Humoral immunogenicity and tolerability of heterologous ChAd/BNT compared with homologous BNT/BNT and ChAd/ChAd SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in hemodialysis patients : A multicenter prospective observational study

18-month longitudinal SARS COV-2 neutralizing antibody dynamics in haemodialysis patients receiving heterologous 3-dose vaccination (AZD-1222- AZD-1222- BNT162b2) in a lower middle income setting

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic kidney disease on haemodialysis (HD) were given priority COVID-19 vaccination due to increased disease risk. The immune response to COVID-19 vaccination in patients on HD was diminished compared to healthy individuals in 2-dose studies. This study aimed to evaluate seroconversion rate, neutralizing antibody (nAB) levels and longitudinal antibody dynamics to 3-dose heterologous vaccination against COVID-19 in a cohort of HD patients compared to healthy controls and assess patient factors associated with antibody levels.

METHODS

This study was a case-control longitudinal evaluation of nAB dynamics in 74 HD patients compared to 37 healthy controls in a low/middle income setting. Corresponding samples were obtained from the two cohorts at time-points (TP) 1-1-month post 2nd dose of AZD1222 vaccine, TP2- 4 months post 2nd dose, TP4- 2 weeks post 3rd dose with BNT162b2 vaccine, TP5-5 months post 3rd dose and TP6-12 months post 3rd dose. Additional data is available at TP0- pre 2nd dose and TP3- 6 months post 2nd dose in HC and HD cohorts respectively. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 nAB were detected using Genscript cPassTM pseudoviral neutralization kit. Demographic and clinical details were obtained using an interviewer administered questionnaire.

RESULTS

Cohorts were gender matched while mean age of the HD cohort was 54.1yrs (vs HCs mean age, 42.6yrs, p < 0.05). Percentage seroconverted and mean/median antibody level (MAB) in the HD cohort vs HCs at each sampling point were, TP1-83.7% vs 100% (p < 0.05), MAB-450 IU/ml vs 1940 IU/ml (p < 0.0001); TP2-71.4% vs 100%, (p < 0.001), MAB- 235 IU/ml vs 453 IU/ml, (p < 0.05); TP4-95.2% vs 100% (p > 0.05), MAB-1029 IU/ml vs 1538 IU/ml (p < 0.0001); TP5-100% vs 100%, MAB-1542 IU/ml vs 1741IU/ml (p > 0.05); TP6-100% vs 100%, MAB-1961 IU/ml vs 2911 IU/ml (p > 0.05). At TP2, patients aged < 60 years (p < 0.001) were associated with maintaining seropositivity compared to patients > 60 years.

CONCLUSION

Two dose vaccination of haemodialysis patients provided poor nAB levels which improved markedly following 3rd dose vaccination, the effect of which was long- lasting with high nAB levels in both patients and controls detectable at 1 year follow-up.

Immunogenicity and safety of heterologous versus homologous prime-boost schedules with inactivated and adenoviral vectored SARS-CoV-2 vaccines - A prospective multi-center study

Background

During the peak of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in Thailand when the emergence of delta variant reduced the efficacy of inactivated vaccine, Thailand had abundance of inactivated vaccine but mRNA vaccine was not available and the supply of adenoviral-vectored vaccine was limited. The heterologous vaccination using CoronaVac and ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccines was applied. We aim to compare the immunogenicity of immune response of primary vaccination with homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and heterologous vaccination with CoronaVac and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19.

Methods

A total of 430 adults, scheduled to receive ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 as their second dose of primary COVID-19 vaccination, were enrolled. Participants were classified into two groups based on the first dose vaccine as CoronaVac (heterologous group) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (homologous group). The primary outcome was antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (anti-RBD) titres at 28 days after the second dose of vaccination. Secondary outcomes were anti-RBD titres at 90 days, surrogate viral neutralizing test (sVNT) at 28 and 90 days, and adverse events.

Findings

In 358 participants with correct vaccine interval, the anti-RBD geometric mean titre ratio for the heterologous versus homologous group was 0.55 (95%CI; 0.44-0.067); p < 0.001 at day 28, and 0.80 (95%CI; 0.65-1.00); P = 0.05 at day 90. Median sVNT neutralizing activity was not significantly different in the heterologous versus homologous group at 28 days (93.5 vs 92.7 %); p = 0.13, but significantly higher in the heterologous group at day 90 (82.9 vs 76.4 %); p = 0.01.

Interpretation

The homologous vaccination resulted in higher anti-RBD titres at 28 days after vaccination, but titres in the homologous group showed more rapid decline at 90 days. In the sVNT assay, median neutralization was similar at 28 days, but was longer-lasting and higher in the heterologous group at 90 days.

Funding

This research received funding from the Royal College of Physicians of Thailand special grant 2021 for research initiative during COVID-19 pandemic.

Lessons from SENCOVAC: A prospective study evaluating the response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the CKD spectrum

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has negatively impacted on patients of the whole CKD spectrum, causing high rates of morbi-mortality. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines opened a new era, but patients with CKD (including kidney transplant, hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis) were systematically excluded from pivotal clinical trials. The Spanish Society of Nephrology promoted the multicentric national SENCOVAC study aimed at assessing immunological responses after vaccination in patients with CKD. During the first year after vaccination, patients with non-dialysis CKD and those on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis presented good anti-Spike antibody responses to vaccination, especially after receiving the third and fourth doses. However, kidney transplant recipients presented suboptimal responses after any vaccination schedule (initial, third and fourth dose). Especially worrisome is the situation of a patients with a persistently negative humoral response that do not seroconvert after boosters. In this regard, monoclonal antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 have been approved for high-risk patients, although they may become obsolete as the viral genome evolves. The present report reviews the current status of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the CKD spectrum with emphasis on lessons learned from the SENCOVAC study. Predictors of humoral response, including vaccination schedules and types of vaccines, as well as the integration of vaccines, monoclonal antibodies and antiviral agents are discussed.

Comparison of Humoral Response between Third and Fourth Doses of COVID-19 Vaccine in Hemodialysis Patients

Dialysis patients are more likely to die or become hospitalized from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Currently, only a few studies have evaluated the efficacy of a fourth booster vaccination in hemodialysis (HD) patients and there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against a fourth booster vaccination. This study compared the humoral response and disease severity of patients on HD who received either three or four doses of COVID-19 vaccine. A total of 88 patients were enrolled. Humoral response to vaccination was measured by quantifying immunoglobulin G levels against the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 (anti-RBD IgG) at five different times and plaque reduction neutralization tests (PRNT) at two different times after vaccination over a period of 18 months. Antibody levels were measured at approximately two-month intervals after the first and second dose, then four months after the third dose, and then one to six months after the fourth dose of vaccine. PRNT was performed two months after the second and four months after the third dose of vaccine. We classified patients into four groups according to the number of vaccine doses and presence of COVID-19 infection. Severe infection was defined as hospital admission for greater than or equal to two weeks or death. There was no difference in antibody levels between naïve and infected patients except after a fourth vaccination, which was effective for increasing antibodies in infection-naïve patients. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), dialysis vintage, and presence of diabetes mellitus (DM) did not show a significant correlation with antibody levels. Four patients who experienced severe COVID-19 disease tended to have lower antibody levels prior to infection. A fourth dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine significantly elevated antibodies in infection-naïve HD patients and may be beneficial for HD patients who have not been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 for protection against severe infection.

The prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in patients treated with hemodialysis

Patients treated with hemodialysis are often immunocompromised due to concomitant disease. As a result, this population is at high risk of infection and mortality from COVID-19. In addition to symptomatic treatment, a series of antiviral drugs targeting COVID-19 are now emerging. However, these antivirals are used mainly in mild or moderate patients with high-risk factors for progression to severe disease and are not available as pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19. There is a lack of clinical data on the use of anti-COVID-19 drugs, especially in patients treated with hemodialysis, therefore, vaccination remains the main measure to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in these patients. Here, we review the clinical features and prognosis of patients on hemodialysis infected with SARS-CoV-2, the main anti-COVID-19 drugs currently available for clinical use, and the safety and efficacy of anti-COVID-19 drugs or COVID-19 vaccination in patients treated with hemodialysis. This information will provide a reference for the treatment and vaccination of COVID-19 in patients treated with hemodialysis and maximize the health benefits of these patients during the outbreak.

Immune response of heterologous versus homologous prime-boost regimens with adenoviral vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients

Due to rare but major adverse reactions to the AstraZeneca adenoviral ChAdOx1-S-nCoV-19 vaccine (ChAd), German health authorities recommended adults under 60 who received one dose of ChAd, to receive a second dose of the BioNTech mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (BNT) as a booster. Studies in the general population suggest an enhanced efficacy of the heterologous (ChAd-BNT) compared to the homologous (BNT-BNT) vaccination regimen. However, an analysis of the efficacy in patient populations with a high risk of severe COVID-19 due to acquired immunodeficiency is still missing. We therefore compared both vaccination regimens in healthy controls, patients with gynecological tumors after chemotherapy, patients on dialysis and patients with rheumatic diseases concerning the humoral and cellular immune response. The humoral and cellular immune response differed substantially in healthy controls compared to patients with acquired immunodeficiency. Overall, the most significant differences between the two immunization regimens were found in neutralizing antibodies. These were always higher after a heterologous immunization. Healthy controls responded well to both vaccination regimens. However, the formation of neutralizing antibodies was more pronounced after a heterologous immunization. Dialysis patients, on the other hand, only developed an adequate humoral and particularly cellular immune response after a heterologous immunization. Tumor and rheumatic patients also - to a weaker extent compared to dialysis patients - benefited from a heterologous immunization. In conclusion, the heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens (ChAd-BNT) seem to have an advantage over the homologous vaccination regimens, especially in immunocompromised patients such as patients with end-stage kidney disease treated with hemodialysis.

Outcomes of vaccinations against respiratory diseases in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing hemodialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Due to the nature of the disease, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients suffer from dysfunction of the adaptive immune system, which leads to a poorer response to vaccination. Accordingly, it is crucial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of management strategies, including vaccinations, which could potentially reduce the risk of respiratory diseases, such as pneumonia, influenza, or COVID-19, and its associated outcomes. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, Scopus, ProQuest, and Google Scholar databases using designated MeSH keywords. The risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Heterogeneity was investigated using forest plots and I2 statistics. This systematic review included a total of 48 studies, with 13 studies of influenza (H1N1 and H3N2) vaccination and 35 studies of COVID-19 vaccination. H1N1 vaccination in ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis induced lower seroconversion rates (RR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.56-0.68, p <0.00001) and lower seroprotection rates (RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.70-0.83, p <0.00001) compared to controls. H3N2 vaccination in ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis yielded lower seroconversion rates (RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.68-0.85, p <0.00001) and lower seroprotection rates (RR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.77-0.90, p <0.00001) compared to controls. Twenty-nine studies demonstrate significantly lower antibody levels in ESRD patients undergoing hemodialysis compared to the controls following COVID-19 vaccination. This review presents evidence of lower seroconversion and seroprotection rates after vaccination against viral respiratory diseases in patients with ESRD undergoing hemodialysis. Since hemodialysis patients are more susceptible to infection and severe disease progression, a weakened yet substantial serological response can be considered adequate to recommend vaccination against respiratory diseases in this population. Vaccination dose, schedule, or strategy adjustments should be considered in stable ESRD patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Trial registration: Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021255983, identifier: CRD42021255983.

Lessons from SENCOVAC: A prospective study evaluating the response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the CKD spectrum

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has negatively impacted on patients of the whole CKD spectrum, causing high rates of morbi-mortality. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines opened a new era, but patients with CKD (including kidney transplant, hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis) were systematically excluded from pivotal clinical trials. The Spanish Society of Nephrology promoted the multicentric national SENCOVAC study aimed at assessing immunological responses after vaccination in patients with CKD. During the first year after vaccination, patients with non-dialysis CKD and those on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis presented good anti-Spike antibody responses to vaccination, especially after receiving the third and fourth doses. However, kidney transplant recipients presented suboptimal responses after any vaccination schedule (initial, third and fourth dose). Especially worrisome is the situation of a patients with a persistently negative humoral response that do not seroconvert after boosters. In this regard, monoclonal antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 have been approved for high-risk patients, although they may become obsolete as the viral genome evolves. The present report reviews the current status of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the CKD spectrum with emphasis on lessons learned from the SENCOVAC study. Predictors of humoral response, including vaccination schedules and types of vaccines, as well as the integration of vaccines, monoclonal antibodies and antiviral agents are discussed.

Immunogenicity Rates after SARS-CoV-2 Three-Dose Vaccination in Patients under Dialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Considering the indeterminate effects following the administration of three doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to patients under dialysis, the present study aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity rates of patients who received the three-dose vaccine.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials were searched to select the relevant literature to perform the present review. We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials, prospective, observational cohort, and case-control studies to assess the humoral and cellular immune responses following the administration of the three-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to patients receiving dialysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 38 studies are included in the meta-analysis presented in this paper. For patients on dialysis, the overall humoral antibody response rate is 97% following three doses of mRNA or viral vector vaccines and 100% following four doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. A subgroup analysis shows that the antibody response rate is 96% for patients on hemodialysis (HD) and 100% for those receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). The antibody response rate in the different immunogen-vaccinated groups tends to be higher than that in the same immunogen-vaccinated group (99% vs. 96%). For those who exhibit no response following two doses of the vaccine, the third and fourth doses can elevate the antibody response rate to 81%, and that number for low responders increases to 96%. However, the pooled results obtained from the relatively few trials conducted indicate that the positive T-cell response rate only increases to 59% following three doses of the vaccine. The antibody response rate is not different between dialysis and non-dialysis groups (relative risk = 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-1.02) following three doses of the vaccine. The relative risks for a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection, all-cause mortality, and hospital admissions are 0.59 (95% CI 0.30-1.04), 0.63 (95% CI 0.35-1.12), and 0.53 (95% CI 0.37-0.74), respectively, when comparing three doses with two doses of the vaccine administered to the dialysis population.

CONCLUSIONS

The third or fourth dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine significantly increases the immunogenicity rates in dialysis patients, and this beneficial effect does not vary with the type of vaccine (the same or different immunogen vaccination), dialysis modality (HD or PD), or previous low response following the administration two doses of the vaccine. We believe that healthcare workers should encourage patients receiving dialysis to receive a third or fourth vaccine dose to strengthen their immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

A Qualitative Comparison of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant Assay against Commonly Used Canadian SARS-CoV-2 Enzyme Immunoassays in Blood Donor Retention Specimens, April 2020 to March 2021

Our group has previously used laboratory and commercially developed assays to understand the IgG responses to SARS-CoV-2 antigens, including nucleocapsid (N), spike (S), and receptor binding domain (RBD), in Canadian blood donors. In this current study, we analyzed 17,428 available and previously characterized retention samples collected from April 2020 to March 2021. The analysis compared the characteristics of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (Abbott anti-spike [S], Abbott, Chicago, IL) against four other IgG assays. The Abbott anti-S assay has a qualitative threshold of 50 AU/mL. The four comparator assays were the Abbott anti-nucleocapsid (N) assay and three commonly used Canadian in-house IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) recognizing distinct recombinant viral antigens, full-length spike glycoprotein, glycoprotein RBD, and nucleocapsid. The strongest qualitative relationship was between Sinai RBD and the Abbott anti-S assay (kappa, 0.707; standard error [SE] of kappa, 0.018; 95% confidence interval, 0.671 to 0.743). We then scored each previously characterized specimen as positive when two anti-SARS-COV-2 assays identified anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG in the specimen. Using this composite reference standard approach, the sensitivity of the Abbott anti-S assay was 95.96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.27 to 97.63%). The specificity of the Abbott anti-S assay was 99.35% (95% CI, 99.21 to 99.46%). Our study provides context on the use of commonly used SARS-CoV-2 serologies in Canada and identifies how these assays qualitatively compare to newer commercial assays. Our next steps are to assess how well the Abbott anti-S assays quantitatively detect wild-type and SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. IMPORTANCE We describe the qualitative test characteristics of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay against four other anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays commonly used in Canada. Although there is no gold standard for identifying anti-SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity, aggregate standards can be used to assess seropositivity. In this study, we used a specimen bank of previously well-characterized specimens collected between April 2020 and March 2021. The Abbott anti-S assay showed the strongest qualitative relationship with a widely used laboratory-developed IgG assay for the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain. Using the composite reference standard approach, we also showed that the Abbott anti-S assay was highly sensitive and specific. As new anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays are developed, it is important to compare their test characteristics against other assays that have been extensively used in prior research.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Immunogenicity and Immunological Response Following COVID-19 Infection in Patients Receiving Maintenance Hemodialysis

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) receiving hemodialysis (HD) were found to have a decreased immune response following mRNA COVID-19 immunization. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was a promising COVID-19 vaccine that performed well in the general population, but the evidence on immunogenicity in ESRD with HD patients was limited. Moreover, the immunological response to COVID-19 infection was inconclusive in patients with ESRD and HD. The aim of this study was to investigate the immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination and the immunological response after COVID-19 infection in ESRD patients with HD. The blood samples were obtained at baseline, 1-month, and 3-month follow-up after each shot or recovery. All participants were measured for anti-spike IgG by the ELISA method, using Euroimmun. This study found a significant increase in anti-spike IgG after 1 month of two-shot ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination, followed by a significant decrease after 3 months. On the other hand, the anti-spike IgG was maintained in the post-recovery group. There was no significant difference in the change of anti-spike IgG between the one-shot ChAdOx1 nCoV-19-vaccinated and post-recovery groups for both 1-month and 3-month follow-ups. The seroconversion rate for the vaccinated group was 60.32% at 1 month after one-shot vaccination and slightly dropped to 58.73% at the 3-month follow-up, then was 92.06% at 1 month after two-shot vaccination and reduced to 82.26% at the 3-month follow-up. For the recovered group, the seroconversion rate was 95.65% at 1 month post-recovery and 92.50% at 3-month follow-up. This study demonstrated the immunogenicity of two-dose ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in ESRD patients with HD for humoral immunity. After COVID-19 infection, the humoral immune response was strong and could be maintained for at least three months.