SARS-CoV-2 Booster Effect and Waning Immunity in Hemodialysis Patients

  1. Eibhlin Goggins
  2. Binu Sharma
  3. Jennie Z. Ma
  4. Jitendra Gautam
  5. Brendan Bowman

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Dialysis patients are extremely vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. We recently reported the results of a prospective cohort study measuring serial monthly semi quantitative IgG antibody levels to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain in fully vaccinated in-center hemodialysis patients after receiving the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA vaccination.

Methods

Prospective cohort study measuring the serologic response of hemodialysis patients to a booster dose of BNT162b2 vaccine at an average of 2, 6 and 11 weeks post vaccination.

Results

Of 35 hemodialysis patients in the original cohort, 27 (77.1%) received a third dose of BNT162b2. Antibody level significantly increased from pre-booster to 2 weeks post-booster (median (25 th , 75 th percentile) from 59.94 (29.69, 177.8) to 6216 (3806, 11730)), an average increase of 112 fold. Antibody levels dropped to a median of 2654 BAU/mL (1650, 8340) 6 weeks post-booster and to a median of 1444 BAU/mL (1102, 2020) between weeks 6 and 11 post-booster. Antibody levels at 11 weeks remained an average of 40 fold higher than pre-booster levels. Overall, antibody levels declined 47% month to month post-booster. Nine (33%) patients had negative or borderline detectable antibody levels pre-booster and 8 of 9 developed positive (>35.2 BAU/mL) antibody levels post-booster. Those with prior infection had a lower proportional increase in antibody level (51 fold) compared with the median change in COVID naïve patients (144 fold) from pre-booster to 2 weeks post-booster.

Conclusions

Our data demonstrates that hemodialysis patients obtain a robust humoral response from a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine although antibody levels wane over time.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.05.22.22275183: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.05.22.22275183v1 on medRxiv