ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Haemodialysis (HD) patients tend to be old, have weakened immune systems and suffer from multiple comorbidities, making them particularly prone to infections and death by the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Global vaccination against SARS-CoV2 has been underway, but long-term data in dialysis patients are still scant. We aimed to study the seroconversion with the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine in HD patients of 5 Dialysis Centres after the first 2 doses and monitor the immune responses and clinical data during the following 7 months. We also investigated the security of the vaccine. METHOD: We included 404 patients on chronic HD. All patients received 2 shots of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine, separated by 21 days. Serologic tests were run using Quant II IgG anti-Spike SARS-CoV-2 assay by Abbott. Blood was drawn 21 days after the first dose (D22), 21 days after the second dose (D43), 3 and 6 months after the first dose (M3 and M6, respectively). We asked the patients to answer written questionaries about the symptoms reported during the 7 days after each vaccination. RESULTS: 60.6% of our patients were male and the median age was 70 years (min 19, max 97). 26 patients (6.4%) had previously been infected with COVID-19. 6 of them (23.1%) needed hospitalization. At 7 months follow-up, there were 3 new cases and 1 death (the one who died had negative antibody counts at M3). Maximum response to the vaccine was seen at D43, with 97.3% of the patients showing positive antibody titers. At 6 months, 91.5% still had positive antibodies. As is reported in Table 1, the following patients had higher antibody titers at D43 and M6: patients with COVID-19 before the first vaccine, younger patients, patients with higher albumin levels, patients on HDF versus HD. Patients on HDF had higher titers at all moments during the 6 months (Figure 1). Patients with cancer without antineoplasic treatment in the last 6 months showed lower rates of seroconversion at D43: OR: 0.117 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.016-0.863]} and M6 (OR: 0.203, 95% CI 0.049-0.842]. Patients whose levels of C-reactive protein was ≤ 2.8 mg/dL had more probability of seroconversion at D43 (OR: 7.840, 95% CI 1.839-33.419;P < 0.005) as well as those with a higher (better) Karnofsky scale (OR 1.062, 95% CI 1.016-1.110). 43.4% of the patients reported at least one side effect after the first shot and 64.6% after the second shot. A total of 69.1% had at least one-side effect on the first or second shot. All the reported reactions were mild and transitory. CONCLUSION: Patients on HD respond surprisingly well to anti-COVID-19 vaccination and present only mild side effects. Further studies should analyze the impact of HDF on immune responses, since our work suggests that this type of dialysis may have a positive and protective long-term role on this population.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the impact of social isolation, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, on mental health, Temporomandibular Disorder (TMD) and orofacial pain in men and women. METHODOLOGY: Individuals living in Brazil answered an online questionnaire on their sociodemographic and behavioral aspects, emotional scale (DASS-21), Impact of Event Scale, and Pain Screener in Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD-Pain Screener) during June 2020. Descriptive statistical analyses and logistic and linear regressions were applied (5% significance). RESULTS: Overall, 2301 individuals were included, 89.1% practiced social isolation, 72.6% were employed/studying, at least 15% presented severe or extremely severe levels of emotional distress and presence of powerful (34.1%) and severe impact event (15%). During the outbreak, 53.2% perceived feeling worse and 31.8% reported that orofacial pain started or worsened after the pandemic outbreak. Gender was associated with "social class" (P=0.036), "pain/stiffness in the jaw on awakening" (P=0.037), "change of pain during jaw habits" (P=0.034) and "perception of change in the situations mentioned in the TMD-Pain Screener" (P=0.020), "depression" (P=0.012), "anxiety" (P=0.006) and "impact of the event" (P=8.3E-11). Social isolation had a lesser chance to change the routine, to be practiced by the unemployed/not studying, and to be practiced by men (all with P<0.001). Associations were found between social class and all subscales of the DASS-21 and IES, all with P<0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of social isolation has social determinants. High levels of psychological and event impacts were detected. The presence of orofacial pain seemed to increase during the health crisis, and there were gender differences in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.