Serological Response to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Hemodialyzed Patients and the Association with Later COVID-19 Positivity.
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
hemodialysis
serological response
vaccination
Journal
Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2073-4468
Titre abrégé: Antibodies (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101587489
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 May 2023
24 May 2023
Historique:
received:
29
03
2023
revised:
13
05
2023
accepted:
22
05
2023
medline:
27
6
2023
pubmed:
27
6
2023
entrez:
27
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine may differ in hemodialysis patients. The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to determine the degree of serological response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in the population of dialysis patients and its association with later SARS-CoV-2 infections. A blood sample was taken for the determination of COVID-19 serological status (IgG antibodies) in 706 dialysis patients 16 weeks after vaccination with the second dose (Pfizer-BioNTech). Only 314 (44.5%) hemodialyzed patients had a satisfactory response to the COVID-19 vaccine. Eighty-two patients (11.6%) had a borderline response, while 310 patients (43.9%) had an unsatisfactory (negative) post-vaccinal antibody titer. A longer dialysis vintage had an increased odds ratio (OR) of 1.01 for the occurrence of COVID-19 positivity after vaccination. In the group of subsequently positive patients, 28 patients (13.6%) died from complications of COVID-19. We have found differences in mean survival time between patients with and without appropriate responses to vaccination in favor of patients with a satisfactory serological response. The results showed that the dialysis population will not have the same serological response to the vaccine as the general population. The majority of dialysis patients did not develop a severe clinical picture or die at the time of positivity for COVID-19.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine may differ in hemodialysis patients. The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to determine the degree of serological response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in the population of dialysis patients and its association with later SARS-CoV-2 infections.
METHODS
METHODS
A blood sample was taken for the determination of COVID-19 serological status (IgG antibodies) in 706 dialysis patients 16 weeks after vaccination with the second dose (Pfizer-BioNTech).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Only 314 (44.5%) hemodialyzed patients had a satisfactory response to the COVID-19 vaccine. Eighty-two patients (11.6%) had a borderline response, while 310 patients (43.9%) had an unsatisfactory (negative) post-vaccinal antibody titer. A longer dialysis vintage had an increased odds ratio (OR) of 1.01 for the occurrence of COVID-19 positivity after vaccination. In the group of subsequently positive patients, 28 patients (13.6%) died from complications of COVID-19. We have found differences in mean survival time between patients with and without appropriate responses to vaccination in favor of patients with a satisfactory serological response.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The results showed that the dialysis population will not have the same serological response to the vaccine as the general population. The majority of dialysis patients did not develop a severe clinical picture or die at the time of positivity for COVID-19.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37366653
pii: antib12020037
doi: 10.3390/antib12020037
pmc: PMC10295704
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Clin Med. 2021 Sep 28;10(19):
pubmed: 34640471
Toxins (Basel). 2012 Oct 24;4(11):962-90
pubmed: 23202302
Toxins (Basel). 2020 Jul 05;12(7):
pubmed: 32635646
Sci Rep. 2021 Nov 8;11(1):21601
pubmed: 34750399
Health Sci Rep. 2022 Oct 03;5(6):e854
pubmed: 36210878
Kidney Int. 2021 Jun;99(6):1275-1279
pubmed: 33931226
Emerg Infect Dis. 2022 Apr;28(4):743-750
pubmed: 35203113
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Sep 01;8:588013
pubmed: 34540855
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008 Sep;3(5):1526-33
pubmed: 18701615
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Aug 15;19(16):
pubmed: 36011725
N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 31;383(27):2603-2615
pubmed: 33301246
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):457-462
pubmed: 32668444
Am J Kidney Dis. 2021 May;77(5):748-756.e1
pubmed: 33465417
Ann Intern Med. 2022 Mar;175(3):371-378
pubmed: 34904856
Lancet. 2021 Oct 16;398(10309):1407-1416
pubmed: 34619098
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Jun 15;15(6):e0009156
pubmed: 34129609
J Ren Nutr. 2015 Mar;25(2):160-3
pubmed: 25556149
Kidney Int. 2021 Jun;99(6):1496-1498
pubmed: 33887318
New Horiz. 1995 Nov;3(4):669-79
pubmed: 8574597
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2021 Mar 15;:
pubmed: 33720379
Toxins (Basel). 2020 May 06;12(5):
pubmed: 32384617
Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Oct;80(10):1330-1338
pubmed: 34127481
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):430-436
pubmed: 32640463
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2021 Aug 27;36(9):1709-1716
pubmed: 33999200
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2020 Nov 1;35(11):1973-1983
pubmed: 33151337
Lancet Oncol. 2021 Jun;22(6):765-778
pubmed: 33930323
Clin Rheumatol. 2022 Sep;41(9):2755-2763
pubmed: 35614287
Transplantation. 2021 Jan 1;105(1):37-55
pubmed: 33148977
Int Urol Nephrol. 2022 May;54(5):1053-1057
pubmed: 34383205
Am J Nephrol. 2022;53(7):586-590
pubmed: 35850101
Hemodial Int. 2021 Oct;25(4):507-514
pubmed: 34060217
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Jul;27(7):1029-1034
pubmed: 33813122
Nature. 2021 Oct;598(7881):393-394
pubmed: 34650244
JAMA Oncol. 2022 Feb 1;8(2):281-286
pubmed: 34854921