Search

Abstract Background Dialysis patients are predisposed to severe disease and have a high mortality rate in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to their comorbidities and immunocompromised conditions. Therefore, dialysis patients should be prioritized for vaccination. This study aimed to examine how long the effects of the vaccine are maintained and what factors affect antibody titers. Methods Hemodialysis patients (HD group) and age- and sex-matched non-dialysis individuals (Control group), receiving two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine, were recruited through the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy (JSDT) Web site in July 2021. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (IgG) (SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers) was measured before vaccination, 3 weeks after the first vaccination, 2 weeks after the second vaccination, and 3 months after the second vaccination, and was compared between Control group and HD group. Factors affecting SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers were also examined using multivariable regression analysis and stepwise regression analysis (least AIC). In addition, we compared adverse reactions in Control and HD groups and examined the relationship between adverse reactions and SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers. Results Our study enrolled 123 participants in the Control group (62.6% men, median age 67.0 years) and 206 patients in the HD group (64.1% men, median age 66.4 years). HD group had significantly lower SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers at 3 weeks after the first vaccination (p

Abstract Background Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who receive dialysis therapy develop more severe disease and have a poorer prognosis than patients who do not. Although various data on the treatment of patients not receiving dialysis therapy have been reported, clinical practice for patients on dialysis is challenging as data is limited. The Infection Control Committee of the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy decided to clarify the status of treatment in COVID-19 patients on dialysis. Methods A questionnaire survey of 105 centers that had treated at least five COVID-19 patients on dialysis was conducted in August 2021. Results Sixty-six centers (62.9%) responded to the questionnaire. Antivirals were administered in 27.7% of facilities treating mild disease (most patients received favipiravir) and 66.7% of facilities treating moderate disease (most patients with moderate or more severe conditions received remdesivir). Whether and how remdesivir is administered varies between centers. Steroids were initiated most frequently in moderate II disease (50.8%), while 43.1% of the facilities initiated steroids in mild or moderate I disease. The type of steroid, dose, and the duration of administration were generally consistent, with most facilities administering dexamethasone 6 mg orally or 6.6 mg intravenously for 10 days. Steroid pulse therapy was administered in 48.5% of the facilities, and tocilizumab was administered in 25.8% of the facilities, mainly to patients on ventilators or equivalent medications, or to the cases of exacerbations. Furthermore, some facilities used a polymethylmethacrylate membrane during dialysis, nafamostat as an anticoagulant, and continuous hemodiafiltration in severe cases. There was limited experience of polymyxin B-immobilized fiber column-direct hemoperfusion and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The discharge criteria for patients receiving dialysis therapy were longer than those set by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in 22.7% of the facilities. Conclusions Our survey revealed a variety of treatment practices in each facility. Further evidence and innovations are required to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 receiving dialysis therapy.

Humoral and cellular responses are critical in understanding immune responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. Here, we evaluated these responses in hemodialysis (HD) patients after the booster vaccination. SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (IgG) levels, neutralizing antibody titers, and the T-SPOT®.COVID test (T-SPOT) were measured prior to, three weeks after, and three months after the booster administration. The HD group had significantly higher SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels and neutralizing antibody titers against the original strain at three weeks and three months after the booster vaccination compared to the control group, albeit the HD group had lower SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels and neutralizing antibody titers before the booster administration. Moreover, the HD group had significantly higher T-SPOT levels at all three time points compared to the control group. The HD group also had significantly higher local and systemic adverse reaction rates than the control group. By booster vaccination, HD patients could acquire more effective SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cellular immunity than the control group.

Abstract Background A newspaper article in August 2016 reported that about 40 medical facilities refused dialysis to a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patient. Infection Survey Subcommittee in the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy investigated this situation. Methods An anonymous questionnaire survey about the acceptance of HIV-positive patients was sent to 4039 dialysis institutions. The questionnaire included a number of HIV-positive patients on dialysis currently and in the last 5 years, details on whether the institution received requests to perform dialysis on HIV-positive patients, the responses to these requests, the preparation system for acceptance, the reasons for refusal of dialysis of HIV-positive patients, knowledge of HIV-related guidelines in use, and the considerations for the acceptance of dialysis for HIV-positive patients. We evaluated answers to these questions from the institutions. Results Two thousand five hundred eighty-three facilities (64.0%) responded to the survey questions. In the past 5 years, 215 facilities (8.3%) were requested to accept HIV patients for dialysis and 40.1% of these refused acceptance. Although manuals, written policy and procedure, for a needle piercing accident existed in most of the facilities that accepted the patients, many facilities did neither prepare the stocks of anti-HIV drugs nor cooperate with HIV core hospitals. Principal reasons for the refusal were listed as the lack of medical experience with HIV patients, anxiety of healthcare providers with regard to HIV infection risk, lack of stocks of anti-HIV drugs for needle piercing accidents, and the lack of cooperation with HIV core hospitals. The proportion of facilities expected to accept HIV patients in the future was as low as 16.9% among all facilities that responded to the survey. Conclusions The Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy will need to strengthen the cooperation with other academic societies and disseminate basic knowledge on HIV and infection control measures to develop and establish the acceptance system of maintenance dialysis for HIV patients.