Chronic sequelae complicate convalescence from both dengue and acute viral respiratory illness.

Long Covid has raised awareness of the potentially disabling chronic sequelae that afflicts patients after acute viral infection. Similar syndromes of post-infectious sequelae have also been observed after other viral infections such as dengue, but their true prevalence and functional impact remain poorly defined. We prospectively enrolled 209 patients with acute dengue (n = 48; one with severe dengue) and other acute viral respiratory infections (ARI) (n = 161), and followed them up for chronic sequelae up to one year post-enrolment, prior to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. Baseline demographics and co-morbidities were balanced between both groups except for gender, with more males in the dengue cohort (63% vs 29%, p<0.001). Except for the first visit, data on symptoms were collected remotely using a purpose-built mobile phone application. Mental health outcomes were evaluated using the validated SF-12v2 Health Survey. Almost all patients (95.8% of dengue and 94.4% of ARI patients) experienced at least one symptom of fatigue, somnolence, headache, concentration impairment or memory impairment within the first week of enrolment. Amongst patients with at least 3-months of follow-up, 18.0% in the dengue cohort and 14.6% in the ARI cohort experienced persistent symptoms. The median month-3 SF-12v2 Mental Component Summary Score was lower in patients who remained symptomatic at 3 months and beyond, compared to those whose symptoms fully resolved (47.7 vs. 56.0, p<0.001), indicating that patients who self-reported persistence of symptoms also experienced functionally worse mental health. No statistically significant difference in age, gender distribution or hospitalisation status was observed between those with and without chronic sequelae. Our findings reveal an under-appreciated burden of post-infection chronic sequelae in dengue and ARI patients. They call for studies to define the pathophysiology of this condition, and determine the efficacy of both vaccines as well as antiviral drugs in preventing such sequelae.

Introduction

As the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic continues to affect millions around the world, there has been increasing awareness on the potentially disabling syndrome of long Covid. Long Covid afflicts a significant proportion of patients after convalescence from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, and includes symptoms such as fatigue, “brain fog” and even depression, which persist for 3 months or more acute infection [1-3]. Yet, this syndrome of post-infectious chronic sequelae is not confined exclusively to SARS-CoV-2, but has also been observed after convalescence from other acute viral infections, one of which is dengue [4].

Dengue is an acute mosquito-borne viral illness that afflicts an estimated one hundred million people annually [5,6]. There is no licensed anti-dengue therapeutic, and the only currently licensed dengue vaccine has safety and efficacy concerns [7]. The acute symptoms of infection usually last 7–10 days, and range from self-limiting undifferentiated fever, to more severe and potentially fatal dengue haemorrhagic fever and shock [5]. Much less however, is understood about post-dengue chronic sequelae. Although symptoms such as fatigue and cognitive impairment have been described post-infection, many of these observations were made retrospectively and thus subject to recall bias, or were derived after a relatively short period of study follow-up [8-13]. As such, the true prevalence and duration of post-dengue chronic sequelae remain poorly defined. Such sequelae would not only have a direct impact on patient convalescence, they would also detrimentally affect the economic productivity of many individuals living in dengue endemic areas. Consequently, the true societal and economic impact of dengue is likely underestimated [14].

To understand the true prevalence of post-dengue chronic sequelae, we designed a Mobile-phone Application for Information extraction in Dengue (MAIDEN). The use of MAIDEN enabled data collection to be conducted remotely, removing the need for frequent in-person study visits, thus minimising study costs and avoiding high participant drop-out rates often associated with large prospective studies. In addition, we also took advantage of MAIDEN to explore the impact of chronic sequelae in patients with acute viral respiratory infections (ARI), another highly prevalent group of acute viral infections prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, but in which the occurrence of long-term sequelae is even more poorly defined. We prospectively enrolled two separate cohorts of patients with confirmed dengue and ARI and followed them for up to one-year post-illness onset. Our findings suggest that chronic sequelae such as fatigue and central nervous system (CNS)-related symptoms are prevalent in adults after acute dengue, and also affect a sizeable proportion of patients post-ARI.

Methods

Ethics statement

The study was approved by the local institutional ethics committee (SingHealth Centralised Institutional Review Board; Approval No: CIRB 2017/2308), and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Study participants

Patients were recruited from the inpatient wards, emergency department and staff healthcare clinic of two hospitals in Singapore, between 20 September 2017 and 29 March 2019.

Patients were divided into two cohorts: acute dengue and those with ARI. Patients were included in the dengue cohort if they had a confirmed diagnosis of acute dengue based on compatible clinical features, positive serum dengue NS1 antigen and/or dengue virus (DENV) polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Patients were included in the ARI cohort if they presented with symptoms compatible with a viral upper respiratory tract infection (fever with rhinorrhea, sore throat or cough) or had a viral respiratory tract infection confirmed by respiratory virus multiplex PCR from a respiratory sample within 48 hours prior to enrolment. All patients enrolled had to have access to a mobile phone with internet capability. In both the dengue and ARI cohorts, patients were excluded if they had active malignancy, neurological, rheumatological or psychiatric conditions, dementia or cognitive impairment, concomitant bacterial infection, pneumonia, surgery within the preceding 3 months, previous hospitalization in the past 6 months, were receiving immunosuppressive therapy, or had chronic viral infection such as human immunodeficiency virus or hepatitis B or C.

Laboratory methods

Serum dengue NS1 was measured using a commercially available single step EIA (Platelia Dengue NS1 Antigen, BioRad). DENV genome was detected using a multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (FTD Zika/Dengue/Chik, Fast Track Diagnostics, Luxembourg) on RNA. Respiratory virus multiplex PCR was performed using an in-house protocol based on the Anyplex II RV16 respiratory virus panel (Seegne Inc.), and included the following viruses: respiratory syncytial viruses A and B, influenza A and B, parainfluenza viruses 1–4, metapneumovirus, rhinovirus, human coronavirus OC43, 229E and NL63, adenovirus, human enterovirus and human bocavirus 1–4.

Clinical data collection

At enrolment after informed consent, relevant demographic and clinical data were collected from patients’ medical records. Patients were sent a web link via e-mail to download the MAIDEN application onto their mobile phone, as well as a unique user-ID and password to enable them to access the application. A member of the study team then provided a short tutorial on how to use MAIDEN (Fig 1A). At each visit, patients would enter information regarding symptoms experienced (including the absence or presence of fatigue, somnolence, headache, concentration impairment and/or memory impairment) and self-reported overall health into MAIDEN (see Supporting Information S1 Study Questionnaire for the full list of questions). The overall health assessments were adapted from the SF-12v2 health survey, which is a validated tool for self-reported physical and mental wellbeing measurement [15-18]. Briefly, the SF-12v2 consists of 12 questions that measure eight health domains to assess physical and mental health. Specifically, mental health-related scales include Vitality (VT), Social Functioning (SF), Role Emotional (RE), and Mental Health (MH). Mental Composite Summary Scores (MCS) were calculated using the weighted means of each mental health domain, with a score of 50 considered the population average. Thus, a score below 50 would indicate worse mental health than the expected average, and a score above 50 would indicate better mental health.

Fig 1

Study design and enrolment (A) Study data was collected using the Mobile Application for Information collection in Dengue (MAIDEN) application. At each study visit, patients would enter information remotely into MAIDEN which was installed on their mobile phone. The data collected would then be uploaded onto a secure cloud server and downloaded into the RedCap data management platform where it could be accessed by the study team. (B) Consort flow of patients enrolled onto the study. Patients were excluded from the overall analysis if they dropped out of the study or were lost-to-follow up within the first week after enrolment.

Patients were followed-up daily for the first 7 days, weekly from weeks 2–8, and then monthly from month-3 onwards, up to one-year following acute illness. Except for the first visit at study enrolment, patients were not required to attend the study site in-person, and would be sent reminders by either short messaging system (SMS) or push notification to enter data remotely into MAIDEN when each study “visit” was due. If patients encountered any technical difficulties or had questions about the study, they could contact the study team directly either via phone call or email, or through a direct messaging system within MAIDEN. All data entered into MAIDEN was stored on a secure cloud server and downloaded onto a data management platform for analysis.

Definitions

We defined “chronic sequelae” as symptoms (fatigue, somnolence, headache, concentration impairment or memory impairment) lasting for at least 3-months post-infection. A patient’s symptoms were considered resolved if they did not report any symptoms for at least 2-months after the last date of symptoms reported, and were considered lost to follow-up if they did not enter any data into MAIDEN for more than a 2-month period.

Statistical analysis

Differences in demographic features, co-morbidities, prevalence of symptoms at enrolment and MCS between the dengue and ARI cohorts, and those with and without chronic sequelae were analysed using the Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables or Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables. Time to resolution of symptoms in both the dengue and ARI cohorts were analysed using Kaplan-Meier analyses. The SF12v2 MCS was calculated using the Optum PRO CoRE software. P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism version 9.2.0.

Results

A total of 209 patients were enrolled during the study period, with 48 patients in the dengue cohort, and 161 patients in the ARI cohort. 81.3% (39/48) of dengue patients and 98.1% (158/161) of ARI patients completed at least 3 months of study follow-up (Fig 1B). Table 1 shows the demographic and clinical profile of both patient cohorts. Baseline demographics such as age, ethnicity and co-morbidities were balanced between both groups, except for gender, with more males in the dengue cohort (63% vs. 29%, p<0.001). More patients in the dengue cohort were hospitalized compared to those in the ARI cohort (77.1% vs. 18.1%, p<0.001), reflecting differences in clinical management between these two disease types. Only one patient had severe dengue, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) 2009 dengue classification scheme [19]. Within the ARI cohort, the specific viral etiology was tested for in 29 patients. Among these patients, influenza virus and rhinovirus were the most common etiologies identified (Table 1).

Table 1

Demographics and clinical features of the study cohort.

*Within the ARI cohort, the specific viral etiology was known in 29 patients. The percentage reported is out of a total of 29 patients. Of these 29 patients, 4 patients tested positive for two different viruses concurrently on multiplex PCR–influenza and adenovirus (n = 1), influenza and human coronavirus OC43 (n = 1), parainfluenza and respiratory syncytial virus (n = 1), and parainfluenza and enterovirus virus (n = 1). **Any one of fatigue, somnolence, headache, concentration impairment or memory impairment.

	Dengue Cohort (n = 48)	ARI Cohort (n = 161)	p-value
Demographics
Age
Median (range), years	37.0 (21–68)	34.0 (22–79)	0.39
Male sex, no. (%)	30 (62.5)	46 (28.6)	<0.001
Ethnicity, no. (%)			0.21
Chinese	29 (60.4)	77 (47.8)
Malay	12 (25.0)	36 (22.4)
Indian	3 (6.3)	21 (13.0)
Others	4 (33.3)	27 (16.8)
Co-morbidities, no. (%)
Diabetes mellitus	2 (4.2)	5 (3.1)	0.72
Hypertension	4 (8.3)	16 (9.9)	0.74
Ischemic heart disease	2 (4.2)	2 (1.2)	0.19
Disposition
Hospitalised, no (%)	37 (77.1)	29 (18.0)	<0.001
Study Compliance
Completed at least 3 months of study follow-up, no (%)	39 (81.3)	158 (98.1)	<0.001
Viral Etiology
Severe dengue, no. (%)	1 (2.0)	-	NA
Respiratory virus type, no. (%)*
Influenza A & B	-	14 (48.3)
Rhinovirus	-	6 (20.7)
Adenovirus	-	4 (13.8)
Human coronavirus (OC43)	-	4 (13.8)
Parainfluenza	-	3 (10.3)
Human coronavirus (NL63)	-	1 (3.4)
Enterovirus	-	1 (3.4)
Clinical Features
Symptom type at presentation, no (%)
Any symptom**	46 (95.8)	152 (94.4)	1.00
Fatigue	38 (79.2)	136 (84.5)	0.51
Somnolence	32 (66.7)	93 (57.8)	0.32
Headache	29 (60.4)	119 (74.0)	0.07
Concentration impairment	29 (60.4)	95 (59.0)	0.86
Memory impairment	13 (27.1)	28 (17.4)	0.15

Almost all patients (95.8% of dengue and 94.4% of ARI patients) experienced fatigue or at least one other CNS-related symptom (somnolence, headache, concentration impairment and/or memory impairment) within the first week after enrolment. Fatigue and somnolence were the most commonly reported symptoms in the dengue cohort, while lethargy and headache were most common in the ARI cohort (Table 1). Amongst patients with at least 3-months of follow-up, 18.0% in the dengue cohort and 14.6% in the ARI cohort experienced chronic sequelae (Table 2). In the dengue cohort, fatigue, concentration impairment and memory impairment were the most commonly reported chronic symptoms, while fatigue and headache were most prevalent in the ARI cohort. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that fatigue and CNS-related symptoms resolved within weeks of convalescence in the majority of dengue patients. However, the rate of full recovery then plateaued and even persisted in some patients until the end of our observation period (Fig 2A). Similar trends were observed in patients with ARI (Fig 2B). No statistically significant difference in age, gender distribution or hospitalisation status was observed between those with and without chronic sequelae (Table 3).

Table 2

Symptoms in patients with chronic sequelae.

Analysis performed on patients with at least 3 months of study follow-up (dengue: n = 39, ARI: n = 158). **Any one of fatigue, somnolence, headache, concentration impairment or memory impairment.

	Dengue Cohort (n = 39)	ARI Cohort (n = 158)	p-value
Chronic Sequelae
Any symptom persisting ≥ 3 months*, no. (%)	7 (18.0)	23 (14.5)	0.62
Symptom type at month 3, no (%)
Fatigue	4 (10.3)	15 (9.5)	1.00
Somnolence	1 (2.6)	10 (6.3)	0.47
Headache	2 (5.1)	13 (8.2)	0.74
Concentration impairment	4 (10.3)	10 (6.3)	0.48
Memory impairment	4 (10.3)	8 (5.1)	0.25

Fig 2

Kaplan-Meier curve of time to symptom resolution.

Each curve shows the overall time to symptom resolution (in months) after illness-onset in patients with (A) dengue and (B) acute viral respiratory infection (ARI). The numbers of patients at risk for each of these two groups are shown in the table immediately below the Kaplan-Meier curves.

Table 3

Demographics of patients with and without chronic sequelae.

Chronic sequelae is defined as persistence of symptoms (any one of fatigue, somnolence, headache, concentration impairment or memory impairment) for at least 3 months.

	Dengue Cohort (n = 39)			ARI Cohort (n = 158)			All (n = 197)
	Chronic sequelae			Chronic sequelae			Chronic sequelae
	Absent (n = 32)	Present (n = 7)	p-value	Absent (n = 135)	Present (n = 23)	p-value	Absent (n = 167)	Present (n = 30)	p-value
Age, years
Median (range)	38.5 (21–68)	51 (24–60)	0.50	35.0 (23–67)	31.0 (22–64)	0.27	35.0 (21–68)	31.5 (22–64)	0.72
Gender
Male sex, no. (%)	21 (65.6)	3 (42.9)	0.40	40 (29.6)	6 (26.1)	0.81	61 (36.5)	9 (30.0)	0.54
Disposition
Hospitalised, no. (%)	26 (81.3)	6 (85.7)	1.00	20 (14.8)	7 (30.4)	0.08	46 (27.5)	13 (43.3)	0.09

In order to determine if self-reported symptoms of chronic sequelae translated into worse mental health outcomes, we compared the SF12v12 MCS scores at month 3 in patients with and without chronic sequelae. In the dengue and ARI cohorts combined, the median month 3 MCS was lower in patients who remained symptomatic at 3 months and beyond, compared to those whose symptoms fully resolved (47.7 vs. 56.0, p<0.001) (Fig 3A), indicating that patients who self-reported persistence of symptoms beyond 3 months also experienced functionally worse mental health. This difference in the median month 3 MCS scores between those with and without chronic sequelae was also observed in the ARI cohort alone (46.6 vs. 56.0, p<0.01) (Fig 3B). Although a similar trend was observed in the dengue cohort, this did not reach statistical significance, likely due to the smaller sample size in this cohort (50.0 vs. 55.7, p = 0.20) (Fig 3C).

Fig 3

SF12v2 Mental Component Summary (MCS) Score at month 3 in patients with and without chronic sequelae.

(A) Comparison of MCS scores in both the dengue and ARI cohorts combined. (B) Comparison of MCS scores within the ARI cohort. (C) Comparison of MCS scores within the dengue cohort. Blue bars represent the group without chronic symptoms while magenta bars represent the group with chronic symptoms. Black dots indicate the individual MCS values. Summary plots show the median MCS with error bars representing the interquartile range. Statistics to compare the median MCS between groups was calculated using the Mann-Whitney test. *** = p < 0.001, **** = p <0.0001, ns = not significant.

Overall, our findings indicate that a significant proportion of both dengue and ARI patients experienced chronic sequelae, and the persistence of such chronic sequelae translated to overall worse mental health outcomes.

Discussion

To date, few studies have examined the long-terms health effects of either acute dengue or non-SARS-CoV-2 ARI, making it difficult to quantify the true societal and economic impact of such acute viral infections. In this prospective study of over 200 patients, we found that a significant proportion of dengue, and even more unexpectedly ARI patients, continue to experience fatigue and CNS-related chronic sequelae for several months after resolution of the acute infection, not dissimilar to long Covid sufferers [1,2].

At present, it still remains unclear what the drivers of such chronic sequelae are, and unlike Covid-19, little research has focused on the mechanistic causes of chronic sequelae post-dengue. This is even less so for acute respiratory viral infections such as influenza and adenovirus. In one study of dengue patients, an association was found between the FcγRIIa (FcγRIIa-131HH) gene polymorphism, the presence of autoimmune markers and symptom persistence [9]. Apart from this report, no other studies to date explored the causes of post-dengue chronic sequelae.

It is possible that aberrant activation of the innate immune response to the original viral stimuli may result in chronic inflammation and subsequent long term tissue damage and immune exhaustion, which may then in turn drive the development of chronic sequelae. Indeed, we have recently shown that increased baseline expression of genes associated with T-cell exhaustion was associated with the development of fatigue after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination [20]; such immune dysregulation has also been associated with the development of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis [21-23]. In the context of long Covid, multiple mechanisms have been postulated, including chronic inflammation, antigen persistence, latent virus reactivation and development of auto-antibodies [2-4,24]. It is likely that some, if not all of these mechanisms may also apply to the development of chronic sequelae after other acute viral infections. The prevalence of such chronic sequelae and their functional impact on mental well-being underscore the need for more in-depth research to understand the specific drivers of such post-infection chronic outcomes.

We used MAIDEN as a study tool for remote data-collection in order to overcome the high financial costs and participant drop-out rates often associated with large prospective studies. We reasoned that remote data collection would promote better compliance from study participants in view of the convenience afforded through remote data collection. Indeed, overall study compliance was good with over 90% of patients completing at least 3 months of study follow-up. Besides improving study visit compliance, mobile data collection also allows for immediate pooling of data into a centralized data warehouse, making real-time data analysis possible. Given these benefits, and the fact that over 80% of the world’s population own a smartphone [25], we envisage that mobile phone applications such as MAIDEN could be a useful adjunct tool not only in the conduct of observational cohort studies, but also in the clinical trial space where such applications could be used for adverse event tracking and reporting.

A strength of our study is its prospective design, which avoids the problem of recall bias often associated with retrospective studies. The study follow-up period of one year also enabled the tracking of patients longitudinally over time, allowing for clearer evaluation of time to symptom resolution. In our analysis, we did not include symptoms that resolved and then re-occurred after more than a two-month period in order to minimize the possibility that such symptoms were due to other acute illnesses that developed during the period of observation. Although the symptoms reported by patients were subjective in nature, the use of the validated SF12v2 health outcomes questionnaire allowed for a functional assessment of each study participant’s overall mental health. We showed that patients who reported persistence of fatigue and/or CNS-related symptoms beyond 3 months had a significantly lower MCS then their counterparts whose symptoms lasted less than 3 months, indicating that self-reported chronic sequelae translates into functionally worse mental health outcomes. Indeed, structural brain changes on magnetic resonance imaging have been found in patients with post-dengue neurological sequelae such as encephalopathy, suggesting a pathological basis for such sequelae [26].

A limitation of our study is that patients in the ARI cohort were not tested specifically for DENV, and hence we are unable to completely exclude co-infection. We also acknowledge that the hospitalisation status was imbalanced between the two study cohorts, with a significantly higher proportion of the dengue cohort hospitalised at the time of enrolment, compared to the ARI cohort where the majority of patients were ambulatory. As such, we avoided making head-to head comparisons between the two cohorts. Finally, we acknowledge that our study sample size was relatively small, particularly in the dengue cohort, as case numbers in Singapore during the study enrolment period were low. Nevertheless, we believe that our prospective study and data collection methods have generated reasonable evidence of post-infective chronic sequelae in our study cohort.

In conclusion, we show that persistent fatigue and CNS-related chronic sequelae, as well as poorer overall mental health, occur in a significant proportion of both dengue and ARI patients post-infection. Our findings reveal an oft under-appreciated burden of post-infection chronic sequelae in both dengue and ARI patients, and highlight the need for therapeutic and preventative strategies in order to prevent both acute viral infection and its associated chronic sequelae.

MAIDEN content and questions for study participants.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

5 Jul 2022

Dear Dr Kalimuddin,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Chronic sequelae complicate convalescence from both dengue and acute viral respiratory illness" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Rhoel Ramos Dinglasan

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Samuel Scarpino

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The manuscript discussed the post-infection long sequelae, on both dengue and acute respiratory infection (ARI), to evaluate the post-infection symptoms and its impact on patients' mental health. The study is clearly defined, with appropriate objective and hypothesis. The study design is suitable to answer the research question. The population is sufficient, with limitation has already been mentioned and acknowledged by the authors. The sample size might be underwhelming, as the prevalence of both diseases are massive in Singapore, however, I would believe it is still acceptable. The statistical analysis was also appropriate.

Overall, I would deem the study is well-written, with appropriate design.

Reviewer #2: This study has been well planned, with validated and well characterized study tools used and patients have been prospectively followed up. Symptoms have been recorded using a mobile app, so that symptoms are not missed. However, the main limitation of this study is the small sample size of patients with dengue (n=48), with only one patient having severe dengue. While the results highlight some important findings, it would be very interesting to see the results in a larger sample size. This study has been compared with the chronic sequel of COVID-19. In such studies, the sample sizes have been extremely large. Therefore, it would be important to see these results in a larger study population as well, in patients with varying clinical disease severity. It would be best if the authors discuss the limitations in their sample size in the discussion.

There are no concerns regarding ethical or regulatory requirements.

Reviewer #3: Minor revision

How could you distinguished between symptom occurred at 3 months or during monitoring were belongs to dengue not belongs to other acute symptoms or conditions?

Authors also included patients with co-morbidities, those co-morbidities can contribute to symptoms during monitoring.

Do you have records of any acute symptoms (for example, another dengue infection, another ARI) during monitoring i.e fever, diarrhoea, cough, sneezing, myalgia. If you had, did you do laboratory testing to find out the possible cause of aetiology?

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: I can't find the use of SF12v2 result on the result section; however, it seems to be used on Figure 3, i would suggest adding more elaborate explanation on this. Thus, the readers would be clear on the comparison of both populations. More elaborate discussion on this topic would also be more appreciated.

Reviewer #2: The study is well planned and executed, with appropriate data analysis plan. However, the sample size is quite small.

Reviewer #3: The analysis presented match the analysis plan.

The results are clearly presented

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The conclusions are well presented, and limitation has already been acknowledged by the authors. The data can be used to properly evaluate the post infection sequelae that might be found in both dengue and ARI patients, to support whole comprehensive treatment. The relevance to public health is highly correlated.

Reviewer #2: The authors state that ‘Apart from this report, no other studies to date explored the causes of post dengue chronic sequelae’ : However, this statement is not very accurate as there have been studies looking at chronic sequel, although not using the same study tools as described in this study. It would be important to discuss the following studies and how these previous studies relate to this study.

• 2 month follow up study of 177 patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17137834/

• Cost of persistent dengue: Persistent Symptoms of Dengue: Estimates of the Incremental Disease and Economic Burden in Mexico

• 2 month follow up study of 158 patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33099653/

The authors discuss the possible causes of chronic sequel of dengue. It would be also important to discuss long term autoimmune neurological diseases and other autoimmune diseases following dengue

Pattern Recognition Approach to Brain MRI Findings in Patients with Dengue Fever with Neurological Complications: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33109849/

Reviewer #3: Authors should described more about limitation that study could not absolutely sure that the symptoms occurred during monitoring may belongs to other disease/condition

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Data of MSC or SF12v2 should be added to the manuscript. Otherwise, the data is well presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Minor revision

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The study is well-designed and well-written. Statistical analysis and research design were appropriate for this study. The study also addressed the highly-neglected impact of post-infection sequelae in dengue and ARI patients. Overall, i would deem the study to only need minor-revision.

Reviewer #2: This is an important study, characterizing the chronic complications of dengue, which is very much neglected. However, the sample size is very small, which is the main limitation. Furthermore, although the authors state that this is the only study that has been carried out, there have been other studies, with larger sample size, but shorter follow up period being carried out.

Reviewer #3: This is an important study that should be done in order to know whether dengue really has chronic sequelae or not.

--------------------

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Lowilius Wiyono

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

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.

Submitted filename: PNTD-D-22-00645_Reviewed.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

18 Jul 2022

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

8 Aug 2022

Dear Dr Kalimuddin,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Chronic sequelae complicate convalescence from both dengue and acute viral respiratory illness' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Rhoel Ramos Dinglasan

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Samuel Scarpino

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The study has already stated clear objective and hypothesis, which enforce the need to see the impact of longstanding ARI and dengue with its chronic sequelae. The study is designed appropriately with appropriate population. I believe the authors have used correct statistical analysis.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all my questions and I believe is suitable for publication.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The analysis is well-matched with the methodology mentioned. The results are clear and easy to understand. I believe the authors have revised the manuscript well and incorporate the results and discussion in a very comprehensive way

Reviewer #2: As mentioned earlier, the limitation of the study is the sample size. The authors have added this as a limitation of the study.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The conclusion is clearly presented with the supporting data and enforce the need of further supervision and management on these patients. I believe the conclusion are also important to be noticed in the management of these patients.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: No revision needed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The study is well-designed with comprehensive discussion on the topic. The authors have addressed their limitation to be objectively discussed by the readers. As a reviewer, I would believe this manuscript suffice to be published.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Lowilius Wiyono

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

15 Aug 2022

Dear Dr Kalimuddin,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Chronic sequelae complicate convalescence from both dengue and acute viral respiratory illness," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases