Longevity of SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in hemodialysis patients and protection against reinfection

  1. Candice L. Clarke
  2. Maria Prendecki
  3. Amrita Dhutia
  4. Jaslyn Gan
  5. Claire Edwards
  6. Virginia Prout
  7. Liz Lightstone
  8. Eleanor Parker
  9. Federica Marchesin
  10. Megan Griffith
  11. Rawya Charif
  12. Graham Pickard
  13. Alison Cox
  14. Myra McClure
  15. Richard Tedder
  16. Paul Randell
  17. Louise Greathead
  18. Mary Guckian
  19. Stephen P. McAdoo
  20. Peter Kelleher
  21. Michelle Willicombe

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.kint.2021.03.009
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.22.21249865: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The study was approved by the Health Research Authority, Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/WA/0123 - The Impact of COVID-19 on Patients with Renal disease and Immunosuppressed Patients).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    All patient samples (n=356) at time 0 were tested for N-protein and RBD antibodies.
    RBD
    suggested: None
    At 6 months, all patient samples (n=301) were tested for N-protein antibodies; samples which were either anti-NP+ or indeterminant were tested for RBD antibodies.
    anti-NP+
    suggested: None
    All baseline serum underwent testing for total receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies using an in-house double binding antigen ELISA (Imperial Hybrid DABA; Imperial College London, London, UK), which detects total RBD antibodies(10).
    total receptor binding domain (RBD
    suggested: None
    in-house double binding antigen ELISA
    suggested: None
    antibodies(10
    suggested: None
    At 6 months all samples were re-tested for NP antibodies.
    NP
    suggested: None
    Samples with positive or equivocal NP antibodies (cut off-index (0.25-2.5)) were tested for RBD antibodies.
    equivocal NP
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection: Baseline serum from all patients were tested for Nucleocapsid protein (NP) using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG 2 step chemiluminescent immunoassay (CMIA) assay according to manufacturer’s instructions.
    Abbott Architect
    suggested: (Abbott ARCHITECT i1000sr System, RRID:SCR_019328)
    Statistical Analysis: Statistical and graphical analyses were performed with MedCalc® v19.2.1.
    MedCalc®
    suggested: (MedCalc, RRID:SCR_015044)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This study has several limitations, in part due to the time sensitive nature of the results which have led us to take a pragmatic approach to sample processing. The study would have been strengthened by the addition of more laboratory data on viral loads over time. Certainly, there have been case reports of prolonged viral shedding, which may be more common in immunosuppressed patients(27, 28). However, we used a 60-day cut off for ‘new’ PCR positivity, as utilised by others previously(13). It is also relevant to highlight that all patients did subsequently undergo routine asymptomatic PCR swabbing after this time point. A further limitation is that we do not have data available on viral genetic sequencing of infected patients, and it is possible that ‘reinfections’ are due to new variants of SARS-CoV-2, which may evade immune responses to previous strains(29). However, if this was the case, we would have expected to see equal amounts of new variant’ infection’ across all patients. Our serological data may have been strengthened by screening all patients at 6 months for RBD antibodies, which has shown to more closely correlate with neutralising antibody titre(30). Finally, we only performed T-cell ELISPOT assays in selected cases as time and resource limitations prevented further testing at this stage. However, the major strengths of our study, is that to our knowledge this is the first report of longitudinal immunological responses in dialysis patients, which in addition has...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.01.22.21249865v1 on medRxiv