Dataset Information

Immune response to influenza vaccination in ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis vs. hemodiafiltration.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:On-line hemodiafiltration (HDF) clears more azotemic toxins compared to high-flux hemodialysis (HD). The response to vaccination is impaired in dialysis patients. We wished to determine whether the immune responses to influenza vaccine in dialysis patients treated by HDF were stronger than those treated by HD. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We conducted a prospective cohort study in chronic dialysis patients during the 2016 and 2017 influenza seasons. All participants received a single standard dose of trivalent influenza vaccine, and we studied the elicited humoral immune response by hemagglutination inhibition test, and cell-mediated immune response by enumeration of lymphocyte cellular markers and proliferation assays. RESULTS:We immunized 60 end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients: 42 (70%) treated with HD and 18 patients (30%) with HDF. The median (interquartile range) age was 65.0 (55.0-74.5) years. All patients developed seroprotection to at least one influenza vaccine strain at one month post-vaccination, and did not differ between groups. By logistic regression, age was the only factor independently associated with seroconversion to all vaccine strains (odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.98; p = 0.022). Seroprotection to all vaccine strains was sustained for longer in patients treated with HDF, and the results remained the same after age adjustment. For cellular immune response, patients who seroconverted to all vaccine strains had higher CD38+ T cell subpopulations pre-vaccination. Patients treated by HDF had higher lymphocyte proliferation to circulating influenza A strains. CONCLUSIONS:Seroconversion to all influenza vaccine strains was associated with age. Patients treated with HDF demonstrated seroprotection was sustained for longer compared to those treated by HD and greater lymphocyte proliferation to circulating influenza A strains. These encouraging results for HDF require confirmation in a larger dialysis population. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT04122222.

SUBMITTER: Nongnuch A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6996846 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Immune response to influenza vaccination in ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis vs. hemodiafiltration.

Nongnuch Arkom A Ngampongpan Wattanachai W Srichatrapimuk Sirawat S Wongsa Artit A Thongpraphai Sutheera S Boonarkart Chompunuch C Sanmeema Nutaporn N Chittaganpitch Malinee M Auewarakul Prasert P Tassaneetrithep Boonrat B Davenport Andrew A Phuphuakrat Angsana A

PloS one 20200203 2

<h4>Background</h4>On-line hemodiafiltration (HDF) clears more azotemic toxins compared to high-flux hemodialysis (HD). The response to vaccination is impaired in dialysis patients. We wished to determine whether the immune responses to influenza vaccine in dialysis patients treated by HDF were stronger than those treated by HD.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We conducted a prospective cohort study in chronic dialysis patients during the 2016 and 2017 influenza seasons. All participants received a ...[more]

PMID: 32012159

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), which is a common co-morbidity in patients with maintenance hemodialysis (MHD), results in substantial mortality and morbidity. However, there are still no effective therapeutic drugs available for HFpEF currently. Sacubitril/valsartan has been shown to significantly improve clinical outcomes and reverse myocardial remodeling among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan in MHD patients with HFpEF remains unclear. Our study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in MHD patients with HFpEF. Methods A total of 247 MHD patients with HFpEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan were included in this retrospective study. Patients were followed up regularly after medication treatment. The alterations in clinical, biochemical, and echocardiographic parameters before and after taking sacubitril/valsartan were collected. In addition, the safety of the sacubitril/valsartan treatment was also assessed. Among those 247 patients with MHD, 211 patients were already in treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) before being treated with sacubitril/valsartan. We also performed an analysis to compare the differences between the 211 patients who had previously received ACEi/ARB treatment and the 36 patients who were sacubitril/valsartan naive. Results Among those 247 patients with MHD, compared with baseline levels, systolic blood pressure (BP) (149.7 ± 23.6 vs. 137.2 ± 21.0 mmHg, P < 0.001), diastolic BP (90.2 ± 16.1 vs. 84.5 ± 14.1 mmHg, P < 0.001), heart rate (83.5 ± 12.5 vs. 80.0 ± 8.7 bpm, P < 0.001), N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide precursor (NT-proBNP) [29125.0 (11474.5, 68532.0) vs. 12561.3 (4035.0, 37575.0) pg/ml, P < 0.001], and cardiac troponin I [0.044 (0.025, 0.078) vs. 0.0370 (0.020, 0.064) μg/L, P = 0.009] were markedly decreased after treatment with sacubitril/valsartan. New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class showed a notable trend of improvement after 3–12 months of follow-up. Echocardiographic parameters including left ventricular posterior wall thickness (LVPWT) (11.8 ± 2.0 vs. 10.8 ± 1.9 mm, P < 0.001), intraventricular septal thickness in diastole (11.8 ± 2.0 vs. 11.2 ± 2.0 mm, P < 0.001), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (53.8 ± 6.9 vs. 51.2 ± 7.1 mm, P < 0.001), left atrial diameter (LAD) (40.5 ± 6.2 vs. 37.2 ± 7.2 mm, P < 0.001), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) [143.0 (111.5, 174.0) vs. 130.0 (105.0, 163.0) ml, P < 0.001], left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) [57.0 (43.0, 82.5) vs. 48.0 (38.0, 74.0) ml, P < 0.001], and pulmonary arterial systolic pressure [39.0 (30.5, 50.0) vs. 28.0 (21.0, 37.5) mmHg, P < 0.001] were significantly reduced after initiating the treatment of sacubitril/valsartan. The parameters of left ventricular diastolic function including E/A ratio [0.8 (0.7, 1.3) vs. 0.9 (0.8, 1.3), P = 0.008], maximal tricuspid regurgitation velocity [2.7 (2.5, 3.2) vs. 2.4 (2.0, 2.8) m/s, P < 0.001], septal e’wave velocity (8.0 ± 0.6 vs. 8.2 ± 0.5 cm/s, P = 0.001), lateral e’ wave velocity (9.9 ± 0.8 vs. 10.2 ± 0.7 cm/s, P < 0.001), E/e’ [8.3 (6.4, 11.8) vs. 7.2 (6.1, 8.9), P < 0.001], and left atrial volume index (37.9 ± 4.2 vs. 36.4 ± 4.1 ml/m2, P < 0.001) were significantly improved by sacubitril/valsartan. Among 211 patients who were already in treatment with ACEi/ARB and 36 patients who were sacubitril/valsartan naive, the improvement of cardiac function demonstrated by clinical outcomes and echocardiographic parameters were similar to the previous one of the 247 MHD patients with HFpEF. During the follow-up, none of the patients showed severe adverse drug reactions. Conclusion Our study suggested that sacubitril/valsartan treatment in MHD patients with HFpEF was effective and safe.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is highly prevalent, occurring in 1%-2% of the adult population, increasing the risk of stroke, and resulting in considerable healthcare costs. While stroke is a major complication of AF, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients also have a high risk of stroke, suggesting that AF is a possible risk factor for mortality of ESRD patients. However, whether the existence of AF at the initiation of hemodialysis predicts higher mortality risk of incident ESRD patients remains to be defined. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study was performed at Wanfang Hospital from January 2004 to May 2018. The end points were mortality of patients or the end of the study. Incident ESRD patients who were on maintenance hemodialysis for more than 3 months were eligible for inclusion. Cox proportional regression and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to determine the association between predictors and mortality. The association between AF and echocardiographic parameters, causes of death were also investigated. RESULTS:Of the 393 incident ESRD patients at initiation of hemodialysis, 57 (14.5%) had AF and the median age was 71 years. Patients with AF were significantly older; showed significantly higher C-reactive protein levels, more heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mortality. Multivariate Cox regression showed that AF had a hazard ratio of 4.1 (95% confidence interval: 2.4-7.0) for mortality. Age-specific analysis showed that AF was significantly associated with mortality in all age groups. Echocardiography measurements including ejection fraction and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) were similar in AF and non-AF patients. Cause-specific analysis showed that AF significantly associated with overall cardiovascular death and death due to acute myocardial infarction/coronary artery disease and sepsis. CONCLUSIONS:AF at the initiation of hemodialysis predicts higher mortality risk of incident ESRD patients regardless of age. The systolic function and degree of LVH were similar in AF and non-AF patients. The association between AF and sepsis-related death suggested the role of systemic inflammation on the pathogenesis of AF.

Dataset Information

Immune response to influenza vaccination in ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis vs. hemodiafiltration.

Publications

Immune response to influenza vaccination in ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis vs. hemodiafiltration.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets