Dataset Information

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response After a Third Dose of the BNT162b2 Vaccine in Patients Receiving Maintenance Hemodialysis or Peritoneal Dialysis.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale & objective

Recent studies showed that antibody titers after vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the dialysis population are diminished as compared with the general population, suggesting the possible value of a third booster dose. We characterized the humoral response after 3 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine in patients treated with either maintenance hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD).

Study design

Case series.

Setting & participants

69 French patients (38 HD and 31 PD) treated at a single center who received 3 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine.

Findings

Humoral response was evaluated using plasma levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 immunoglobulin measured after the second dose and at least 3 weeks after the third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Patients (median age 68 years [interquartile range (IQR), 53-76 years], 65% men) had a median anti-S1 antibody level of 284 [IQR, 83-1190] AU/mL after the second dose, and 7,554 [IQR, 2,268-11,736] AU/mL after the third dose. Three patients were nonresponders (anti-S1 antibody level < 0.8 AU/mL), and 12 were weak responders (anti-S1 antibody level 0.8-50 AU/mL) after the second vaccine dose. After the third dose, 1 of the 3 initial nonresponders produced anti-spike antibody, and all the 12 initial weak responders increased their antibody levels. Patients with a greater increase in anti-S1 antibody levels after a third dose had lower antibody levels after the second dose, and a longer time interval between the second and the third dose. Adverse events did not seem to be more common or severe after a third vaccine dose.

Limitations

Observational study, small sample size. Relationship between antibody levels and clinical outcomes is not well understood.

Conclusions

A third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine substantially increased antibody levels in patients receiving maintenance dialysis and appeared to be as well tolerated as a second dose.

SUBMITTER: Bensouna I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8425695 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale & objectiveWe sought to compare outcomes of patients receiving dialysis after cardiothoracic surgery on the basis of dialysis modality (intermittent hemodialysis [HD] vs peritoneal dialysis [PD]).Study designThis was a retrospective analysis.Setting & participantsIn total, 590 patients with kidney failure receiving intermittent HD or PD undergoing coronary artery bypass graft and/or valvular cardiac surgery at Cleveland Clinic were included.ExposureThe patients received PD versus HD (intermittent or continuous).OutcomesOur primary outcomes were in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, days in the intensive care unit, the number of intraoperative blood transfusions, postsurgical pericardial effusion, and sternal wound infection, and a composite of the following 4 in-hospital events: death, cardiac arrest, effusion, and sternal wound infection.Analytical approachWe used χ2, Fisher exact, Wilcoxon rank sum, and t tests, Kaplan-Meier survival, and plots for analysis.ResultsAmong the 590 patients undergoing cardiac surgery, 62 (11%) were receiving PD, and 528 (89%) were receiving intermittent HD. Notably, 30-day Kaplan-Meier survival was 95.7% (95% CI: 93.9-97.5) for HD and 98.2% (95% CI: 94.7-100) for PD (P = 0.30). In total, 75 patients receiving HD (14.2%) and 1 patient receiving PD (1.6%) had a composite of 4 in-hospital events (death, cardiac arrest, effusion, and sternal wound infection) (P = 0.005). Out of 62 patients receiving PD, 16 (26%) were converted to HD.LimitationsRetrospective analyses are prone to residual confounding. We lacked details about nutritional data. Intensive care unit length of stay was used as a surrogate for volume status control. Patients have been followed in a single health care system. The HD cohort outnumbered the PD cohort significantly.ConclusionsWhen compared with PD, HD does not appear to improve outcomes of patients with kidney failure undergoing cardiothoracic surgery. Patients receiving PD had a lower incidence of a composite outcome of 4 in-hospital events (death, cardiac arrest, pericardial effusion, and sternal wound infections).

Project description:Rationale & objectiveStudies of patients on maintenance dialysis therapy suggest that standard-dose influenza vaccine (SDV) may not prevent influenza-related outcomes. Little is known about the comparative effectiveness of SDV versus high-dose influenza vaccine (HDV) in this population.Study designCohort study using data from the US Renal Data System.Setting & participants507,552 adults undergoing in-center maintenance hemodialysis between the 2010 to 2011 and 2014 to 2015 influenza seasons.ExposuresSDV and HDV.OutcomesAll-cause mortality, hospitalization due to influenza or pneumonia, and influenza-like illness during the influenza season.Analytic approachPatients were eligible for inclusion in multiple yearly cohorts; thus, our unit of analysis was the influenza patient-season. To examine the relationship between vaccine dose and effectiveness outcomes, we estimated risk differences and risk ratios using propensity score weighting of Kaplan-Meier functions, accounting for a wide range of patient- and facility-level characteristics. For nonmortality outcomes, we used competing-risk methods to account for the high mortality rate in the dialysis population.ResultsWithin 225,215 influenza patient-seasons among adults 65 years and older, 97.4% received SDV and 2.6% received HDV. We observed similar risk estimates for HDV and SDV recipients for mortality (risk difference, -0.08%; 95% CI, -0.85% to 0.80%), hospitalization due to influenza or pneumonia (risk difference, 0.15%; 95% CI, -0.69% to 0.93%), and influenza-like illness (risk difference, 0.00%; 95% CI, -1.50% to 1.08%). Our findings were similar among adults younger than 65 years, as well as within other subgroups defined by influenza season, age group, dialysis vintage, month of influenza vaccination, and vaccine valence.LimitationsResidual confounding and outcome misclassification.ConclusionsThe HDV does not appear to provide additional protection beyond the SDV against all-cause mortality or influenza-related outcomes for adults undergoing hemodialysis. The additional cost and side effects associated with HDV should be considered when offering this vaccine. Future studies of HDV and other influenza vaccine strategies are warranted.