A database study of clinical and economic burden of invasive meningococcal disease in France.

OBJECTIVE: Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is life-threatening and associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The study aimed to examine the clinical characteristics and hospital-based healthcare resource use and related costs following IMD diagnosis in France.
METHODS: Patients admitted to hospitals due to IMD between 2014 and 2016 were selected from the French hospital discharge database (PMSI). Demographics, clinical outcomes and health utilization (HRU) during index hospitalization were described. HRU and costs during the follow-up period were also examined. A generalized linear model was applied to examine 1-year costs after index hospitalization adjusting for age, type of IMD and presence of sequelae at index hospitalization.
RESULTS: A total of 1,344 patients were identified. About 30% cases were in children < 5 years old and 25% aged 10-24 years. Majority of patients presented as meningococcal meningitis (59%), 25% as meningococcaemia, and 9% both. The case fatality rate during the index hospitalization was 6%. About 15% of patients had at least one sequela at index hospital discharge. The median length of stay and the median cost of index hospitalization were 9 days and 8,045€, respectively. Patients with at least one sequela, with clinical manifestation as both meningitis and meningococcaemia, or aged 25 years and older were statistically significantly associated with higher costs than others.
CONCLUSION: IMD is unpredictable and can occur in all ages. The study highlights the severity and high health and economic burdens associated with the disease. The data underlines the importance of prevention against IMD through vaccination.

Introduction

Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is an infectious disease caused by bacterium Neisseria meningitidis. In general, twelve different serogroups of N. meningitidis exist, but more than 96% of IMD cases are caused by serogroups A, B, C, Y, and W [1]. Despite availability of antibiotic treatment, IMD remains a serious public health concern because clinical symptoms are often nonspecific and progress rapidly. The case fatality rate ranged from 10% to 40% [2], 10% to 33% of survivors would develop complications being the highest rate observed in elderly [3, 4] and up to 20% of survivors experienced permanent physical, neurological, cognitive, behavioral and psychological disorders.

In France, the incidence of IMD is around 1/100,000. Between 2011–2018 period, a leading cause of IMD was serogroup B, followed by serogroup C. During 2014–2017, the incidence caused by serogroups W and Y had been increased with a slight decrease in 2018. But the number of W cases seemed to be on the rise again in the first half of 2019 with W representing 17% of total IMD cases of known serogroup in 2018/19 [5].

In order to prevent IMD, a routine meningococcal serogroup C conjugate (MenC) vaccine was introduced in all children at the age of 12 months with a catch-up vaccination up to the age of 24 years in 2010. However, due to low coverage among teenagers and young adults (68.2% for 2 years old, 22.5% for 15–19 years old and 9.4% for 20–24 years old in 2015), the incidence of serogroup C did not decrease but rather increased between 2010 and 2016, especially among the <1 year old. Thus since 2017, an additional dose of MenC vaccine at the age of 5 months to directly protect infants was recommended. The incidence of serogroup C has been decreased since 2017 [5].

Raising awareness and communicating evidence-based information on the importance of meningococcal vaccination is essential to increase the vaccination coverage to control IMD in France. Although IMD is a part of the infectious disease surveillance, limited data is available to describe clinical and economic burden of IMD. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the clinical characteristics as well as hospital-based healthcare resource utilizations and related costs following IMD diagnosis in France.

Materials and methods

Data source

The study was based on the French Medical Information System Program (PMSI) database. PMSI is a national database that covers all hospitals in public and private settings and includes patients records from the wards of medicine, surgery and obstetrics (MCO), and rehabilitation centers (SSR). The database includes information related to demographics, diagnoses, medical procedures, and healthcare utilization. All diagnoses were coded according to International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10). For each hospitalization, there are 3 different types of diagnoses: a primary diagnosis (PD) corresponding to the health condition leading to admission, a related diagnosis (RD) or a significant associated diagnosis (SAD) corresponding to a condition related to the PD or a new or existing comorbidity identified or treated.

Patients are classified through a standard discharge summary report into Diagnostic-Related Groups (DRG). Hospitalization costs were calculated based on the representative national cost study, the ENCC (Echelle nationale des coûts à méthodologie commune), which provides an average cost per DRG from a hospital perspective.

Data in PMSI are collected and hosted by the technical Agency for Information on Hospital Care (ATIH) and data were accessed via the platform of the Secure Data Access Center (CASD) after a declaration to the National Institute of Health Data (INDS) through the reference methodology 006 (MR-006). Since all patient-level data in the PMSI database are anonymized, institutional review board/ethical approval and informed consent at an individual patient level was not required.

Study design and study population

A retrospective study was conducted based on an IMD cohort identified from PMSI database. Patients who were hospitalized between January 1st, 2014 and December 31st, 2016 (study period), and had at least one IMD ICD-10 codes (S1 Table) as PD or had at least one ICD-10 codes related to IMD’s manifestations as PD along with IMD ICD-10 codes as RD or SAD were included into the cohort.

The IMD cohort was further classified into the following mutually exclusive groups based on clinical manifestations defined by PD, RD or SAD: meningitis only (A39.0), septicaemia only (A39.2, A39.4), both septicaemia and meningitis, or other or unspecified meningococcal infection (A39.1, A39.5, A39.8, A39.9).

Index hospitalization was defined as the first hospitalization due to IMD and discharged during the study period. The follow-up period was defined as the duration between the index hospital discharge date to the end of the study period or death, whichever occurred first. The longest duration of follow-up period was 3 years.

Outcomes measured during the index hospitalization comprised the length of index hospitalization, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), procedures (mechanical ventilation, filing or use of catecholamine, dialysis for acute kidney injury), discharge status, including death, the presence of sequelae at discharge, and the direct medical cost. Outcomes measured during the follow-up period included all-cause rehospitalization, rehabilitation, presence of sequelae during the entire study period, and costs related to subsequent hospitalizations.

The pre-specified sequelae, including neurological sequelae (motor deficit, seizure, visual disturbance and hydrocephalus), hearing impairment, amputation or skin necrosis or skin grafting, were defined by the 2001 Global Burden of Disease Control Priorities Project (GBD DCPP) [6]. All sequelae were identified using algorithms based on ICD-10 codes as PD, RD or SAD and the procedure coding system in France (S2 Table).

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were summarized with standard descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations (SD), median, and interquartile (IQR). Categorical variables were summarized with frequencies and percentages. For cost associated with index hospitalization, actual cost as well as costs associated with each type of clinical manifestation were reported. For healthcare utilization during the follow-up period, the analyses were stratified based on number of patients within each segment of the follow-up period (0 to ≤ 6 months, 7–≤ 12 month, 13–≤ 24 months and 25–≤ 36 months) and annualized costs were reported. These annualized costs have been calculated as average costs adjusted to the follow-up period and meant to compare costs estimated on different follow-up periods, by adjusting them by the follow-up period of patients.

Multivariate analysis was conducted in patients with at least one year of follow-up to examine factors associated with costs during the first year of IMD. Due to the statistical distribution of costs (costs are non-negative and tend to be skewed to the right), this analysis was derived from a generalized linear model with gamma distribution and a log link function. No model fitting tests was performed.

All costs were indexed in €2018 according to the index of the prices of health services consumption [7]. All statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) statistical software package, version 9.3.

Results

Demographic and clinical characteristics of IMD cases

A total of 1,344 patients were identified and hospitalized for IMD in France between January 1st, 2014 to December 31th, 2016. An increase in the annual number of cases was observed: 410 in 2014, 448 in 2015 (+9%, compared with 2014) and 486 in 2016 (+8%, compared with 2015) (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Number of IMD cases identified during the study period (2014–2016).

Mean age at index hospitalization was 26.5 years (median = 19) and 46% were female (Table 1). About 30% of IMD cases occurred in children aged 4 years and younger and 25% of cases occurred in the age group of 10 to 24 years, whereas about 14% of the IMD cases affected persons aged 60 years and older (Table 1).

Table 1

Characteristics of IMD patients by clinical manifestations during 2014–2016.

	Septicaemia	Meningitis	Septicaemia and meningitis	Unspecified or other type of IMD	Total
Total patients (%)	338 (25.1%)	790 (58.8%)	127 (9.4%)	89 (6.6%)	1,344
Female (%)	155 (45.9%)	361 (45.7%)	61 (48.0%)	39 (43.8%)	616
Age
Mean (SD)	30.3 (29.2)	24.8 (24.4)	18.5 (20.7)	37.9 (29.6)	26.5 (26.1)
Median (IQR)	20 (3–52)	19 (3–41)	13 (2–22)	31 (11–65)	19 (3–46)
Age Group: N (%)
< 1 year	50 (24.0%)	130 (62.5%)	18 (8.7%)	10 (4.8%)	208
1–4 years	49 (25.5%)	113 (58.9%)	23 (12.0%)	7 (3.6%)	192
5–9 years	18 (23.1%)	42 (53.8%)	14 (17.9%)	4 (5.1%)	78
10–14 years	12 (16.9%)	41 (57.7%)	13 (18.3%)	5 (7.0%)	71
15–19 years	23 (17.0%)	91 (67.4%)	16 (11.9%)	5 (3.7%)	135
20–24 years	37 (27.2%)	77 (56.6%)	14 (10.3%)	8 (5.9%)	136
25–59 years	80 (24.9%)	199 (62.0%)	17 (5.3%)	25 (7.8%)	321
≥ 60 years	69 (34.0%)	97 (47.8%)	12 (5.9%)	25 (12.3%)	203

IMD: Invasive meningococcal disease; IQR: Interquartile Range; SD: Standard Deviation.

Concerning clinical manifestations, most of patients (58.8%) were hospitalized with meningitis only, followed by septicaemia only (25.1%) and both (9.4%). The lowest mean and median ages were observed in patients with clinical manifestation as both septicaemia and meningitis (mean = 18.5, median = 13), followed by patients with meningitis only (mean = 24.8, median = 19) (Table 1), while oldest patients were observed in the unspecified or other type of IMD group (mean = 37.9, median = 31). With respect of the age group, the highest proportion of patients with meningitis only was observed in the age group 15–19 years old (67.4%), followed by infants (62.5%) and adults aged 25–29 years old (62.0%). For patients with septicemia only, the highest proportion was observed in adults aged 65 years and older (34.0%), followed by young adults aged 20–24 years old (27.2%). The highest proportion with both types of manifestation was observed in the age group 10–14 years old (18.3%), followed by the age group 5–9 years old (17.9%).

Of total IMD patients, 44.9% were admitted to ICU, with the highest proportion in patients with both meningococcal septicaemia and meningitis (66.9%) and the lowest in patients with unspecified or other type of IMD (28.1%) (Table 2). During the index hospitalization, 31.5% of patients had at least one of procedures of interest. The common procedures performed were mechanical ventilation (22.5%) and filling or using of catecholamine (24.4%). Few patients also had kidney dialysis (3.3%).

Table 2

Clinical characteristics during the index hospitalization and the entire study period.

	Septicaemia Only	Meningitis only	Septicaemia and Meningitis	Unspecified or other type of IMD	Total
Number of patients (%)	338 (25.1%)	790 (58.8%)	127 (9.4%)	89 (6.6%)	1,344
During the Index Hospitalization
Length of Index Hospital Stay (days)
Mean (SD)	12.3 (12.9)	11.5 (9.2)	13.3 (13.4)	12.9 (13.2)	12.0 (10.9)
Median (Q1-Q3)	9 (6–14)	9 (7–13)	9 (8–14)	9 (6–15)	9 (7–13)
ICU admission, N (%)	140 (41.4%)	354 (44.8%)	85 (66.9%)	25 (28.1%)	604 (44.9%)
Procedures of interest, N (%)	120 (35.5%)	218 (27.6%)	68 (53.5%)	17 (19.1%)	423 (31.5%)
Mechanical ventilation	77 (22.8%)	174 (22.0%)	41 (32.3%)	11 (12.4%)	303 (22.5%)
Filing/use of catecholamine	114 (33.7%)	141 (17.8%)	60 (47.2%)	13 (14.6%)	328 (24.4%)
Dialysis for acute kidney injury	20 (5.9%)	17 (2.2%)	7 (5.5%)	1 (1.1%)	45 (3.3%)
Discharge status, N (%)
Death	26 (7.7%)	44 (5.6%)	5 (3.9%)	5 (5.6%)	80 (6.0%)
Rehabilitation center	21 (6.2%)	31 (3.9%)	6 (4.7%)	9 (10.1%)	67 (5.0%)
Home	253 (74.9%)	641 (81.1%)	102 (80.3%)	67 (75.3%)	1,063 (79.1%)
Other	38 (11.2%)	74 (9.4%)	14 (11.0%)	8 (9.0%)	134 (10.0%)
With at least one sequela at index hospital discharge, N (%)
Any	42 (12.4%)	110 (13.9%)	21 (16.5%)	10 (11.2%)	183 (13.6%)
Neurological Sequelae	11 (3.3%)	79 (10.0%)	10 (7.9%)	9 (10.1%)	109 (8.1%)
Auditive impairment	0 (0.0%)	26 (3.3%)	1 (0.8%)	0 (0.0%)	27 (2.0%)
Cognitive impairment	4 (1.2%)	3 (0.4%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	7 (0.5%)
Chronic renal failure	8 (2.4%)	4 (0.5%)	2 (1.6%)	2 (2.2%)	16 (1.2%)
Amputation/ Skin necrosis/Skin grafting	19 (5.6%)	8 (1.0%)	8 (6.3%)	1 (1.1%)	36 (2.7%)
Arthritis	5 (1.5%)	3 (0.4%)	2 (1.6%)	0 (0.0%)	10 (0.7%)
With at least one sequela during the entire study period, N (%)
Any	62 (18.3%)	157 (19.9%)	27 (21.3%)	15 (16.9%)	261 (19.4%)
Neurological Sequelae	19 (5.6%)	113 (14.3%)	11 (8.7%)	11 (12.4%)	154 (11.5%)
Auditive impairment	1 (0.3%)	34 (4.3%)	2 (1.6%)	0 (0.0%)	37 (2.8%)
Cognitive impairment	6 (1.8%)	17 (2.2%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	23 (1.7%)
Chronic renal failure	11 (3.3%)	6 (0.8%)	4 (3.1%)	4 (4.5%)	25 (1.9%)
Amputation/ Skin necrosis/Skin grafting	25 (7.4%)	14 (1.8%)	10 (7.9%)	3 (3.4%)	52 (3.9%)
Arthritis	9 (2.7%)	8 (1.0%)	2 (1.6%)	0 (0.0%)	19 (1.4%)

The overall case fatality rate (CFR) during the index hospitalization was 6.0% (n = 80) with highest CFR observed in patients with clinical manifestation as septicaemia only (7.7%) and the lowest CFR in patients with both (3.9%). Majority of patients were discharged to home (79.1%) and 5.0% of patients were transferred to rehabilitation at discharge from the index hospitalization.

Of the total study population, 13.6% (n = 183) patients had at least one sequela at index hospital discharge. The highest proportion of patients with at least one sequela was patients with both septicaemia and meningitis (16.5%), followed by patients with meningitis only (13.9%) and septicaemia(12.4%). Neurological sequelae occurred in 8.1% (n = 109) of IMD cases and was more frequent in patients with meningitis (10.0%) or unspecified IMD (10.1%) than in patients with both meningitis and septicaemia (7.9%) or septicaemia only (3.3%). Amputation or skin necrosis or skin grafting occurred in 2.7% (n = 36) of patients. Other sequelae occurred in less than 5% of patients.

With regard to the outcomes during the entire study period, overall about one-fifth of patients developed at least one sequela (19.4%). Compared with numbers observed at index hospital discharge (13.6%), about 30% of sequelae were developed after discharge from the index hospitalization. Notably, about 70% of cognitive impairment was diagnosed during the follow-up period (16 of 23). The distribution of sequelae in relation to clinical manifestations during the entire study period is similar to the distribution during the index hospitalization. For example, the highest proportion of patients with at least one sequela during the entire study period was observed in patients with both septicaemia and meningitis (21.3%), followed by patients with meningitis only (19.9%) and septicaemia only (18.3%).

Healthcare resource use and attributable costs

Index hospitalization

The overall mean and median length of index hospitalization stay were 12.0 days (SD = 10.9) and 9 days (Q1 = 7 and Q3 = 13 days), respectively, and were similar across different types of clinical manifestations (Table 2).

The mean direct medical cost of the index hospitalization was €11,445 (SD = €9,988) and the median cost was €8,045 (IQR: €5,233-€12,714). Patients with both septicaemia and meningitis incurred the highest cost (mean = €13,782, median = €10,589), followed by patients with meningococcal meningitis only (mean = €12,103, median = €7,425). Patients with other or unspecified IMD had the lowest cost (mean = €8,679, median = €7,180) (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Cost of the index hospitalization.

Post-index hospitalization

A total of 1,264 (94.0%) patients were survived from the index hospitalization and had at least 1 day of follow-up time (Table 3). The average duration of follow-up time of these patients was 17.1 months (median = 17 months). Of them, 1,019 (80.6%) had at least more than 7 months of follow-up time, 760 (60.1%) had at least 13 months, and 340 (26.9%) had at least 25 months of follow-up time.

Table 3

Healthcare utilization over the follow-up period.

	0–≤6 months	7–≤12 months	13–≤24 months	25–<36 months	Total
Patients survived after the index hospitalization	1,264 (100%)	1,019 (80.6%)	760 (60.1%)	340 (26.9%)	1,264 (100%)
N (% of total survived)
Follow-up (month)
Mean (SD) during a time period	5.4 (1.4)	5.3 (1.5)	9.2 (3.6)	7.1 (3.1)	17.1 (10.6)
Median (Q1-Q3) during a time period	6 (6–6)	6 (6–6)	11 (7–12)	8 (5–10)	17 (8–26)
All-cause rehospitalization, N (%)	424 (33.5%)	136 (13.3%)	123 (16.2%)	41 (12.1%)	528 (41.8%)
Rehabilitation, N (%)	108 (8.5%)	20 (2.0%)	10 (1.3%)	3 (0.9%)	117 (9.3%)
Actual Costs during a time period,
Median (Q1-Q3)	0 (0–1,448)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–2,331)
Mean (SD)	3,664 (11,054.3)	986 (5,339.6)	1,224 (6,673.9)	593 (3,175.6)	5,355 (17,857.1)
Annualized Costs of a time period,
Median (Q1-Q3)	0 (0–3,574)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–2,202)
Mean (SD)	9,549 (29,530.4)	2,295 (12,608.5)	2,407 (17,114.0)	881 (4,603.7)	6,752 (24,656.2)
Patients survived without any sequela at index hospital discharge	1,015 (80.3%)	809 (79.4%)	598 (78.7%)	270 (79.4%)	1,015 (80.3%)
N (% of total survived)
Follow-up (month)
Mean (SD) during a time period	5.4 (1.5)	5.3 (1.5)	9.2 (3.6)	7.1 (3.1)	16.9 (10.7)
Median (IQR) during a time period	6 (6–6)	6 (6–6)	11 (7–12)	8 (5–10)	16 (8–26)
All-cause rehospitalization, N (%)	282 (27.8%)	87 (10.8%)	79 (13.2%)	26 (9.6%)	367 (36.2%)
Rehabilitation, N (%)	45 (4.4%)	8 (1.0%)	4 (0.7%)	1 (0.4%)	49 (4.8%)
Actual Costs during a time period,
Median (IQR)	0 (0–826)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–1,246)
Mean (SD)	1,931 (6,702.3)	522 (3,004.9)	822 (5,335.2)	454 (2,900.9)	2,952 (11,044.8)
Annualized Costs of a time period,
Median (IQR)	0 (0–1,700)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–1,051)
Mean (SD)	5,512 (21,354.3)	1,216 (7,316.4)	1,469 (11,820.7)	692 (4,194.5)	4,212 (19,438.4)
Patients survived with at least one sequela at index hospital discharge	249 (19.7%)	210 (20.6%)	162 (21.3%)	70 (20.6%)	249 (19.7%)
N (% of total survived)
Follow-up (month)
Mean (SD) during a time period	5.6 (1.3)	5.3 (1.4)	9.2 (3.5)	6.9 (3.3)	18.0 (10.3)
Median (Q1-Q3) during a time period	6 (6–6)	6 (6–6)	11 (7–12)	8 (5–10)	19 (9–26)
All-cause rehospitalization, N (%)	142 (57.0%)	49 (23.3%)	44 (27.2%)	15 (21.4%)	161 (64.7%)
Rehabilitation, N (%)	63 (25.3%)	12 (5.7%)	6 (3.7%)	2 (2.9%)	68 (27.3%)
Actual Costs within a time period,
Median (Q1-Q3)	1,887 (0–12,404)	0 (0–617)	0 (0–705)	0 (0–0)	3,502 (0–17,842)
Mean (SD)	10,731 (19,396.0)	2,774 (9,996.0)	2,709 (10,080.3)	1,130 (4,046.0)	15,151 (31,704.6)
Annualized Costs of a time period,
Median (Q1-Q3)	3,887 (0–31,277)	0 (0–1,234)	0 (0–758)	0 (0–0)	2,468 (0–15,823)
Mean (SD)	26,002 (47,309.0)	6,452 (23,356.5)	5,870 (29,108.5)	1,609 (5,904.4)	17,104 (37,644.5)

Overall, of all patients survived from the index hospitalization, 41.8% had rehospitalization for any causes and 9.3% had at least one rehabilitation stay during the follow-up time. Rehospitalizations and rehabilitation were mainly observed during the first six months after discharge from the index hospitalization (33.5% and 8.5%, respectively); noteworthy, the proportions of patients with rehospitalization or rehabilitation after 6 months of the follow-up time were much lower than the proportions during the first 6 months and remained relatively stable thereafter. Patients with at least one sequela at index hospital discharge had higher proportions of rehospitalization or rehabilitation than patients without any sequelae (64.7% vs 36.2% and 27.3% vs 4.8%, respectively) (Table 3).

The average total actual direct medical cost over the follow-up period was €5,355 (median = €0) (Table 3), and it was higher in patients with at least one sequela at the index hospital discharge (mean = €15,151, median = €3,502) than patients without any sequelae (mean = €2,952, median = €0).

The means actual direct medical costs within the first 6 months, 7–12 months, 13–24 months, and 25–36 months after the index hospital discharge were €3,664, €986, €1,224, and €593, respectively. After adjusted for duration of observation time within each time period, the mean annualized costs were estimated at €9,549, €2,295, €2,407 and €881, respectively. Compared patients with and without any sequelae, in general the mean actual costs during different follow-up periods were higher in patients with at least one sequela than in patients without any sequelae, and the greatest difference was observed during the first 6 months after the index hospital discharge (actual cost mean: €10,731 vs. €1,931, median: €1,887 vs. €0) (Table 3).

Further examination in patients with at least 12 months of follow up (n = 792) showed that the average actual cost within 1-year of follow-up time was €16,832 (SD = €20,855, median = €10,589, IQR: €7,180-€17,182). Results from the generalized model indicated that the 1-year cost in patients with at least one sequela was 2.48 times higher than patients without sequelae (95% CI: 2.20–2.83) (Table 4). Compared with patients with clinical manifestation as meningitis only, the cost was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.74–0.95) and 0.75 (95% CI; 0.61–0.92) times lower in patients with septicaemia only or with other or unspecified clinical type, respectively, whereas it was 1.11 (95% CI: 0.92–1.33) times higher in patients with both septicaemia and meningitis (Table 4). Using the age group < 1 year as the reference group, the 1-year cost in patients aged between 25 and 59 years old or older than 59 years were 1.62 (95% CI: 1.37–1.90) and 1.55 (95%CI: 1.28–1.88) times higher than the reference group, respectively, whereas it was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.69–0.99) times lower in patients aged between 1 to 4 years old. If compared the reference group to other age groups (5–9 years, 10–14 years, 15–19 years, 20–25 years), statistically significant differences were not found (Table 4).

Table 4

Determinants of 1-year costs (€ 2018) among patients with at least 1-year follow-up (n = 792).

Determinants	Cost ratio	95% confidence interval
Presence of Sequela at Index Hospital Discharge
No sequelae (reference)	1.00	-
At least one sequela	2.48	(2.20–2.83)
IMD Clinical Manifestations
Meningitis only (reference)	1.00	-
Septicaemia only	0.84	(0.74–0.95)
Septicaemia and meningitis	1.11	(0.92–1.33)
Other or unspecified meningococcal infection	0.75	(0.61–0.92)
Age Group
< 1 year (reference)	1.00
1–4 years	0.83	(0.69–0.99)
5–9 years	0.95	(0.75–1.21)
10–14 years	0.88	(0.68–1.12)
15–19 years	1.01	(0.82–1.24)
20–24 years	1.03	(0.84–1.27)
25–59 years	1.62	(1.37–1.90)
≥ 60 years	1.55	(1.28–1.88)

Discussion

To our knowledge, this study is the first study in France to use the electronic database to assess the consequence of IMD. It analyzed IMD cases recorded in the PMSI from 2014 to 2016 and assessed sequelae occurred at index hospital discharge and during a long-term observation period. In addition, it also examined health resource utilization and direct medical costs associated with IMD. Overall, the study identified 1,344 IMD cases and showed an increasing trend from 2014 to 2016. The numbers reported from this study were not far from the numbers reported in the national surveillance system for IMD (total 1401 cases from 2014 to 2016, with 417 in 2014, 462 in 2015 and 522 cases in 2016 [8-11]).

From our study, off all IMD cases, 30% of cases occurred in children <5 years old and 25% in 10 to 24 years old. Our study confirmed that infants, and young children, adolescents and young adults are at the highest risk of being infected with IMD. With regard to the clinical manifestations, our study showed that meningitis is the predominant clinical manifestation especially in adolescents 15–19 years old, in which about two-third of patients presented with meningitis only. Septicaemia was more frequent in older age groups and about one-third of patients aged 60 years and older presented with septicaemia. However the highest proportion of patients with both meningitis and septicaemia were observed in the age group 10–14 years old. The distribution of IMD clinical manifestations reported from our study is similar to what were reported previously. In a study in the United States before the introduction of meningococcal vaccination program in adolescents, the meningitis and septicemia represented 70% and 27% respectively of all IMD cases in children [12].

IMD is associated with significant clinical burdens. First, the study showed that about 6% of patients died during the index hospitalization, which is within the range of a recent review which reported a case fatality rate ranged from 4 to 20%, varying across serogroups and age groups [13]. Second, among all survivors, 19% of the patients reported at least one sequela during the entire study period and about 7% experienced delayed occurrence of sequela after the index hospitalization. In a literature published in 2010, it described that median risk of having at least one major sequela from meningococcal meningitis was 7.2% and 2.9% had cognitive difficulties [14]. A cohort study conducted in the Netherlands reported that, after a mean follow-up period of 15 years, about 35% of patients survived from meningococcal septic shock had developed at least one sequela [15]. The study period of our study was shorter than the one conducted in the Netherlands and was only based on certain pre-defined sequelae, and thus some sequelae occurred long-termly might be missed in our study.

IMD is also associated with significant economic burdens. Wang et al. reported acute admission costs per patient based on international dollars (I) and results was ranged from I$1,629 in Colombia to I$50,796 in USA, with I$9,182 in Belgium and I$14,855 in Australia [16]. The mean cost of the index hospitalization from our study was €11,445 (i.e. I$14,306, converted to international dollar [17]) and is within the range of published estimates. The mean cost during the entire follow-up period was €5,355 and most of follow-up costs occurred during the first 6 month after discharged from the index hospitalization and was much higher among patients with at least one sequela. The average 1-year cost of €16,832 was reported from our study, which is close to the 1-year cost observed from Danish registries (i.e. I$14,817) [18] but is lower than 1-year costs observed in the US reported by Davis et al. [19] (I$50,796) and Karve et al. [20] (I$45,162). However, even if all costs can be converted into international dollars, studies from different countries cannot be directly compared due to differences in economic environments, healthcare policies, as well as study designs and definitions of cost. Results from the generalized model showed that 1-year costs in patients with at least one sequela was 2.48 times higher than the costs in patients without sequelae. Literature reported cost ratio for the presence of sequelae ranged from 1.91 to 4.28 [19-21]. Karve et al. [20] showed that the total healthcare costs in patients with sequelae was 2.98 times higher than the costs in patients without sequelae.

The main strength of the study was that, using the national database, the study captured majority of IMD cases during the study period in France. Over 60% of patients included in this study were retrospectively followed for at least one year and 27% for at least 2 years, allowing sequelae occurred during the latent follow-up periods to be gathered.

However, there are some limitations. First, the IMD cases and sequelae were identified based on ICD-10 codes. We could not completely rule out possibility of misclassification. Second, patients did not have the same follow-up period which limited equal opportunity to observe the occurrence of the sequelae or utilize healthcare services. In addition, it also indicated that the study follow-up time might not be long enough to capture all sequelae as it may take more than 3 years to confirm diagnoses of permanent neurological and psychological sequelae in infant survivors [16]. Finally, the study only considered the direct inpatient medical cost. Direct medical costs associated with other healthcare settings or indirect costs associated with caregivers or patients, (e.g. handicap compensation and costs associated with sick leave and absenteeism form work for taking care patients), costs of public health response for an outbreak (chemoprophylaxis and contact tracing) were not included. However, the cost of acute treatment and readmissions is the most important components of total healthcare costs [16].

Conclusions

IMD is associated with severe complications, sequelae, and costs. While most of the cases occurred in children under 5 years of age, considerable numbers of cases occurred in adolescents and adults over 65 years of age. The study highlights the extensive costs related to IMD especially during the early stage. Sequelae occurred during latent period in children, such as auditive and cognitive impairments, could also have considerable impact in patients, caregivers and societies. Overall, the study underscored that IMD is associated with substantial clinical and economic burdens and it is important to raise awareness of the disease and to increase vaccination coverage to protect against IMD.

ICD-10 codes used to identify the study population.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

ICD-10 codes used to identify IMD-related sequelae.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

1 Sep 2021

PONE-D-20-34991

A database study of clinical and economic burden of IMD in France

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Marié

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 01 October 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at  https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Silvia Ricci

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

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

3. Thank you for providing the following Funding Statement:

“This project was funded by Pfizer France. LH, SF, AE and MTTH are employees of Pfizer. They had a role in study design, decision to publish and preparation of the manuscript.

SB, LM and MG were paied by Pfizer France as a consultancy company for study design, data collection in analysis, and development of the manuscript.”

We note that one or more of the authors is affiliated with the funding organization, indicating the funder may have had some role in the design, data collection, analysis or preparation of your manuscript for publication; in other words, the funder played an indirect role through the participation of the co-authors.

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 in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please make any necessary amendments directly within this section of the online submission form.  Please also update your Funding Statement to include the following 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 the funding organization did have an additional role, please state and explain that role within your Funding Statement.

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.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

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

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

**********

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: Thanks so much for inviting me to review this manuscript. It is well written and very interesting paper. Vaccination has greatly reduced the burden of infectious diseases. It is a double edged sword. Vaccine-preventable diseases have gone down, followed by a rise in vaccine hesitancy. It is great to read a paper investigating the burden of IMD, a life threatening disease. I only have a few minor comments.

Financial disclosure (page 1): In the Acknowledgement section, the authors stated the work was supported by a public grant. This grant was not mentioned here and it was only said that the project was funded by Pfizer.

Introduction

Line 31: The authors stated that case fatality rate (CRF) ranged from 10% to 40%. Only in elderly people, the CFR could reach 40%. On average, the CFR ranged from 4-20%.

Statistical Analysis

Line 102: can the author please add more information and explain why GLM with gamma distribution and a log link function was used? Did the authors conduct any model fitting tests?

Results

Lines 117/120/126: Error messages. Can the authors remove or revise the references?

Table 2: Amputation/skin necrosis. I would expect amputation and skin necrosis could all be diagnosed during the index hospitalisation. But, 16 patients with amputation and skin necrosis were identified after the index hospitalisation. I suspect a few skin grafting procedures might be performed after the index hospitalisation. If that was true, can the authors please add skin grafting?

Line 155: Would it better to say numbers (16 of 23) rather than percentages (1.2% of 1.7%)?

Table 4: The annualised costs were reported. Can the authors please explain in the statistical analysis section how the annualised costs were calculated?

Table 5: The total number of patients with at least one-year follow up is 792. However, Table 4 says 760 had at least one-year follow up time. Can the authors explain why 32 patients were not included in Table 4?

Discussion

Line 270: survivors?

Limitations: Serogroups could not be included in the analysis. Were outpatient visits included? For IMD cases with limb disabilities, speech problems and chronic kidney impairments, physiotherapy, speech therapy and dialysis costs could be high as well.

**********

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

[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.

10 Nov 2021

All comments from the Journal and from the reviewers have been answered in the response to reviewers.

The financial disclosure has been added in the manuscript and the funding information has been updated.

No change has been made on the references.

For data availability, there is some restrictions to access data. The data is available within a secured environment making accessible by CASD – Centre d’accès sécurisé aux données (Ref. 10.34724/CASD). No data export is authorized.

Submitted filename: Plos One Rebuttal 24 Sept 2021 CLEAN.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Apr 2022

A database study of clinical and economic burden of Invasive Meningococcal Disease in France

PONE-D-20-34991R1

Dear Dr. Marié,

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,

Carla Pegoraro

Division Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (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

21 Apr 2022

PONE-D-20-34991R1

A database study of clinical and economic burden of Invasive Meningococcal Disease in France

Dear Dr. Marié:

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 Carla Pegoraro

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE