, 57% of all WLWH in the United States were Black women [20]. Among Black women, discrimination attributed to racism and sexism is common and is associated with elevated stress [21, 22]. Gendered racism, or the simultaneous experience of both racism and sexism, is an inherent stressor that can negatively affect personal relationships, professional and economic opportunities, and mental and physical health outcomes among Black women [23-26]. Gendered racism causes psychosocial stress both directly and through increased vulnerability to other stressors [21, 23–25]. Further, among Black WLWH, the effects of gendered racism and HIV-based discrimination can compound one another, representing key social-structural barriers to HIV care [27].

Psychosocial stress is known to contribute to atherosclerosis through heightened activity of the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal (HPA) axis and sympathetic nervous system (SNS) [28]. This physiologic response to perceived stress involves the release of glucocorticoid hormones such as cortisol and the production of epinephrine and norepinephrine, which collectively raise blood pressure, reduce insulin sensitivity, decrease hemostasis, and cause endothelial dysfunction [29]. Psychosocial stress is also associated with adverse health behaviors including physical inactivity, suboptimal diet, and smoking [30-33]. Among WLWH, higher levels of psychosocial stress were positively associated with subclinical carotid atherosclerosis [34]. In the general population, chronic daily stressors such as work-related stress as well as PTSD symptoms have been associated with increased CVD risk [35, 36]. Racial discrimination as a chronic stressor has also been identified as a key contributor of increased CVD risk among Black individuals [37-40].

Largely outside the context of HIV-related research, neuroendocrine biomarkers have been measured as part of a larger set of biomarkers collectively used to measure allostatic load, or the dysregulation of multiple biologic systems, including the neuroendocrine system, as a result of wear and tear brought on by cumulative exposure to stress [41-47]. The four neuroendocrine biomarkers most commonly evaluated have included cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S) as markers of HPA axis activity and epinephrine and norepinephrine as markers of SNS activity [48]. Higher levels of these biomarkers (lower for DHEA-S) under basal (resting) states have been taken to indicate a chronic heightened neuroendocrine response that might be attributed to psychosocial stress. Among women in one study, current life stressors were associated with more extreme levels of these four biomarkers [49]. These biomarkers have also been associated with increased CVD risk [50-52].

Several studies conducted among PLWH have employed a composite biomarker index for allostatic load that incorporated the aforementioned neuroendocrine biomarkers along with measures for inflammatory (e.g., C-reactive protein), metabolic (e.g., glucose), and cardiovascular (e.g., heart rate) markers [53-57]. To our knowledge, there have been no published studies specifically examining a composite neuroendocrine biomarker index and its correlates among WLWH. The objective of this study was to evaluate associations between psychosocial stress (i.e., perceived stress, posttraumatic stress, and experiences of race- and gender-based harassment) and a composite neuroendocrine biomarker index among WLWH and HIV-negative women. We focused on neuroendocrine biomarkers because they are proximal markers of the physiologic stress response and serve as mediators of the effects of stress on inflammation and metabolic and cardiovascular dysfunction [28, 58, 59]. We hypothesized that this association would be stronger among WLWH compared with HIV-negative women. Given that Black WLWH disproportionately experience stress related to intersecting social-structural vulnerabilities [60-62], we also conducted a secondary subgroup analysis in which we evaluated this association specifically among Black women. Psychosocial correlates of neuroendocrine biomarkers could provide potential targets for interventions to prevent CVD among WLWH.

Methods

Study population

This cross-sectional sub-study was conducted within the Women’s Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) at the Washington, DC site. The WIHS is an ongoing multicenter prospective observational study of WLWH and demographically similar women without HIV who were eligible based on sexually transmitted infection history, intravenous drug use, and/or sexual risk behaviors [63-65]. Participants were initially recruited and enrolled in the WIHS in 1994–1995, 2001–2002, or 2011–2013. At semi-annual visits, data were collected through structured interviews and standardized physical, psychological, and laboratory assessments. HIV status was assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with Western blot for confirmation at study enrollment for WLWH, and semi-annually for HIV-negative participants. The WIHS study protocol was approved by the Georgetown University Institutional Review Board (IRB). All participants provided written informed consent.

Between August 2019 and January 2020, 90 participants were enrolled in this sub-study, including 56 WLWH (62% of the sample) and 34 HIV-negative women (38% of the sample). Participants were recruited at their routine semi-annual visits or by phone. We administered a brief screening questionnaire to evaluate potential participants’ eligibility and their ability to complete study procedures. Women were eligible if they reported no non-topical use of hormone supplements or therapy in the last three months (e.g., corticosteroids, epinephrine, norepinephrine, dehydroepiandrosterone, estrogen, progesterone, and their derivatives). For participants screened by phone, this eligibility criterion was re-confirmed at their study visit. The protocol for this sub-study was approved by Georgetown University and George Washington University IRBs. All participants provided written informed consent.

Study procedures

Visit procedures

At the study visit, participants completed a questionnaire on perceived stress, posttraumatic stress, and experiences of race- and gender-based harassment (see Psychosocial Stress), provided a blood sample, and received materials for home-based collection of a 12-hour overnight urine sample. The 15-minute questionnaire was either self-administered on a tablet computer or administered by a trained interviewer, per participants’ preference. One 3-mL serum-separating tube of blood was collected from each participant. Women scheduled their overnight urine collection for a night of their choice, preferably within one week of their visit and within a maximum of 30 days. Supplies provided included a 3-L urine collection container with 25 mL of 6N hydrochloric acid preservative, a toilet ‘hat,’ an insulated cooler bag, and an ice pack. Participants were also provided with detailed verbal and written instructions.

Home-based urine collection

We contacted participants by phone with reminders of their scheduled urine collection and asked them to reschedule if they were menstruating or feeling ill. We also asked participants to refrain from strenuous activity, sexual intercourse, alcohol use, and non-prescribed substance use during the collection period. On a urine collection log, participants recorded their collection start and end times and all void times during the 12-hour period. Participants were asked to void urine at 7 pm and to collect all subsequent urine until 7 am the following day. A 12-hour collection period was chosen over a 24-hour collection period to maximize feasibility and compliance and to obtain biomarker measurements under basal (resting) conditions over a relatively non-stimulated period. Participants could store their sample in their refrigerator or in the cooler bag provided. On the day on which their collection ended, participants transported their sample to the clinic using the cooler bag and ice pack. Following specimen receipt, we administered a second questionnaire to assess compliance with the urine collection protocol and collect data on behaviors and other factors that could have influenced urinary concentrations of free cortisol or catecholamines (e.g., substance use, illness). Participants received $75 for completing the study.

Laboratory procedures

Following blood collection, the serum-separating tube was inverted five times, allowed to clot upright for 30 minutes, and centrifuged at 1100–1300 x g for 10–15 minutes. For urine samples, we measured the volume, inverted the container five times, and aliquoted the sample into two 10-mL vials for testing of free cortisol and catecholamines. The blood sample was shipped at room temperature on the collection day and an immunoassay was performed to determine the serum concentration of DHEA-S (in μg/dL). The urine vials were shipped in a refrigerated shipping container on the same day as specimen receipt. Concentration of urinary free cortisol (in μg/12 hrs) was determined using liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry and concentrations of urinary fractionated catecholamines (i.e., epinephrine and norepinephrine) (in μg/12 hrs) were determined using high performance liquid chromatography. All laboratory testing was performed at Quest Diagnostics (Baltimore, MD) using standard clinical laboratory methods. Urinary concentrations were standardized by grams of creatinine because dissimilar body size leads to differential concentrations in the urine.

Composite neuroendocrine biomarker index

We created a composite neuroendocrine biomarker index using laboratory test results for the four biomarkers of interest. Since there are no accepted thresholds for defining ‘high-risk’ levels that signify a heightened neuroendocrine response, the high-risk range has commonly been defined using distribution percentiles–often, the 25th and 75th percentiles [41-47]. Following this convention, we assigned one ‘point’ for each test result in the high-risk quartile, that is, the upper quartile (≥75th percentile) for urinary free cortisol and catecholamines and the lower quartile (≤25th percentile) for serum DHEA-S. Thus, values of the biomarker index could range from 0–4, representing the number of biomarkers for each participant that were in the high-risk quartile. Although we could not establish whether biomarker concentrations were abnormal using percentile cutoffs, this approach allowed us to evaluate whether higher levels of psychosocial stress were associated with more extreme biomarker concentrations within the sample. However, because individuals with PTSD have been found to have low resting cortisol, we also conducted a sensitivity analysis in which we used a bidirectional cutoff approach for defining high-risk levels for urinary cortisol (i.e., ≤12.5th or ≥87.5th percentiles) [66, 67].

Psychosocial stress

Three different types of psychosocial stress were measured via self-report: perceived stress, posttraumatic stress, and experiences of race- and gender-based harassment. Using latent profile analysis [68], we created three mutually exclusive groups (i.e., low, moderate, and high levels of psychosocial stress) based on participants’ reported levels of each type of psychosocial stress (see Statistical Analysis).

Perceived stress

Perceived stress was measured using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), which assesses the degree to which life situations in the previous month are appraised as unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded [69]. Ten items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from “never” (assigned a score of 0) to “very often” (assigned a score of 4), with four positively stated items reverse-coded (α = 0.86). Items assessing the frequency of perceived stress include “Felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life” and “Found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do.” The summarized score has a possible range of 0–40.

Posttraumatic stress

Posttraumatic stress was measured using the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version (PCL-C), which assesses PTSD symptoms in the last month, including re-experiencing, avoidance, and hyperarousal, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) [70]. The PCL-C asks about symptoms in relation to generic stressful experiences rather than in relation to a specific index event. Although this aspect of the PCL-C facilitates its use in different populations, it also limits its ability to identify sources of stress and determine whether stressful experiences meet criteria for a traumatic event. Seventeen items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from “not at all” (assigned a score of 1) to “extremely” (assigned a score of 5) (α = 0.95). Items assessing the frequency of symptoms include “Repeated, disturbing memories, thoughts, or images of a stressful experience,” “Avoiding activities or situations because they reminded you of a stressful experience,” and “Feeling distant or cut off from other people.” The summarized score has a possible range of 17–85.

Experiences of race- and gender-based harassment

Experiences of race- and gender-based harassment in the last year were measured using the Racialized Sexual Harassment Scale (RSHS), which assesses harassment related to one’s race or ethnicity, harassment related to one’s gender, and harassment related simultaneously to one’s race or ethnicity and gender [71]. Twenty-one items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from “never” (assigned a score of 0) to “very often” (assigned a score of 4) (α = 0.97). Items assessing the frequency of experiences include “Someone said things to insult people of your race/ethnicity (for example, saying people of your race/ethnicity can’t handle certain jobs),” “Someone made comments about your body that emphasized your gender (for example, comments about the size of your breasts or penis),” and “Someone said they expected you to behave certain ways because of your gender and ethnicity (for example, expected you as a Black or Latina woman to wear inappropriate clothes, expected you as an Asian man to be self-controlled and disciplined, as an Asian woman to try to please others, as a Latino man that you would be unfaithful in relationships, etc.).” The summarized score has a possible range of 0–84.

Covariates

Covariates were measured at participants’ most recent core study visit prior to the visit conducted for this sub-study. The median duration between participants’ core and sub-study visits was 162 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 125–194; range: 0–275). Socio-demographic and behavioral factors were self-reported and included age, race/ethnicity, education upon study entry (did not complete high school, completed high school, or attended/completed college), income (≤$30,000 or >$30,000 per year), current smoking, current alcohol use (abstainer, 1–7 drinks/week, 8–12 drinks/week, or ≥13 drinks/week), recent substance use since last visit (crack/cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamines), and current use of a prescribed psychotropic medication. Postmenopausal status was self-reported and defined as not having menstruated in 12 or more months, unless related to pregnancy or medication use. Body mass index (BMI) in kg/m2 was calculated based on weight and height measurements. HIV-related measures included current use of antiretroviral therapy, current CD4+ T cell count, and current HIV RNA viral load (<20 copies/mL or ≥20 copies/mL). If covariates had missing values at the most recent visit, then the most recent non-missing value was carried forward from a prior visit (for a total of n = 1 for income; n = 1 for smoking, alcohol use, and substance use; n = 11 for psychotropic medication use; n = 1 for menopausal status; n = 1 for CD4+ cell count; and n = 3 for HIV viral load).

Statistical analysis

Socio-demographics, behavioral factors, psychosocial stress measures, and neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations were summarized using frequencies and proportions or medians and IQRs and were compared by HIV serostatus using Chi-square, Fisher’s exact, or Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Pairwise correlations were evaluated among the three psychosocial stress measures using Spearman’s correlation coefficients. We assessed whether differences in neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations between WLWH and women without HIV persisted after adjustment for confounders using multivariable linear regression. Psychosocial stress measures and neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations were also compared among racial/ethnic subgroups using Fisher’s exact or Kruskal-Wallis tests.

We used latent profile analysis to classify participants into mutually exclusive psychosocial stress groups based on participants’ PSS-10, PCL-C, and RSHS scores. Latent profile analysis is a classification method that identifies discrete profiles (or classes) of individuals who share similar response patterns to a set of continuous variables [68]. Using MPlus Version 7.4, we considered models with 2–4 classes. The best fitting model was determined by several criteria: lower Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and sample-size adjusted BIC values; statistically significant p-values for the adjusted Lo-Mendell-Rubin and boot-strapped likelihood ratio tests; and higher entropy values. A three-class model was preferable over two- and four-class models (Table 1). We assigned participants to the latent profile for which they had the highest posterior probability of membership. We named the profiles ‘low psychosocial stress’ (38% of participants assigned), ‘moderate psychosocial stress’ (44% of participants assigned), and ‘high psychosocial stress’ (18% of participants assigned), based on the distribution of PSS-10, PCL-C, and RSHS scores in each class (Table 2). The mean probability of membership for each respective profile was 0.98 for women in the low psychosocial stress profile, 0.91 for women in the moderate psychosocial stress profile, and 0.99 for women in the high psychosocial stress profile.

Table 1

Fit statistics for latent profile models of psychosocial stress among women in the Women’s Interagency HIV Study, Washington, DC, 2019–2020 (n = 90).

Fit statistics	2 classes	3 classes	4 classes
AIC	625.9	605.1	611.5
BIC	650.9	640.1	656.5
ABIC	619.3	595.9	599.7
Adj. LMR-LRT (p)	68.7 (0.0002)	27.3 (0.0049)	1.5 (0.72)
BLRT (p)	72.6 (<0.0001)	28.8 (<0.0001)	1.5 (1.0)
Entropy	0.807	0.886	0.790

Abbreviations: ABIC, sample size adjusted Bayesian information criterion; AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; BLRT, bootstrap likelihood ratio test; adj. LMR-LRT, adjusted Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test; p, p-value.

Boldface indicates optimal fit (i.e., lowest for AIC, BIC, and ABIC; p<0.05 for adj. LMR-LRT and BLRT; highest for entropy).

Table 2

Patterns of perceived stress, posttraumatic stress, and race- and gender-based harassment by latent profile membership (3-class model).

	Latent profile 1: low psychosocial stress (n = 34)	Latent profile 2: moderate psychosocial stress (n = 40)	Latent profile 3: high psychosocial stress (n = 16)
	median (IQR)	median (IQR)	median (IQR)
PSS-10a	11.5 (8–16)	17 (14.5–21)	26 (22.5–29.5)
PCL-Cb	24 (21–27)	44.5 (40.5–51.5)	67.5 (64–71)
RSHSc	6.5 (0–21)	21 (6–34)	34.5 (22.5–52)

Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; PSS-10, PCL-C, PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version; Perceived Stress Scale; RSHS, Racialized Sexual Harassment Scale.

a The PSS-10 is a 10-item, 5-point Likert scale that measures perceived stress in the last month. Response options range from “never” (assigned a score of 0) to “very often” (assigned a score of 4) and four positively stated items are reverse-coded. The possible range of the total score is 0–40.

b The PCL-C is a 17-item, 5-point Likert scale that measures symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in the last month. Response options range from “not at all” (assigned a score of 1) to “extremely” (assigned a score of 5). The possible range of the total score is 17–85.

c The RSHS is a 21-item, 5-point Likert scale that measures experiences of race- and gender-based harassment in the last year. Response options range from “never” (assigned a score of 0) to “very often” (assigned a score of 4). The possible range of the total score is 0–84.

We used linear regression, overall and stratified by HIV serostatus, to evaluate the association between latent class and the composite biomarker index. Although ordinal regression is a possible alternative, because the difference between the scores of 0 and 1, 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 3 and 4 have the same interpretation (i.e., one additional biomarker in the high-risk range), we were able to appropriately harness the greater statistical power of linear regression for this analysis. This increased power is particularly useful in this study with a smaller sample size. This approach has been applied successfully elsewhere [72-76]. In full multivariable models, we adjusted for socio-demographics, behavioral factors, menopausal status, BMI, and CD4+ cell count and HIV viral load (among WLWH only). Given the sample size, we also created parsimonious models by removing covariates with the highest p-values from full multivariable models in a stepwise manner until the maximum adjusted R-squared value was reached, beyond which further covariate removal would result in lower adjusted R-squared values. Age, race/ethnicity, and HIV status (in the overall sample) were retained in parsimonious models regardless of p-values. We also assessed associations between CD4+ cell count/HIV viral load and the composite biomarker index.

Regression analyses were further conducted separately among all non-Hispanic Black participants, non-Hispanic Black WLWH, and non-Hispanic Black HIV-negative women. Recognizing that Black individuals who identify with at least one other race (i.e., biracial, mixed-race, or multiracial individuals) are often racialized as Black, yet have unique experiences associated with existing at the intersections of multiple racial identities, we conducted these subgroup analyses once among participants who identified exclusively as Black and again among all participants who identified as Black regardless of whether they also identified with another race. There were insufficient sample sizes to conduct similar analyses among other racial/ethnic subgroups.

In sensitivity analyses, we repeated analyses with data excluded for participants who reported either not collecting all urine during the 12-hour period or use of substances on the day of urine collection that could have influenced biomarker concentrations (i.e., heavy alcohol use, crack cocaine use). P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses (except latent profile analysis) were conducted using SAS Version 9.4.

Results

Participant characteristics

Among 90 participants, 56 (62%) were WLWH. Characteristics are provided in Table 3 for the full sample and stratified by HIV serostatus. Socio-demographics were similar between WLWH and HIV-negative women. Overall, the median age was 55 years (IQR: 49–62; range: 36–73), 53% were non-Hispanic Black, 34% were multiracial, 6% were non-Hispanic white, and 6% were Hispanic. One-third of participants were current smokers, 8% reported recent substance use, and 27% reported current use of a prescribed psychotropic medication. WLWH were more likely than HIV-negative women to abstain from alcohol use (66% vs. 27%). Nearly three-quarters of women (72%) were postmenopausal and median BMI was 32.6 kg/m2 (IQR: 28.5–38.4). Among WLWH, 91% currently used antiretroviral therapy (66% with an integrase strand transfer inhibitor; 30% with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor; 16% with a protease inhibitor), 86% had CD4+ cell counts >500 cells/μL, and 89% had HIV viral loads <20 copies/mL.

Table 3

Characteristics by HIV serostatus among women in the Women’s Interagency HIV Study, Washington, DC, 2019–2020 (n = 90).

	Overall (n = 90)	WLWH (n = 56)	HIV-negative women (n = 34)
	n (%)	n (col %)	n (col %)	p
Socio-demographics
Age (years), median (IQR)	55 (49–62)	54.5 (50–62)	55.5 (49–61)	0.69
Race/ethnicity				0.79a
Non-Hispanic Black	48 (53.3)	31 (55.4)	17 (50.0)
Non-Hispanic white	5 (5.6)	4 (7.1)	1 (2.9)
Hispanic	5 (5.6)	3 (5.6)	2 (5.9)
Otherb	32 (35.6)	18 (32.1)	14 (41.2)
Education at study entry				0.56
Did not complete high school	14 (15.6)	10 (17.9)	4 (11.8)
Completed high school	37 (41.1)	24 (42.9)	13 (38.2)
Attended or completed college	39 (53.3)	22 (39.3)	17 (50.0)
Income ≤$30,000 per year	62 (68.9)	41 (73.2)	21 (61.8)	0.26
Behavioral characteristics
Current smoker	30 (33.3)	17 (30.4)	13 (38.2)	0.44
Current alcohol use				0.0004a
Abstainer	46 (51.1)	37 (66.1)	9 (26.5)
1–7 drinks/week	39 (43.3)	18 (32.1)	21 (61.8)
8–12 drinks/week	2 (2.2)	0 (0)	2 (5.9)
≥13 drinks/week	3 (3.3)	1 (1.8)	2 (5.9)
Recent substance use since last visitc	7 (7.8)	4 (7.1)	3 (8.8)	1.0a
Use of prescribed psychotropic medication	24 (26.7)	18 (32.1)	6 (17.7)	0.13
Cardiometabolic factors
Postmenopausal	65 (72.2)	44 (78.6)	21 (61.8)	0.084
Body mass index (kg/m2), median (IQR)	32.6 (28.5–38.4)	31.3 (28.3–38.1)	35.0 (28.6–41.8)	0.096
Psychosocial stress
PSS-10d, median (IQR)	17 (12–22)	16 (10–21)	17 (13–24)	0.17
PCL-Ce, median (IQR)	41 (26–52)	40 (26–52)	42.5 (25–57)	0.45
RSHSf, median (IQR)	18 (4–34)	12.5 (2.5–31.5)	21.5 (6–36)	0.34
Latent profile membership				0.44
Low psychosocial stress	34 (37.8)	24 (42.9)	10 (29.4)
Moderate psychosocial stress	40 (44.4)	23 (41.1)	17 (50.0)
High psychosocial stress	16 (17.8)	9 (16.1)	7 (20.6)

Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; PSS-10, PCL-C, PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version; Perceived Stress Scale; RSHS, Racialized Sexual Harassment Scale; WLWH, women living with HIV; col, column.

a P-values for race/ethnicity, current alcohol use, and recent substance use were obtained using Fisher’s exact testing.

b Other race/ethnicity includes 1 American Indian/Alaska Native participant and 31 multiracial participants. Among multiracial participants, reported races included Black (n = 28), American Indian/Alaska Native (n = 24), white (n = 18), Asian (n = 4), and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n = 1) (non-mutually exclusive categories).

c Substance use includes use of cocaine (n = 2), crack/freebase cocaine (n = 5), heroin (n = 2), or methamphetamines (n = 1).

d The PSS-10 is a 10-item, 5-point Likert scale that measures perceived stress in the last month. Response options range from “never” (each assigned a score of 0) to “very often” (each assigned a score of 4) and four positively stated items are reverse-coded. The possible range of the total score is 0–40.

e The PCL-C is a 17-item, 5-point Likert scale that measures symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in the last month. Response options range from “not at all” (each assigned a score of 1) to “extremely” (each assigned a score of 5). The possible range of the total score is 17–85.

f The RSHS is a 21-item, 5-point Likert scale that measures experiences of race- and gender-based harassment in the last year. Response options range from “never” (each assigned a score of 0) to “very often” (each assigned a score of 4). The possible range of the total score is 0–84.

Although distributions of age, race/ethnicity, HIV serostatus, current alcohol use, and BMI were similar among participants in low, moderate, and high psychosocial stress latent profiles, women with high psychosocial stress were more likely than women with low psychosocial stress to not have completed high school (38% vs. 12%), have an income ≤$30,000 per year (94% vs. 44%), currently smoke (50% vs. 9%), report recent substance use (19% vs. 0%), and use a prescribed psychotropic medication (44% vs. 9%) (all p<0.05; data not shown).

Distributions of perceived stress, posttraumatic stress, experiences of race- and gender-based harassment, and latent profile membership were similar between WLWH and HIV-negative women (Table 3). These measures were also similar across racial/ethnic subgroups (all p>0.30), although there were small numbers of non-Hispanic white and Hispanic participants. Psychosocial stress measures were moderately correlated: ρ = 0.65 for the correlation between PSS-10 and PCL-C scores (p<0.0001); ρ = 0.35 for the correlation between PSS-10 and RSHS scores (p = 0.0008); and ρ = 0.46 for the correlation between PCL-C and RSHS scores (p<0.0001).

Urine collection compliance and behaviors

The median duration between participants’ study visit and the start of their 12-hour overnight urine collection was 1 day (IQR: 0–5; range: 0–19). The majority of participants (n = 83; 92%) reported collecting their urine every time they urinated during the 12-hour collection period, whereas the remaining seven participants reported missing exactly one void. An additional four participants (4%) reported that more than a few drops of urine were missing from the collection container due to another reason such as spilling. Aside from one reported asthma attack, no respiratory illnesses (e.g., cold, flu), fevers, or other acute illnesses were reported during the collection period. Three participants (3%) reported alcohol use (two reported one drink and one reported five drinks), five (6%) reported marijuana use, and one (1%) reported crack cocaine use on the day of the collection. Most (n = 75; 83%) reported waking up at least once during the night of the collection.

Neuroendocrine biomarkers

Distributions of neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations stratified by HIV serostatus are provided in Fig 1 and Table 4. Based on distribution percentiles in the sample, high-risk quartiles were defined as ≥18.9 μg/g creatinine for urinary free cortisol, ≤35 μg/dL for serum DHEA-S, ≥3.7 μg/g creatinine for urinary epinephrine, and ≥43.9 μg/g creatinine for urinary norepinephrine. Overall, the value for the composite neuroendocrine biomarker index was 0 for 33 participants (37%), 1 for 32 participants (36%), 2 for 16 participants (18%), 3 for eight participants (9%), and 4 for one participant (1%). The distribution of the composite biomarker index was similar between WLWH and HIV-negative women (p = 0.47).

Fig 1

Dot and box plots of concentrations of (A) urinary free cortisol, (B) serum DHEA-S, (C) urinary epinephrine, and (D) urinary norepinephrine by HIV serostatus (n = 90).

Laboratory test results below the lower limit of quantification were coded as 0 (n = 5 for urinary free cortisol, n = 52 for urinary epinephrine, and n = 1 for urinary norepinephrine). The central line, top border, and bottom border of box plots represent the median, 25th, and 75th percentiles, respectively, and the whiskers display 1.5 times the interquartile range. Abbreviations: DHEA-S, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate; WLWH, women living with HIV.

Table 4

Distribution of neuroendocrine biomarkers by HIV serostatus (n = 90).

	Overall (n = 90)	WLWH (n = 56)	HIV-negative women (n = 34)
	median (IQR)	median (IQR)	median (IQR)	p
HPA axis biomarkers
Cortisol (μg/g creatinine)	9.3 (5.7–18.9)	7.8 (5.1–17.1)	12.0 (6.3–22.8)	0.12
DHEA-S (μg/dL)	58 (35–89)	47 (28–76.5)	73 (59–99)	0.0048
SNS biomarkers
Epinephrine (μg/g creatinine)a	UD (UD-3.7)	UD (UD-3.3)	UD (UD-4.3)	0.83
Norepinephrine (μg/g creatinine)	31.1 (21.1–43.9)	28.2 (19.3–41.9)	33.3 (21.3–43.9)	0.40
	n (%)	n (col %)	n (col %)	p
Composite neuroendocrine biomarker index b				0.47c
0	33 (36.7)	22 (39.3)	11 (32.4)
1	32 (35.6)	17 (30.4)	15 (44.1)
2	16 (17.8)	12 (21.4)	4 (11.8)
3	8 (8.9)	4 (7.1)	4 (11.8)
4	1 (1.1)	1 (1.8)	0 (0)

Abbreviations: DHEA-S, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate; HPA, hypothalamic pituitary adrenal; IQR, interquartile range; SNS, sympathetic nervous system; UD, undetectable; WLWH, women living with HIV; col, column.

a Fifty-two participants (58%) had epinephrine concentrations less than the lower limit of quantification (i.e., <2 μg per L urine).

b Calculated as the number of the four neuroendocrine biomarkers in the highest risk quartile (i.e., the upper quartile for cortisol, epinephrine, and norepinephrine, and the lower quartile for DHEA-S).

c The p-value for the composite neuroendocrine biomarker index was obtained using Fisher’s exact testing.

Regarding specific biomarkers, DHEA-S concentrations were lower among WLWH (median 47 μg/dL) compared with HIV-negative women (median 73 μg/dL; p = 0.0048), whereas distributions of cortisol, epinephrine, and norepinephrine were similar. After adjusting for light (β = 6.6; p = 0.52) and moderate/heavy (β = 58.9; p = 0.0066) alcohol use and psychotropic medication use (β = -21.4; p = 0.046), WLWH no longer had significantly lower serum DHEA-S concentrations compared with HIV-negative women (β = -11.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -31.3, 9.3; p = 0.29).

Biomarkers were not different across racial/ethnic subgroups (p = 0.12 for cortisol; p = 0.82 for epinephrine; p = 0.96 for norepinephrine; p = 0.60 for composite biomarker index), although DHEA-S showed a trend toward significance: median 49 μg/dL (IQR: 32–77) among non-Hispanic Black women, median 57 μg/dL (IQR: 46–64) among non-Hispanic white women, median 119 μg/dL (IQR: 75–178) among Hispanic women, and median 64 μg/dL (IQR: 30–92) among multiracial or American Indian/Alaska Native women (p = 0.064).

Association between latent profile and composite neuroendocrine biomarker index

Unadjusted and adjusted associations between psychosocial stress latent profile and the composite neuroendocrine biomarker index are presented in Table 5 for all women, WLWH, and HIV-negative women. Prior to covariate adjustment, women with moderate psychosocial stress had a 0.51-higher (95% CI: 0.06, 0.97) mean composite biomarker index compared with women with low psychosocial stress. Among WLWH, women with high psychosocial stress had a 0.85-higher (95% CI: 0.06, 1.64) mean composite biomarker index compared with women with low psychosocial stress. Associations for CD4+ T cell count and HIV viral load (detectable vs. undetectable using a 20 copies/mL threshold) with the composite biomarker index were not significant (p = 0.56 and p = 0.23, respectively). In full multivariable models, psychosocial stress was not significantly associated with the composite biomarker index among all women, WLWH, or HIV-negative women. Results based on parsimonious models were largely similar, although high (vs. low) psychosocial stress appeared marginally associated with higher mean composite biomarker index values among WLWH (β = 0.80; 95% CI: -0.004, 1.61).

Table 5

Association between psychosocial stress and composite neuroendocrine biomarker index among all women and by HIV serostatus (n = 90).

	Unadjusted model		Full model a		Parsimonious Model b
	β (95% CI)	p	β (95% CI)	p	β (95% CI)	p
Overall (n = 90)
Psychosocial stress latent profile membership
Low	ref		ref		ref
Moderate	0.51 (0.06, 0.97)	0.028	0.31 (-0.25, 0.88)	0.27	0.38 (-0.12, 0.87)	0.13
High	0.33 (-0.27, 0.92)	0.28	0.31 (-0.45, 1.08)	0.41	0.38 (-0.29, 1.05)	0.26
Among WLWH (n = 56)
Psychosocial stress latent profile membership
Low	ref		ref		ref
Moderate	0.42 (-0.17, 1.01)	0.16	0.08 (-0.82, 0.99)	0.85	0.29 (-0.36, 0.94)	0.26
High	0.85 (0.06, 1.64)	0.036	0.66 (-0.47, 1.78)	0.24	0.80 (-0.004, 1.61)	0.051
Among HIV-negative women (n = 34)
Psychosocial stress latent profile membership
Low	ref		ref		ref
Moderate	0.61 (-0.12, 1.35)	0.10	0.61 (-0.47, 1.68)	0.25	0.64 (-0.19, 1.47)	0.13
High	-0.37 (-1.28, 0.54)	0.41	-0.07 (-1.71, 1.58)	0.93	-0.21 (-1.15, 0.73)	0.65

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; WLWH, women living with HIV; ref, reference group.

Bolded numeric values indicate p<0.05.

a Adjusted for HIV status (only in the overall sample), age, race/ethnicity, education at study entry, income, current smoking, alcohol use, recent substance use, use of a prescribed psychotropic medication, body mass index, menopausal status, CD4+ T cell count (only among WLWH), and HIV viral load (only among WLWH).

b In the overall sample, adjusted for HIV status, age, race/ethnicity, education at study entry, income, alcohol use, recent, substance use, and body mass index. Among WLWH, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, income, current smoking, and body mass index. Among HIV-negative women, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, education at study entry, current smoking, and recent substance use.

Unadjusted and adjusted associations among the subgroup of non-Hispanic Black women identifying exclusively as Black (and not another race) are presented in Table 6. Prior to covariate adjustment, monoracial Black WLWH with high psychosocial stress had a 0.98-higher (95% CI: 0.01, 1.96) mean composite biomarker index compared with monoracial Black WLWH with low psychosocial stress. In full multivariable models, high (vs. low) psychosocial stress was positively and significantly associated with higher mean composite biomarker index values among all monoracial Black women (β = 1.32; 95% CI: 0.20, 2.43), monoracial Black WLWH (β = 1.93; 95% CI: 0.02, 3.83), and monoracial Black HIV-negative women (β = 2.54; 95% CI: 0.41, 4.67). Results based on parsimonious models were similar. Associations were attenuated and none remained significant in analyses among all non-Hispanic Black women, which included those who identified exclusively as Black plus those who also identified with another race (data not shown).

Table 6

Association between psychosocial stress and composite neuroendocrine biomarker index among monoracial non-Hispanic Black women overall and by HIV serostatus (n = 48).

	Unadjusted model		Full model a		Parsimonious Model b
	β (95% CI)	p	β (95% CI)	p	β (95% CI)	p
Overall (n = 48)
Psychosocial stress latent profile membership
Low	ref		ref		ref
Moderate	0.53 (-0.06, 1.13)	0.078	0.30 (-0.42, 1.03)	0.40	0.33 (-0.24, 0.90)	0.25
High	0.73 (-0.11, 1.57)	0.088	1.32 (0.20, 2.43)	0.022	1.31 (0.41, 2.21)	0.0053
Among WLWH (n = 31)
Psychosocial stress latent profile membership
Low	ref		ref		ref
Moderate	0.37 (-0.35, 1.09)	0.30	0.13 (-1.41, 1.68)	0.86	0.06 (-0.76, 0.88)	0.88
High	0.98 (0.01, 1.96)	0.049	1.93 (0.02, 3.83)	0.048	1.64 (0.54, 2.73)	0.0052
Among HIV-negative women (n = 17)
Psychosocial stress latent profile membership
Low	ref		ref		ref
Moderate	0.72 (-0.37, 1.81)	0.18	0.36 (-0.66, 1.38)	0.38	0.32 (-0.41, 1.06)	0.32
High	0.17 (-1.52, 1.86)	0.84	2.54 (0.41, 4.67)	0.030	2.51 (0.93, 4.08)	0.0080

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; WLWH, women living with HIV; ref, reference group.

Bolded numeric values indicate p<0.05.

a Adjusted for HIV status (only in the overall sample), age, education at study entry, income, current smoking, alcohol use, recent substance use, use of a prescribed psychotropic medication, body mass index, menopausal status, CD4+ T cell count (only among WLWH), and HIV viral load (only among WLWH).

b In the overall sample, adjusted for HIV status, age, income, alcohol use, recent substance use, and body mass index. Among WLWH, adjusted for age, recent substance use, use of a prescribed psychotropic medication, and HIV viral load. Among HIV-negative women, adjusted for age, education at study entry, current smoking, alcohol use, recent substance use, body mass index, and menopausal status.

Sensitivity analyses

Results were similar after excluding 13 participants who reported either not collecting their urine every time they urinated during the collection period, losing more than a few drops of urine from the collection container due to spilling, or heavy alcohol use (i.e., 5 drinks) or crack cocaine use on the day of the collection. In multivariable models, psychosocial stress was not significantly associated with the composite biomarker index among all women, all WLWH, or all HIV-negative women. Among monoracial non-Hispanic Black women, high (vs. low) psychosocial stress remained positively and significantly associated with higher mean composite biomarker index values based on results from full multivariable models: β = 1.41 (95% CI: 0.23, 2.59; p = 0.021) among all Black women, β = 2.17 (95% CI: 0.16, 4.17; p = 0.037) among Black WLWH, and β = 2.25 (95% CI: 1.37, 3.13; p = 0.0038) among Black HIV-negative women.

After using a bidirectional cutoff to define the high-risk quartile for urinary free cortisol (i.e., ≤2.9 μg/g creatinine or ≥29.1 μg/g creatinine), the fully adjusted association between latent profile and the composite biomarker index remained non-significant for all women, all WLWH, and all HIV-negative women. The fully adjusted association between high (vs. low) psychosocial stress and the composite biomarker index was attenuated among all monoracial Black women (β = 1.11; 95% CI: -0.17, 2.38; p = 0.086), whereas it changed little among monoracial Black WLWH (β = 1.88; 95% CI: 0, 3.76; p = 0.050) and monoracial Black HIV-negative women (β = 2.70; 95% CI: 0.23, 5.17; p = 0.039).

Discussion

In this study, we found a null association between psychosocial stress and a composite neuroendocrine biomarker index among the overall sample of WLWH and HIV-negative women and did not find evidence of a difference in this association between WLWH and HIV-negative women. However, our data demonstrate that higher levels of self-reported psychosocial stress were associated with more extreme concentrations of neuroendocrine biomarkers specifically among Black WLWH and HIV-negative women, although this was only the case among monoracial Black participants (and not among all Black participants, including those who identified with at least one other race). By incorporating multiple measures of psychosocial stress (i.e., general perceived stress, posttraumatic stress, and experiences of race- and gender-based harassment), we were able to more fully capture different domains of stress experienced by women. Given the strength of the association detected among subgroups of Black WLWH and HIV-negative women, findings among Black women reached statistical significance even with a relatively small sample size. Although this cross-sectional study cannot establish temporality or causality, our findings provide some support that psychosocial stress promotes hyperactivity of the HPA axis and SNS among Black WLWH and those who are HIV-negative, and highlights a potential mechanism by which chronic stress could contribute to increased inflammation and metabolic or cardiovascular abnormalities over time. Importantly, in this study, psychosocial stress appeared to be relevant in these neural pathways irrespective of HIV status. Additional studies are needed to further distinguish the relative contributions of psychosocial stressors from the effects of chronic HIV infection.

This study builds upon prior research examining correlates of composite biomarker indices based on neuroendocrine, inflammatory, metabolic, and/or cardiovascular markers among other subpopulations of PLWH [53-57]. Previously identified correlates of having greater composite biomarker index values have included HIV-positive status among Black and Latina mothers [54], lower psychological resilience among older Black PLWH [56], PTSD among Black bisexual men living with HIV [55], and adverse childhood experiences among middle-aged PLWH [53]. We specifically focused on neuroendocrine biomarkers, which are proximal markers of HPA axis and SNS activation that influence inflammation and metabolic and cardiovascular dysfunction [28, 58, 59]. Unlike prior similar studies, we measured an intersectional form of stress experienced by women of color (i.e., race- and gender-related).

Although results were null for the larger sample of women of all races and ethnicities, our findings for Black WLWH and HIV-negative women are consistent with prior research of discrimination and neuroendocrine activity among Black populations. The association between racial discrimination and HPA axis dysregulation due to repeated and prolonged cortisol secretion is well documented in Black Americans [77-79]. Greater racial discrimination has also been linked to increased catecholamine activity among Black men and women [80, 81]. Importantly, some evidence suggests that protective factors such as higher educational attainment, higher income, and greater religious engagement can buffer the association between discrimination and neuroendocrine activity among Black Americans [82, 83].

Although we assessed recent experiences of race- and gender-related harassment, our use of general symptom-based measures for perceived stress and posttraumatic stress limited our ability to identify the sources of those types of stress reported by participants. Previously reported stressors among WLWH have included difficulties with HIV serostatus disclosure, challenges with medication adherence, HIV-related discrimination, mental health or substance use problems, relationship challenges, caretaking for family members, and financial difficulties [84]. Null findings among the overall study population may have been related to the use of general measures for perceived and posttraumatic stress. Such general forms of stress may have had limited influence on the neuroendocrine biomarkers evaluated in this study.

Results should be interpreted within the context of several limitations. First, a 12-hour overnight urine collection period was chosen because it was more practical and acceptable for study participants compared with a full 24-hour collection period. Thus, biomarker measures correspond to the nadir of HPA axis and SNS activity and do not reflect the full diurnal cycle of cortisol, norepinephrine, and epinephrine release. Second, sample sizes were relatively small in analyses stratified by HIV status and/or restricted to non-Hispanic Black participants, which resulted in less precise estimates for associations. There were too few white and Hispanic participants to meaningfully conduct analyses among those racial/ethnic subgroups. Third, we used data-driven methods to classify psychosocial stress as low, moderate, or high (i.e., latent profile analysis) and to define high-risk ranges for each biomarker (i.e., upper or lower quartiles). While this approach facilitated comparisons of composite biomarker index values according to varying degrees of stress levels within the sample, it limits our ability to determine whether stress levels and biomarker concentrations were clinically meaningful. This initial study demonstrated feasibility and additional research should evaluate the association between levels of stress and clinical endpoints. Fourth, covariates were measured at core WIHS visits that occurred up to nine months before the date of data collection for this study. The fact that values for time-varying covariates could have changed between when they were measured and when psychosocial stress and neuroendocrine biomarkers were measured could have resulted in residual confounding. Fifth, we lacked data on relevant behavioral factors such as regular diet, exercise, and sleep habits, which could have resulted in unmeasured confounding.

Conclusions

In summary, this study found that higher levels of psychosocial stress were associated with more extreme concentrations of neuroendocrine biomarkers among monoracial Black women living with or without HIV, but not among the larger study population. Findings point to a plausible mechanism by which chronic stress could contribute to increased inflammation and metabolic or cardiovascular abnormalities over time among Black WLWH and HIV-negative women. Future research with larger study samples should evaluate whether this association differs by HIV status among Black women, by race or ethnicity among WLWH, or by gender among PLWH. The effects of psychosocial stress and neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations on inflammatory, metabolic, and cardiovascular outcomes among WLWH should also be further evaluated. Finally, research is needed to determine if interventions to manage or reduce psychosocial stress can influence clinical outcomes among Black and other WLWH.

26 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-27314

Psychosocial stress is associated with neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations among Black women living with or without HIV

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Levy,

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 Apr 12 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,

Yukiko Washio, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

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

(1) 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.

(2) 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

[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: 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: “Psychosocial stress is associated with neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations

among Black women living with or without HI" is a paper whose topic may be of interest to the readership of PLOS ONE. The current study takes an intersectional approach to examine the association between self-reported psychosocial stress and neuroendocrine biomarkers of stress among women living with HIV, with an emphasis on black women. This study contributes to the literature by focusing on understanding the potential mechanisms of cardiovascular disease among cis-gender women living with HIV, a population that has been neglected in research to date. This study supports and extends previous research by highlighting the role of stress, especially racial and gender-based harassment on the physiological functioning of black women living with HIV. However, I have one major concern about the misalignment between how the article is framed in the introduction and the results that are presented. What follows are my concerns and points of clarification.

Overall Concern

The authors frame the manuscript as an examination of stress in Black women living with HIV. This is present in the title and introduction. However, the authors actually examined the role of self-reported stress and biomarkers of stress among women of all ethnicities. As a result of this misalignment, the point of the paper gets lost. It appears the original research question was related to all women living with HIV as compared to those who were HIV-negative and that the sub-analysis among black women was part of a fishing expedition given the null findings of the main analysis.

Given the authors interest in understanding how race and gender-related stress impact health of women living with HIV, I recommend that the authors dedicate some time to fully addressing how racism and sexism may impact the stress and health of Black women living with HIV in the introduction; remove the analysis which included all women (currently the main analysis), and focus on the analysis examining the associations of interests among Black women living with HIV and those who were not. Alternatively, the authors might keep the analysis which includes all women as and include it with the other supplementary analysis that was conducted – however, I believe it would be best just to remove it.

Introduction

1. I would be careful when addressing how stress related to socioeconomic status is related to the health of women living with HIV. The authors do not measure socioeconomic status is a meaningful way (above or below $30,000 is not an approximate proxy for SES), therefore, the introduction should focus on the potential impact of racism, sexism, posttraumatic stress, and other perceived stress on the health of this population.

Methods

1. It should be noted that no traumatic event was indexed on the PTSD checklist. This is problematic because the “Stressful event” referenced in the questions may not meet criteria for a traumatic event. This is briefly noted in the limitations but should also be stated in the methods. The authors may also consider removing this measure all together since it is very difficult to differentiate between generalized anxiety and PTSD with understanding the index event. For example, the sample questions presented by the authors is “Avoiding activities or situations because they reminded you of a stressful experience”. It is difficult to distinguish between social anxiety and re-experiencing a traumatic event if there is no index event. Alternatively, the authors may separate the scores for racial and gender harassment and use them as separate indicators in the LCA. Therefore, they could still have three indicators of the LCA if they removed the PTSD scale.

2. Please clarify that the subgroup analysis conducted among Black women is stratified by HIV status.

Discussion

1. Again, the authors should be careful with attributing the stress of participants to SES, since SES was not appropriately measured and not included in the measurement of stress.

2. Also, the authors should be careful not to attributed PTSD symptoms to the experiences of violence reported by the participants, since no index event was reported for the checklist.

Decision: Revise and Resubmit, with Major Revisions

Reviewer #2: The focus of the study was to examine the relationship between psychosocial stress and neuroendocrine biomarkers among women living with HIV. This article was well written and presents novel findings about a population which experience marginalization due to race, gender, and HIV status. The major concerns about this article are how the findings are framed and the choice in analytic methods. I offer a few suggestions for improving the manuscript.

Major comments

- The premise of the article is that racial discrimination could lead to differential outcomes among Black women, however the stress measures were general. For the one measure that specifically identified race-related stress, the racial and gender harassment scale, participants across racial groups had similar scores. Additionally, biomarker scores were similar across group. Temper findings and lead with the null finding that the relation between psychosocial stress latent profile and biomarker index was null, however there is some evidence that this relationship varies by racial category. In the discussion explain why the main finding and subgroup analyses among WLWH compared to HIV-negative women, were null.

- The sub-group analyses within Black women are rather small and do not provide anything meaningful beyond what is gleaned from the full sample of Black women. Cut the analyses for the WLWH and HIV negative women.

- Linear regression was used for multivariable analyses, however the biomarker index is not truly a continuous variable. Ordinal logistic regression should be used instead.

Minor comments

- Page 11, Line 219: If possible, find an alternate item to use as the example that does not include the racial slurs.

- Page 11, Line 224: Describe race/ethnicity categories and rationale for all the participants who were grouped in the other category. Were sensitivity analyses conducted to examine whether including multiracial participants who checked Black into the analyses for participants who solely checked Black? Often multiracial people who are Black and another race are racialized as Black and may have similar stressors.

**********

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.

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE d-20-27314.edited.docx

Click here for additional data file.

23 Aug 2021

Dear Dr. Washio,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise this manuscript, titled “Psychosocial stress and neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations among women living with or without HIV” (PONE-D-20-27314). Please find below indication of where changes were made in response to the comments provided by the reviewers. We are happy to make additional revisions as deemed necessary.

Reviewer 1

Comment: “Psychosocial stress is associated with neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations among Black women living with or without HIV" is a paper whose topic may be of interest to the readership of PLOS ONE. The current study takes an intersectional approach to examine the association between self-reported psychosocial stress and neuroendocrine biomarkers of stress among women living with HIV, with an emphasis on black women. This study contributes to the literature by focusing on understanding the potential mechanisms of cardiovascular disease among cis-gender women living with HIV, a population that has been neglected in research to date. This study supports and extends previous research by highlighting the role of stress, especially racial and gender-based harassment on the physiological functioning of black women living with HIV. However, I have one major concern about the misalignment between how the article is framed in the introduction and the results that are presented. What follows are my concerns and points of clarification.

Response: We thank Reviewer 1 for reviewing this manuscript and for providing comprehensive and thoughtful feedback. We have reframed the manuscript and provided additional information to address this reviewer’s questions and concerns. Please see our responses below each specific comment for additional details regarding our revisions, including those pertaining to the major concern about the misalignment between how the article is framed and the introduction and results that are presented.

Comment: Overall Concern: The authors frame the manuscript as an examination of stress in Black women living with HIV. This is present in the title and introduction. However, the authors actually examined the role of self-reported stress and biomarkers of stress among women of all ethnicities. As a result of this misalignment, the point of the paper gets lost. It appears the original research question was related to all women living with HIV as compared to those who were HIV-negative and that the sub-analysis among black women was part of a fishing expedition given the null findings of the main analysis.

Given the authors interest in understanding how race and gender-related stress impact health of women living with HIV, I recommend that the authors dedicate some time to fully addressing how racism and sexism may impact the stress and health of Black women living with HIV in the introduction; remove the analysis which included all women (currently the main analysis), and focus on the analysis examining the associations of interests among Black women living with HIV and those who were not. Alternatively, the authors might keep the analysis which includes all women as and include it with the other supplementary analysis that was conducted – however, I believe it would be best just to remove it.

Response: We thank the reviewer for these comments. As pre-planned, our primary objective was to “evaluate associations between psychosocial stress (i.e., perceived stress, posttraumatic stress, and experiences of race- and gender-based harassment) and a composite neuroendocrine biomarker index among WLWH and HIV-negative women” of all races and ethnicities (line 102 in the version with tracked changes). We “hypothesized that this association would be stronger among WLWH compared with HIV-negative women” (line 107 in the version with tracked changes). Rather than representing a fishing expedition, our analyses conducted among the subgroup of Black participants were pre-planned based on (1) the large proportion of WLWH in the United States, DC, and this study population who identify as Black; (2) the body of empirical research demonstrating the relationship between racism or racial microaggressions and stress; and (3) our inclusion of the Racialized Sexual Harassment Scale as a measure of harassment related to one’s race or ethnicity and/or gender, which has greater relevance to women of color. We have clarified in the Introduction that this subgroup analysis was secondary: “Given that Black WLWH disproportionately experience stress related to intersecting social-structural vulnerabilities [60-62], we also conducted a secondary subgroup analysis in which we evaluated this association specifically among Black women” (line108 in the version with tracked changes). We have reframed this manuscript to more accurately reflect our original objectives and have revised the title to “Psychosocial stress and neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations among women living with or without HIV.” Reflecting these objectives, we have opted to retain the overall study population (of all races or ethnicities) in our analysis and to continue to report both results for the overall study sample and the subset of Black participants.

The introduction is now better aligned with this focus. The second paragraph focuses on psychosocial stress among WLWH in general, and we further expand upon this paragraph in the third paragraph to address how racism and sexism may impact the stress and health of Black women and Black WLWH, consistent with our secondary objective: “At the end of 2019, 57% of all WLWH in the United States were Black women [20]. Among Black women, discrimination attributed to racism and sexism is common and is associated with elevated stress [21, 22]. Gendered racism, or the simultaneous experience of both racism and sexism, is an inherent stressor that can negatively affect personal relationships, professional and economic opportunities, and mental and physical health outcomes among Black women [23-26]. Gendered racism causes psychosocial stress both directly and through increased vulnerability to other stressors [21, 23-25]. Further, among Black WLWH, the effects of gendered racism and HIV-based discrimination can compound one another, representing key social-structural barriers to HIV care [27].”

Our discussion section is also better aligned with this focus, as it begins with: “In this study, we found a null association between psychosocial stress and a composite neuroendocrine biomarker index among the overall sample of WLWH and HIV-negative women and did not find evidence of a difference in this association between WLWH and HIV-negative women. However, our data demonstrate that higher levels of self-reported psychosocial stress were associated with more extreme concentrations of neuroendocrine biomarkers specifically among Black WLWH and HIV-negative women, although this was only the case among monoracial Black participants (and not among all Black participants, including those who identified with at least one other race).”

Comment: Introduction: 1. I would be careful when addressing how stress related to socioeconomic status is related to the health of women living with HIV. The authors do not measure socioeconomic status is a meaningful way (above or below $30,000 is not an approximate proxy for SES), therefore, the introduction should focus on the potential impact of racism, sexism, posttraumatic stress, and other perceived stress on the health of this population.

Response: We agree with this comment and have removed mention of socioeconomic status from the introduction. The introduction focuses on the potential impact of perceived stress, posttraumatic stress, racism, and sexism, reflecting the key measures from this study.

Comment: Methods: 1. It should be noted that no traumatic event was indexed on the PTSD checklist. This is problematic because the “Stressful event” referenced in the questions may not meet criteria for a traumatic event. This is briefly noted in the limitations but should also be stated in the methods. The authors may also consider removing this measure all together since it is very difficult to differentiate between generalized anxiety and PTSD with understanding the index event. For example, the sample questions presented by the authors is “Avoiding activities or situations because they reminded you of a stressful experience”. It is difficult to distinguish between social anxiety and re-experiencing a traumatic event if there is no index event. Alternatively, the authors may separate the scores for racial and gender harassment and use them as separate indicators in the LCA. Therefore, they could still have three indicators of the LCA if they removed the PTSD scale.

Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this point and have added language to the methods section indicating that no traumatic event was indexed on the PTSD checklist: “The PCL-C asks about symptoms in relation to generic stressful experiences rather than in relation to a specific index event. Although this aspect of the PCL-C facilitates its use in different populations, it also limits its ability to identify sources of stress and determine whether stressful experiences meet criteria for a traumatic event” (line 206 in the version with tracked changes). We also acknowledged this limitation in the discussion section: “Although we assessed recent experiences of race- and gender-related harassment, our use of general symptom-based measures for perceived stress and posttraumatic stress limited our ability to identify the sources of those types of stress reported by participants” (line 556 in the version with tracked changes). Despite this limitation, we think that stress in relation to stressful experiences in general is of relevance to our research question and that there is value in retaining this measure in the analysis, even if PCL-C items were not assessed with respect to a specific traumatic event. We opted to retain the PCL-C measure in our analysis as planned.

Comment: 2. Please clarify that the subgroup analysis conducted among Black women is stratified by HIV status.

Response: We have clarified that the subgroup analysis conducted among Black women was stratified by HIV status: “Regression analyses were further conducted separately among all non-Hispanic Black participants, non-Hispanic Black WLWH, and non-Hispanic Black HIV-negative women” (line 329 in the version with tracked changes).

Comment: Discussion: 1. Again, the authors should be careful with attributing the stress of participants to SES, since SES was not appropriately measured and not included in the measurement of stress.

Response: We agree with this comment and have removed the previous text that attributed stress of participants to SES (previously, “With approximately two-thirds of the sample having had an annual income <$30,000 and approximately half having had at most a high school education, it is likely that challenges associated with low socioeconomic status contributed to stressors experienced by women in this study.”).

Comment: 2. Also, the authors should be careful not to attributed PTSD symptoms to the experiences of violence reported by the participants, since no index event was reported for the checklist.

Response: We agree with this comment and have removed the previous text that attributed PTSD symptoms to experiences of violence reported by the participants (previously, “Regarding possible sources of posttraumatic stress, 51% of WLWH and 55% of HIV-negative women in the WIHS have experienced physical violence, and 38% of WLWH and 40% of HIV-negative women in the WIHS have experienced sexual abuse.”).

Reviewer 2

Comment: The focus of the study was to examine the relationship between psychosocial stress and neuroendocrine biomarkers among women living with HIV. This article was well written and presents novel findings about a population which experience marginalization due to race, gender, and HIV status. The major concerns about this article are how the findings are framed and the choice in analytic methods. I offer a few suggestions for improving the manuscript.

Response: We thank Reviewer 2 for reviewing this manuscript and for providing comprehensive and thoughtful feedback. We have reframed the manuscript and provided additional information to address this reviewer’s questions and concerns. Please see our responses below each specific comment for additional details regarding our revisions, including those pertaining to how the findings are framed and the choice in analytic methods.

Comment: Major comments: The premise of the article is that racial discrimination could lead to differential outcomes among Black women, however the stress measures were general. For the one measure that specifically identified race-related stress, the racial and gender harassment scale, participants across racial groups had similar scores. Additionally, biomarker scores were similar across group. Temper findings and lead with the null finding that the relation between psychosocial stress latent profile and biomarker index was null, however there is some evidence that this relationship varies by racial category. In the discussion explain why the main finding and subgroup analyses among WLWH compared to HIV-negative women, were null.

Response: We thank the reviewer for these comments. We have reframed this manuscript to more accurately reflect our original objectives and have revised the title to “Psychosocial stress and neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations among women living with or without HIV.” We have tempered findings and now lead with the null finding; at the beginning of the Discussion section, we state: “In this study, we found a null association between psychosocial stress and a composite neuroendocrine biomarker index among the overall sample of WLWH and HIV-negative women and did not find evidence of a difference in this association between WLWH and HIV-negative women. However, our data demonstrate that higher levels of self-reported psychosocial stress were associated with more extreme concentrations of neuroendocrine biomarkers specifically among Black WLWH and HIV-negative women, although this was only the case among monoracial Black participants (and not among all Black participants, including those who identified with at least one other race).” We also provide a possible reason for why the main findings were null: “Null findings among the overall study population may have been related to the use of general measures for perceived and posttraumatic stress. Such general forms of stress may have had limited influence on the neuroendocrine biomarkers evaluated in this study” (line 587 in the version with tracked changes). It may also be related to the smaller sample size, which limited our ability to detect significant differences, unless quite large. As mentioned in the Conclusion paragraph, “Future research with larger study samples should evaluate whether this association differs by HIV status among Black women, by race or ethnicity among WLWH, or by gender among PLWH” (line 623 in the version with tracked changes). Regarding the finding that self-reported stress measures and biomarker scores did not appear different across racial and ethnic groups, there were only 5 non-Hispanic white participants and 5 Hispanic participants (and 31 biracial, mixed-race, or multiracial participants who identified with different combinations of races), limiting our capacity to detect differences by race or ethnicity in this study.

Comment: The sub-group analyses within Black women are rather small and do not provide anything meaningful beyond what is gleaned from the full sample of Black women. Cut the analyses for the WLWH and HIV negative women.

Response: In the introduction section, we have specified that “we hypothesized that this association would be stronger among WLWH compared with HIV-negative women” (line 107 in the version with tracked changes). Although the sample sizes for WLWH and HIV-negative women are small when restricted to Black participants, we have opted to retain these findings in the manuscript because a positive association was consistently found in separate analyses among all Black women, Black WLWH, and Black HIV-negative women. Each regression model converged and the association between high psychosocial stress and a higher neuroendocrine biomarker index score was significant in each of these subgroups. Although we would have likely been unable to detect a statistically significant difference in this association between WLWH and HIV-negative women, a reader may want to know whether there was at least some evidence of this association differing by HIV status, which we did not find. In the discussion section, we state this limitation that “sample sizes were relatively small in analyses stratified by HIV status and/or restricted to non-Hispanic Black participants, which resulted in less precise estimates for associations” (line 600 in the version with tracked changes).

Comment: Linear regression was used for multivariable analyses, however the biomarker index is not truly a continuous variable. Ordinal logistic regression should be used instead.

Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this point. Although we agree that ordinal logistic regression is an alternative choice, we believe that linear regression is also appropriate, particularly in the context of a smaller sample size. We have provided our rationale in the manuscript: “Although ordinal regression is a possible alternative, because the difference between the scores of 0 and 1, 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 3 and 4 have the same interpretation (i.e., one additional biomarker in the high-risk range), we were able to appropriately harness the greater statistical power of linear regression for this analysis. This increased power is particularly useful in this study with a smaller sample size. This approach has been applied successfully elsewhere [72-76]" (line 315).

In the following similar studies, linear regression was used successfully to model allostatic load, the composite biomarker index score on which our study’s outcome measure was based:

1. Van Dyke ME, Baumhofer NK, Slopen N, Mujahid MS, Clark CR, Williams DR, et al. Pervasive discrimination and allostatic load in African American and white adults. Psychosom Med. 2020;82: 316-323.

2. Currie CL, Copeland JL, Metz GA, Chief Moon-Riley K, Davies CM. Past-year racial discrimination and allostatic load among indigenous adults in Canada: the role of cultural continuity. Psychosom Med. 2020;82: 99-107.

3. Freire A do NF, Barbosa JF de S, Pereira DS, Gomes CDS, Guerra RO. Allostatic load and stress biomarkers in a sample of community-dwelling older adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;87: 104006.

4. Hux VJ, Catov JM, Roberts JM. Allostatic load in women with a history of low birth weight infants: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2014;23: 1039-1045.

5. Schenk HM, Jeronimus BF, van der Krieke L, Bos EH, de Jonge P, Rosmalen JGM. Associations of positive affect and negative affect with allostatic load: a lifelines cohort study. Psychosom Med. 2018;80: 160-166.

Comment: Minor comments: Page 11, Line 219: If possible, find an alternate item to use as the example that does not include the racial slurs.

Response: We have replaced this item with an alternate item that does not include racial slurs: “Someone said they expected you to behave certain ways because of your gender and ethnicity (for example, expected you as a Black or Latina woman to wear inappropriate clothes, expected you as an Asian man to be self-controlled and disciplined, as an Asian woman to try to please others, as a Latino man that you would be unfaithful in relationships, etc.)” (line 238 in the version with tracked changes).

Comment: Page 11, Line 224: Describe race/ethnicity categories and rationale for all the participants who were grouped in the other category. Were sensitivity analyses conducted to examine whether including multiracial participants who checked Black into the analyses for participants who solely checked Black? Often multiracial people who are Black and another race are racialized as Black and may have similar stressors.

Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We have added our rationale for including participants who identified with more than one race in a separate category and have also added a sensitivity analysis to examine whether results were influenced by inclusion of multiracial participants who checked Black in the subgroup analysis among Black participants. In the methods section, we state: “Recognizing that Black individuals who identify with at least one other race (i.e., biracial, mixed-race, or multiracial individuals) are often racialized as Black, yet have unique experiences associated with existing at the intersections of multiple racial identities, we conducted these subgroup analyses once among participants who identified exclusively as Black and again among all participants who identified as Black regardless of whether they also identified with another race” (line 331 in the version with tracked changes). In the results section, we report that results were null after inclusion of Black participants who identified with at least one other race: “Associations were attenuated and none remained significant in analyses among the subgroup of all non-Hispanic Black women, which included those who identified exclusively as Black plus those who also identified with another race (data not shown)” (line 494 in the version with tracked changes). In the first paragraph of the discussion, we acknowledge this finding: “our data demonstrate that higher levels of self-reported psychosocial stress were associated with more extreme concentrations of neuroendocrine biomarkers specifically among Black WLWH and HIV-negative women, although this was only the case among monoracial Black participants (and not among all Black participants, including those who identified with at least one other race)” (line 537 in the version with tracked changes).

Submitted filename: PLOS One - WIHS Pilot - Response to Reviewers - 8.21.21.docx

Click here for additional data file.

10 Dec 2021

Psychosocial stress and neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations among women living with or without HIV

PONE-D-20-27314R1

Dear Dr. Levy,

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,

Yukiko Washio, Ph.D.

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

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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 manuscript has addressed all of my comments and is acceptable for publication in PLOS One. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to review.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

14 Dec 2021

PONE-D-20-27314R1

Psychosocial stress and neuroendocrine biomarker concentrations among women living with or without HIV

Dear Dr. Levy:

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. Yukiko Washio

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE