Review History


All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on May 18th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on August 26th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on September 26th, 2024 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on October 6th, 2024 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 16th, 2024.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Oct 16, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you for addressing the reviewer's comments.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

·

Basic reporting

I have no other comments

Experimental design

I have no other comments

Validity of the findings

i have no further comments

Additional comments

I have no further comments

Version 0.2

· Oct 4, 2024 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please address the reviewer's final minor comments and resubmit the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Overall, the authors have presented a well-written study.
However, the article should be carefully reviewed for typos.
Some examples:

Line 57: “HBV infectionn”

Line 151: “and and the most appropriate”

Experimental design

Line 76: I believe I understand the authors intent regarding HBV reactivation. However, the current statement is still very problematic. I suggest deleting: “…and the use of new therapeutics for MM.”. I believe this will solve the problematic statement suggesting use of new therapeutics causes HBV infection.

Validity of the findings

No further comments

·

Basic reporting

this section has been improved

Experimental design

this section has been improved

Validity of the findings

the authors have made findings validity

Additional comments

no additional comments now

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Aug 26, 2024 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please address the reviewer's comments and submit the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The introduction is well written and packed with references.

However in Line 71: The authors state: “The increased predisposition to HBV infection in patients with MM is complex and related to multiple factors…and the use of new therapeutics for MM”- Do the authors mean new therapeutics for MM cause HBV infection? Please explain or rephrase.

Experimental design

Line 113: “Once HBV reactivation was detected, antiviral therapy would start immediately.”- Since this is a retrospective study, the purpose of this statement is not clear. Was this the common practice at the medical center? In the results section the authors claim prophylactic therapy was given to 152 patients. This contradicts the previous statement. The authors need to clarify this section.

Validity of the findings

According to Supplemental table 2 there were 3 patients with reactivation of HBV who were HBcAb negative and HBsAg negative. Were they also given anti-viral treatment as prophylactic therapy, or did they initiate treatment only after reactivation was identified?

Supplemental table 2 is also missing HBV DNA at diagnosis of MM. This is extremely important for the detection of HBV reactivation in HBsAg positive patients. For example, patient 14, is an HBsAg positive patient who during “reactivation” had a viral load of 1.01E+03 IU/ml. This very low viral load seems to be quite low for a reactivation. Proper identification of reactivation cases based on the criteria defined in the methods section is paramount for any conclusions drawn from this study. Please add this important column to the table.

Additional comments

This is a very interesting study with important results.
However, data regarding reactivation and timing of anti-viral treatment needs more clarifications.

·

Basic reporting

The study opens up possibilities for further research into optimal treatment strategies to prevent HBV reactivation in NDMM patients, including the use of antiviral prophylaxis. However the following items should be focused.
1\ the Englished should be improved
2\ The lines in the figures are too light

Experimental design

- The retrospective design of the study is appropriate to assess the frequency and prognosis of HBV reactivation in NDMM patients, but prospective studies may be needed to confirm these results and investigate causality.
- The sample size (355 patients, 33 of whom experienced HBV reactivation) appears sufficient for an initial analysis, but may be limiting when considering subgroups or performing more detailed multivariate analyzes. A larger cohort could corroborate the results.
- The authors do not mention the geographical or ethnic composition of the cohort.
- There is no mention of how HBV reactivation was dealt with once it was detected, which could also affect survival prospects.
- Have the patients received prophylaxis against HBV reactivation?

Validity of the findings

The conclusion that HBV reactivation is a significant complication with unfavorable prognostic implications. However, the manuscript should ideally discuss how these results can be reconciled with current clinical practice and what changes could be recommended.

Additional comments

This study has the potential to significantly impact clinical practice by raising awareness of HBV reactivation as a possible complication in NDMM patients. The identification of risk factors could help in the development of prevention and early detection strategies, which would ultimately lead to better outcomes for these patients.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.