Risk factors for COVID-19 incidence and mortality in patients on maintenance hemodialysis

Patients on maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 and with high mortality rates due to Coronavirus disease 2019, mainly because of the older age in this group of patients, comorbidities, compromised immune status due to uremia, as well as inability to keep social isolation because of the necessity for regular physical presence in dialysis facility. Several retrospective studies of patients on MHD in Europe, America and Asia, show high susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 in this group of patients with very high rates of critical course of the disease and high mortality rates, reaching more than 40% The aim of this retrospective observational study was to identify risk factors among patients on intermittent hemodialysis for infection with SARS-CoV-2 as well as predictors of severe COVID-19 and fatal outcome. Materials and methods. We analyzed 69 patients receiving intermittent dialysis in Aleksandrovska University Hospital - Hemodialysis Unit. 34 of them have been tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the period from September 2020 (when the first case of the disease was registered for our dialysis center) up to March 2022, and are compared with a control group of 35 dialysis-dependent patients without COVID-19. Data about comorbidities, main laboratory and radiologic findings, need of hospitalization and treatment in ICU, as well as data for conducted treatment, are collected from electronic medical records. To identify predictors of severe COVID and poor outcome we compared the group of survivors with the one of non-survivors. Results. There are no significant differences between patients on MHD with and without COVID-19 except higher frequency of COPD and hypoproteinemia in the positive group. Older age, female gender, history of smoking, lymphopenia with neutrophilia, treatment in ICU and need of mechanical ventilation, signs of malnutrition - hypoproteinemia and lower levels of serum creatinine, are risk factors for severe disease and fatal outcomes. Conclusions. The course of COVID infection in dialysis-dependent patients is severe and with high mortality rate, in line with other studies worldwide. Malnutrition is the main risk factor for COVID and also main predictor for poor outcomes.

Immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 BNT162b2 booster vaccine in end-stage kidney disease patients receiving haemodialysis in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: a cohort prospective study.

BACKGROUND: A significant decrease in antibody titres several months after COVID-19 primary vaccination in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients receiving maintenance haemodialysis has recently been reported. The waning in antibody titres has led to the recommendations for a booster dose to increase the antibody titres after vaccination. Consequently, it is crucial to analyse the long-term humoral immune responses after COVID-19 primary vaccination and assess the immunogenicity and safety of booster doses in haemodialysis (HD) patients. METHODS: Patients on maintenance haemodialysis who received the primary vaccine of CoronaVac (Sinovac) vaccine were administered with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as the booster dose. The immunogenicity was assessed before (V1), one month (V2) and eight months (V3) after the primary vaccination, as well as one month after the booster dose (V4). Patients were followed up one month after the booster dose to assess the adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The geometric mean titre (GMT) of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG antibody at 8 months after the primary vaccination increased significantly to 5,296.63 (95%CI: 2,930.89-9,571.94) U/mL (p = < 0.0001) compared to before the primary vaccination. The GMT also increased significantly to 19,142.56 (95% CI: 13,489.63-27,227.01) U/mL (p < 0.0001) 1 month after the booster vaccine. Meanwhile, the median inhibition rate of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) at 8 months after the primary vaccine and 1 month after the booster dose were not significantly different (p > 0.9999). The most common AEs after the booster dose included mild pain at the injection site (55.26%), mild fatigue (10.53%), and swelling at the injection site (10.53%). No serious AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ESKD patients on haemodialysis mounted a good antibody response to the BNT162b2 booster vaccination with tolerable adverse events.

Clinical effectiveness of molnupiravir in patients with COVID-19 undergoing haemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Molnupiravir is an essential oral antiviral agent against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, its real-world effectiveness has not been evaluated in patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD). METHODS: This multi-centre retrospective study, involving 225 patients undergoing HD with initially mild or asymptomatic COVID-19, was conducted to compare the risks of 30-day COVID-19-related acute care visits between patients receiving and not receiving molnupiravir. Patients who received molnupiravir were stratified by rapid antigen detection (RAD) test results on day 7 after disease onset to assess whether rapid molnupiravir introduction accelerated viral clearance. RESULTS: Thirty-day COVID-19-related acute care visits were reported in 9.41% and 21.74% of the molnupiravir and control groups, respectively, and use of molnupiravir markedly reduced the risk of acute care visits after adjusting for baseline characteristics via propensity score weighting [hazard ratio 0.218, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.074-0.642; P=0.006]. The tolerability of molnupiravir in the enrolled patients was generally acceptable, with only 11.88% of molnupiravir users reporting mild adverse events. Moreover, rapid initiation of molnupiravir within 1 day of COVID-19 onset was an independent predictor of conversion to a negative RAD test result on day 7 after disease onset (odds ratio 6.207, 95% CI 2.509-15.358; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir is well tolerated and decreases the medical needs in patients with COVID-19 undergoing HD. Furthermore, the rapid initiation of molnupiravir accelerates viral clearance in patients with COVID-19 undergoing HD. These findings highlight the therapeutic role of molnupiravir for this vulnerable population.

Better Anti-Spike IgG Antibody Response to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Patients on Haemodiafiltration than on Haemodialysis.

INTRODUCTION: The antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in haemodialysis (HD) patients is diminished compared to healthy subjects. The aim of this study was to compare the presence of reactive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in patients with high-flux HD and on-line haemodiafiltration (HDF) three and 6 months after the second dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine since previous studies indicate that a sustained antibody response correlates with protection from disease. METHODS: We included 216 HD patients of which 157 had on-line HDF and 59 high-flux HD and 46 health care workers as controls and studied the presence of reactive anti-spike IgG antibodies three and 6 months after the second dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Clinical features between the patient groups were similar, but patients with on-line HDF had significantly higher Kt/V. RESULTS: The percentage of participants with reactive antibodies was significantly lower in patients compared to controls, both three and 6 months after the second dose of vaccine. Furthermore, the proportion of patients with reactive anti-spike IgG ≥1.0 6 months after the second dose of vaccine was significantly higher in patients with on-line HDF compared to in patients with high-flux HD. In logistic regression analyses adjusted for several clinical features, the variables associated with presence of reactive anti-spike IgG at 3 months after the second dose of vaccine were lower age, HDF treatment, not being obese and not having a previous solid organ transplant. The two variables with the strongest influence on the presence of reactive anti-spike IgG levels 6 months after the second dose of vaccine were treatment with on-line HDF and not having immunosuppressive therapy. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to show that on-line HDF preserves the antibody response better than high-flux HD after vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Treatment strategies that sustain the vaccine response are essential to apply in this vulnerable group of patients.

Economic and Social Challenges of Dialysis During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Covid-19 is reported to have originated in Wuhan, China in December 2019. It slowly spread through the world causing global health problems. Having a high transmission rate the infection spread across the population affecting the most vulnerable. The worst affected world is those who had high-risk factors such as age hypertension, diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases, cancer, cardiovascular diseases and the like. Patients with end-stage renal disease were hit hard. These patients world vulnerable to covid-19 they are older and also have comorbidity. Their immune system is weak which makes them more vulnerable to infection. Moreover, patients with end-stage kidney disease need to visit the dialysis centres three times a week for around 4 h. Exposure to the dialysis centre made them more exposed to the infection. Many patients are treated simultaneously at these dialysis centres. The non-availability of an antiviral drug for covid-19 it makes more important to prevent the disease. The infection can be prevented by limiting exposure to the infected areas. Many guidelines have been issued by various bodies for the prevention and containment of the disease in these hemodialysis centres. European dialysis working group has published guidelines to prevent the spread of infection in hemodialysis centres. Despite the availability of vaccines, the immune system in the patient having end-stage kidney failure diseases responds poorly to the vaccine. Poor Immunity of dialysis Patients and the emergence of a variant of SARS-COV-19 calls for a booster dose in all the patients undergoing dialysis. Due to Covid-19 stress levels and anxiety levels among the patients increased. However, not much information is available on the mental health of the patients undergoing Haemodialysis during the Pandemic. This study is carried out to study the economic impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on patients undergoing haemodialysis in the city of Bengaluru, India. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Investigation of long-term follow-up results of COVID-19 disease in kidney transplant patients and the effect of inactive COVID-19 vaccine

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the long-term graft functions of kidney transplant recepients (KTR) who have been cured of the COVID-19 and to investigate the role of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine in the clinical course of the disease. Materials and Methods: KTR who had COVID-19 pneumonia between March 2020 and September 2021 were included in the study.. The clinical course of the disease was evaluated in vaccinated patients and compared with those who were not vaccinated. The laboratory information of the patients at the time of admission to the hospital, 6 months and 12 months after the disease was recorded. Results: Of the 83 patients included, 67.5% were male. COVID-19 disease developed in 20 patients after vaccination. Vaccine;it decreased the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) 5.9 fold and hospitalization in the intensive care unit (ICU) 1.4 times fold (p < 0.05). In the follow-up, 10 patients died at the first admission to the hospital and no late death was recorded in the first year. Dialysis treatment was started in 5 patients due to graft loss. Conclusion: In kidney transplant patients, graft dysfunction may develop after COVID-19 infection. However, the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine;it can reduce the risks of hospitalization, AKI, and ICU admission.

COVID-19 and the kidney: A matter of concern.

Starting from December 2019 in China, SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus strain has rapidly spread to involve more than 150 countries. SARS-CoV-2 is not only responsible for causing pneumonia, but there are also concerns regarding the involvement of other organs such as the heart, liver, and kidneys. Here, we review kidney involvement in COVID 19, the mechanism of kidney injury, and its impact on mortality. Lastly, we focus on the challenges of COVID19 in dialysis and renal transplant patients.

COVID-19 in Elderly Patients Receiving Haemodialysis: A Current Review.

There is an increased incidence of elderly adults diagnosed with kidney failure as our global aging population continues to expand. Hence, the number of elderly adults indicated for kidney replacement therapy is also increasing simultaneously. Haemodialysis initiation is more commonly observed in comparison to kidney transplantation and peritoneal dialysis for the elderly. The onset of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought new paradigms and insights for the care of this patient population. Elderly patients receiving haemodialysis have been identified as high-risk groups for poor COVID-19 outcomes. Age, immunosenescence, impaired response to COVID-19 vaccination, increased exposure to sources of COVID-19 infection and thrombotic risks during dialysis are key factors which demonstrated significant associations with COVID-19 incidence, severity and mortality for this patient group. Recent findings suggest that preventative measures such as regular screening and, if needed, isolation in COVID-19-positive cases, alongside the fulfillment of COVID-19 vaccination programs is an integral strategy to reduce the number of COVID-19 cases and consequential complications from COVID-19, particularly for high-risk groups such as elderly haemodialysis patients. The COVID-19 pandemic brought about the rapid development and repurposing of a number of medications to treat patients in the viral and inflammatory stages of their disease. However, elderly haemodialysis patients were grossly unrepresented in many of these trials. We review the evidence for contemporary treatments for COVID-19 in this population to provide clinicians with an up-to-date guide. We hope our article increases awareness on the associations and impact of COVID-19 for the elderly haemodialysis population, and encourage research efforts to address knowledge gaps in this topical area.

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratios: associations with mortality in a haemodialysis cohort.

Background: Lymphocyte ratios reflect inflammation and have been associated with adverse outcomes in a range of diseases. We sought to determine any association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and mortality in a haemodialysis cohort, including a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection subpopulation. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of adults commencing hospital haemodialysis in the West of Scotland during 2010-21. NLR and PLR were calculated from routine samples around haemodialysis initiation. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to assess mortality associations. Results: In 1720 haemodialysis patients over a median of 21.9 (interquartile range 9.1-42.9) months, there were 840 all-cause deaths. NLR but not PLR was associated with all-cause mortality after multivariable adjustment [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for in participants with baseline NLR in quartile 4 (NLR ≥8.23) versus quartile 1 (NLR <3.12) 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-2.00]. The association was stronger for cardiovascular death (NLR quartile 4 versus 1 aHR 3.06, 95% CI 1.53-6.09) than for non-cardiovascular death (NLR quartile 4 versus 1 aHR 1.85, 95% CI 1.34-2.56). In the COVID-19 subpopulation, both NLR and PLR at haemodialysis initiation were associated with risk of COVID-19-related death after adjustment for age and sex (NLR: aHR 4.69, 95% CI 1.48-14.92 and PLR: aHR 3.40, 95% CI 1.02-11.36; for highest vs lowest quartiles). Conclusions: NLR is strongly associated with mortality in haemodialysis patients while the association between PLR and adverse outcomes is weaker. NLR is an inexpensive, readily available biomarker with potential utility in risk stratification of haemodialysis patients.

Serum chemokine CC-motif ligand 17 is a predictive marker of severe COVID-19 in haemodialysis patients: A retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance haemodialysis (HD) patients are at higher risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Because of a limited number of facilities that can provide inpatient treatment for COVID-19 and HD, it is important to identify HD patients who are at high risk for severe COVID-19. For mild to moderate COVID-19 patients, chemokine CC-motif ligand 17 (CCL17) was reported to be a predictive marker for severe COVID-19; however, the validity of CCL17 among HD patients is unknown. METHODS: This retrospective observational study enrolled 107 HD patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 at hospitalization (mean age 70.1 ± 15.1 years; 71.0% male). Receiver operating characteristic and logistic regression analyses were used to examine the predictive validity of indices for severe COVID-19. RESULTS: During hospitalization, 32 patients developed severe COVID-19. Serum CCL17 collected at admission exhibited a higher area under the curve value (0.818) compared with that of other indicators including lactate dehydrogenase and C-reactive protein for the prediction of severe COVID-19. The optimal cut-off value for CCL17 was 150.5 pg/mL. A multi-variate logistic analysis revealed that CCL17 (above 150.5 pg/mL) was significantly associated with severe COVID-19 (Odds ratio, 0.063; 95% Confidence interval [CI], 0.017-0.227; p < .001) even after adjustment for covariates. The addition of the CCL17 to a model consisting of vaccination status, albumin, blood urea nitrogen, C-reacting protein and lactate dehydrogenase significantly improved classification performance for severe COVID-19 using the net reclassification (1.16, 95% CI: 0.82-1.50, p < .001) and integrated discrimination (0.18, 95% CI: 0.09-0.26, p < .001) improvement. CONCLUSION: CCL17 levels in HD patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 predict risk of developing severe COVID-19.

Outcomes of PD for AKI treatment during COVID-19 in New York City: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The high incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring dialysis associated with COVID-19 led to the use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) for the treatment of AKI. This study aims to compare in-hospital all-cause mortality and kidney recovery between patients with AKI who received acute PD versus extracorporeal dialysis (intermittent haemodialysis and continuous kidney replacement therapy). METHODS: In a retrospective observational study of 259 patients with AKI requiring dialysis during the COVID-19 surge during Spring 2020 in New York City, we compared 30-day all-cause mortality and kidney recovery between 93 patients who received acute PD at any time point and 166 patients who only received extracorporeal dialysis. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank test and Cox regression were used to compare survival and logistic regression was used to compare kidney recovery. RESULTS: The mean age was 61 ± 11 years; 31% were women; 96% had confirmed COVID-19 with median follow-up of 21 days. After adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, oxygenation and laboratory values prior to starting dialysis, the use of PD was associated with a lower mortality rate compared to extracorporeal dialysis with a hazard ratio of 0.48 (95% confidence interval: 0.27-0.82, p = 0.008). At discharge or on day 30 of hospitalisation, there was no association between dialysis modality and kidney recovery (p = 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: The use of PD for the treatment of AKI was not associated with worse clinical outcomes when compared to extracorporeal dialysis during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City. Given the inherent selection biases and residual confounding in our observational study, research with a larger cohort of patients in a more controlled setting is needed to confirm our findings.

Survey of food offered to United Kingdom haemodialysis patients attending for dialysis sessions in main dialysis centres and satellite units and international comparison.

Background: Haemodialysis (HD) patients are at increased risk of frailty, sarcopenia and protein energy wasting, all associated with increased mortality. Most of the dialysis day is taken up with travelling to and from dialysis centres and dialysis treatment. The International Society of Nutrition and Metabolism (ISNM) recommend that meals or supplements should be part of standard clinical practice when patients attending for dialysis. Results: We surveyed adult UK centres to determine the provision of food to dialysis patients in the United Kingdom (UK). A hot meal was provided by six (8.7%) of the 69 UK adult units, although 16 (23.2%) main centres would potentially provide meals to a restricted number of malnourished patients. Forty-seven (68.1%) centres provided sandwiches, although this was restricted in eight main centres, and 26.2% of units did not provide sandwiches to patients in their satellite dialysis centres. Biscuits were the only nutrition routinely offered in 15 (21.7%) of the main dialysis units, 41.3% of satellite units. Meals were more likely to be offered in Northern Ireland and Scotland compared to England, and 38% of the main dialysis units in England, and 58% of their satellite centres did not routinely offer patients a sandwich compared to none or one centre in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Conclusions: Despite an increasing older, more frail dialysis population in the UK, food provision for dialysis patients has reduced, particularly in England, with < 10% of centres routinely offering hot food, and > 50% of dialysis units now only offering biscuits to their satellite dialysis patients.

Clinical presentation and outcomes of chronic kidney disease patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit of a teaching hospital of Northern India during the third wave of the pandemic: A retrospective study.

Introduction: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients have impaired immune status; that's why these patients are prone to develop infection-related complications. The current study compares non-haemodialysis chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease (NO-HD-CKD and ESRD, respectively) patient outcomes, the data of which is sparse. Methods: Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection through reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were retrospectively studied using electronic health records. Patients were divided into three categories: non-chronic kidney disease (NO-CKD), NO-HD-CKD, and ESRD, and the outcome was assessed. Results: Out of 745 patients, 92 (12.34%) had NO-HD-CKD and 31 (4.16%) had ESRD. CKD patients who were not on haemodialysis had higher rates of comorbidities and D-dimer and C-reactive protein (CRP) values compared to ESRD patients. The overall unadjusted mortality rate was found to be 17.44%, and it was 10.45% in case of NO-CKD patients, 58.69% for NO-HD-CKD patients, and 48.39% for ESRD patients. It was observed that patients having NO-HD-CKD had greater odds ratio of overall expiry in comparison to those without CKD in univariate analysis (OR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.31-1.91). It was not significant in fully adjusted models (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.88-1.40). Conclusions: During the third wave of COVID-19, we found higher mortality rates for cases with NO-HD-CKD and, to a lower extent, ESRD. However, patients with ESRD were observed to have good outcomes in comparison to those with NO-HD-CKD. Primary care physicians are the first point of contact for patients. Hence, it is critical for them to manage and to do proper referral of comorbid patients to higher centres.

Risk of COVID-19 and Cost Burden in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients and Policy Implications for Managing Nephrology Services during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of COVID-19 in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, the cost burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of ESRD and the cost of catheter infections. In this multicentre, retrospective study, data were obtained from the records of four dialysis centres providing care for ESRD patients in Northern Cyprus. Of the 358 ESRD patients that were receiving haemodialysis (HD) 13 were diagnosed with COVID-19. The average cost of HD treatment per patient was $4822.65 in 2019 and $3759.45 in 2020 (p ≤ 0.001). The average control cost of HD treatment per patient was $618.80 in 2019 and $474.03 in 2020 (p ≤ 0.001). The outpatient treatment costs of catheter infections were not significantly different in 2019 (before) compared to 2020 (after) the pandemic ($54.61 in 2019 compared to $54.74 in 2020, p = 0.793). However, the inpatient treatment costs were significantly greater before the pandemic compared to after the pandemic ($315.33 in 2019 compared to $121.03 in 2020, p = 0.015). The costs for monitoring COVID-19 transmission in patients having ESRD management were significantly higher in HD compared to in peritoneal dialysis (PD) and transplants. Since there is a high risk of transmission of infections in the hospital environment during a pandemic, it is important to implement alternative ESRD management methods, such as enhancing transplants in populations, switching to PD, and implementing home dialysis programmes to reduce the risk of infection and associated complications, as well as the health costs associated with infection monitoring.

Estudio descriptivo del primer mes de situación de pandemia por COVID-19 en una unidad de diálisis hospitalaria

Los pacientes en diálisis constituyen un grupo de riesgo de sufrir infección por SARS-CoV-2 y posiblemente de tener más complicaciones. Los profesionales sanitarios se han enfrentado a una pandemia sin precedentes y de la que había poca información. El objetivo de este estudio ha sido describir la experiencia del primer mes viviendo la pandemia generada por SARS-CoV-2 en una unidad hospitalaria de hemodiálisis de Madrid, tanto en relación a los pacientes como al personal sanitario. Así mismo, se pretende reflejar las actuaciones sanitarias durante dicho mes. El total de pacientes en la unidad fue de 90, realizándose la determinación PCR a todos, 37 (41,1%) dieron positivo a COVID-19, de estos 22 (59,4%) eran sintomáticos y 15 (40,5%) eran asintomáticos. De los pacientes positivos, 16 (43,2%) precisaron ingreso hospitalario y 6 (16,2%) fallecieron. Los pacientes fallecidos eran de mayor edad que los supervivientes. La muestra de profesionales sanitarios fue de 44, de los que 15 (34%) presentaron sintomatología. El servicio de Salud Laboral sólo determinó PCR a este grupo, obteniendo 4 profesionales (9%) PCR positivo, sin embargo tras considerar los criterios clínicos/radiológicos un total de 9 profesionales fueron diagnosticados como COVID-19 positivos, requiriendo 1 de ellos ingreso hospitalario. Conclusiones: se detectó una elevada prevalencia de COVID-19 positivo en los pacientes de la unidad de diálisis, donde destaca el elevado número de pacientes asintomáticos detectados mediante cribado PCR al total de los pacientes. Algunos profesionales presentaron algún tipo de sintomatología correspondiente con clínica COVID-19, pero se detectaron pocos casos con PCR positiva.Alternate : Dialysis patients are at risk group for SARS-CoV-2 infection and possibly have more complications. Healthcare professionals have faced an unprecedented pandemic, for which little information existed. The objective of this study was to describe the experience of a Madrid hospital haemodialysis unit during the first month of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, both in relation to patients and healthcare personnel. Likewise, it is intended to report the health actions. The total number of patients in the unit was 90. In all patients, the PCR test was performed. 37 (41.1%) tested positive for COVID-19, of these 22 (59.4%) were symptomatic and 15 (40.5%) were asymptomatic. Of the positive patients, 16 (43.2%) required hospital admission, 6 of whom died (16.2%). The deceased patients were older than the survivors. Health professionals were 44, of whom 15 (34%) had symptoms. The Occupational Health service only performed PCR on the symptomatic group, having 4 professionals (9%) positive PCR. However, after considering the clinical / radiological criteria, 9 professionals were diagnosed as COVID-19 positive, 1 of them requiring hospital admission. Conclusions: A high prevalence of positive COVID-19 was detected in patients in the dialysis unit, highlighting the high number of asymptomatic patients detected by PCR screening. Some healthcare professionals presented some type of symptoms corresponding to the COVID-19 disease, however, few cases were detected with positive PCR.

The second wave of COVID-19 disease in haemodialysis patients: An experience of a dialysis center from Pakistan.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of second wave of coronavirus disease-2019 in haemodialysis patients. METHODS: The retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted at The Kidney Center Post-Graduate-Training-Institute, Karachi, Pakistan and comprised data of patients regardless of gender who contracted coronavirus disease-2019 during the second wave from November 3, 2020, till February 12, 2021. Epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics and outcomes of the patients were reviewed. Data was analysed using SPSS 21. RESULTS: Of 437 patients on haemodialysis, 46(10.5%) contracted coronavirus disease-2019; 29(63%) males and 17(37%) females. The overall median age was 61.5±13.02 years. Most patients developed mild disease 27(%). The most common symptom was fever 29(63%), and 6(13.1%) patients had patchy bilateral opacity on chest radiograph. Major complications were lymphocytopenia 29(63%), pneumonia 15(32.6%), thrombocytopenia 8(17.4%), and septic shock 5(10.9%). Overall, 15(32.6%) patients required hospitalisation, and 8(17.4%) required mechanical ventilation. There were 13(28.3%) deaths. Patients aged >60 years had 6.8 times more severe disease (p=0.023) and chances of death among them were 5.8 times higher (p=0.036) than in those aged <60 years. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high susceptibility of haemodialysis patients during the second wave of coronavirus disease compared to the general population. The most important determinants of death were advanced age, lower oxygen saturation and thrombocytopenia at presentation.

Ethical challenges in managing unvaccinated patients receiving chronic in-centre haemodialysis.

Insufficient vaccine coverage and dominance of the more transmissible severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants are the leading causes of the continued spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. To curb the surge in infections, COVID-19 vaccination has been advocated as a priority measure, especially for frail populations and people at high risk of exposure. Patients on in-centre maintenance haemodialysis (HD) embody both conditions. They are at high risk of severe COVID-19 consequences due to their advanced age and weakened immune system and carry an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission within shared dialysis rooms and public vehicles. Vaccination of the entire HD population is therefore the most effective strategy to protect patients from the dire consequences of COVID-19. Unfortunately, a minority of patients still express COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The management of this group of patients, who have the full right to HD treatment, poses demanding problems from a patient safety perspective. The placement of unvaccinated patients within the dialysis room and the protection of all vaccinated patients are some of the most urgent problems the nephrologist faces during the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of these COVID-19-driven changes, an ethical reflection on the management of unvaccinated patients appears crucial to act responsibly and contribute to the health promotion of dialysis patients.

Effect of Coronavirus among Kidney Disease Patients

Background: COVID-19 is a novel coronavirus disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with an increased risk of both inpatient and outpatient pneumonia. Objective: To describe the effect of COVID-19 virus on patients with kidney disease and renal transplants and analyse the outcomes of patients at the time of the study. Patients and Method: This is a descriptive study conducted in Baghdad Medical City, Al Shifa Center (single centre study). The study included 13 RTPCR-positive patients who were screened in the inpatient and outpatient departments. All patients received treatment according to the Iraq Ministry of Health protocol with dose adjusted as per the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Result: The mean age of participants was 51.46 years with males more than females. Among the positive cases, 2 had acute kidney injury (15.4%), 3 had chronic kidney diseases (23.1%), 5 had end-stage renal disease (38.5%), and 3 had had renal transplants (23.1%). 6 patients out of 13 were diabetic, 11 were hypertensive, and 1 patient had heart failure. 7 (53.8%) patients were given conservative treatment, 4 were given isolated conventional haemodialysis, and only 2 patients were kept in an intensive care unit on continuous renal replacement therapy. 2 male patients died during the treatment. Conclusion: Chronic kidney disease is a risk factor for COVID-19 infection and more mortality and infection were found in male patients as compared to female patients in our study. © 2022: Author(s).

Comparison of immunogenicity and clinical effectiveness between BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in people with end-stage kidney disease receiving haemodialysis: A prospective, observational cohort study.

Background: People with end-stage kidney disease, including people on haemodialysis, are susceptible to greater COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality. This study compares the immunogenicity and clinical effectiveness of BNT162B2 versus ChAdOx1 in haemodialysis patients. Methods: In this observational cohort study, 1021 patients were followed-up from time of vaccination until December 2021. All patients underwent weekly RT-PCR screening. Patients were assessed for nucleocapsid(anti-NP) and spike(anti-S) antibodies at timepoints after second(V2) and third(V3) vaccinations. 191 patients were investigated for T-cell responses. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) for prevention of infection, hospitalisation and mortality was evaluated using the formula VE=(1-adjustedHR)x100. Findings: 45.7% (467/1021) had evidence of prior infection. There was no difference in the proportion of infection-naïve patients who seroconverted by vaccine type, but median anti-S antibody titres were higher post-BNT162b2 compared with ChAdOx1; 462(152-1171) and 78(20-213) BAU/ml respectively, p<0.001.  Concomitant immunosuppressant use was a risk factor for non-response, OR 0.12[95% CI 0.05-0.25] p<0.001.  Post-V3 (all BNT162b2), median anti-S antibody titres remained higher in those receiving BNT162b2 versus ChAdOx1 as primary doses; 2756(187-1246) and 1250(439-2635) BAU/ml respectively, p=0.003.Anti-S antibodies waned over time. Hierarchical levels of anti-S post-V2 predicted risk of infection; patients with no/low anti-S being at highest risk. VE for preventing infection, hospitalisation and death was 53% (95% CI 6-75), 77% (95% CI 30-92) and 93% (95% CI 59-99) respectively, with no difference seen by vaccine type. Interpretation: Serum anti-S concentrations predict risk of breakthrough infection. Anti-S responses vary dependent upon clinical features, infection history and vaccine type. Monitoring of serological responses may enable individualised approaches to vaccine boosters in at risk populations. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London.

Impact of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on home dialysis: Experiences of home dialysis nurses in Australia and Canada

Objective The spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has created an opportunity to re-evaluate and refine existing models of healthcare delivery for patients receiving dialysis at home. This study aims to explore the experiences of home dialysis nurses during the pandemic. Methods This was an observational study via survey. Participants were recruited through the home dialysis nursing networks in Australia and the province of Ontario, Canada. Results A total of 45 nurses responded to the survey, 53% (n=24) from Australia and 47% (n=21) from Ontario, Canada. The nurses identified that most units had moved to 'virtual' patient visits, only seeing those patients with urgent issues in person. They also reported problems with delivery of supplies for patients, implementation of social distancing during training, difficulties for patients with navigation of telehealth platforms for `virtual' clinic visits, and staffing shortages with staff needing to stay home with any suspected COVID-19 symptoms or contact. The nurses perceived that being flexible in their roles and working hours were helpful during the pandemic, while being ready to adapt at short notice was also important. Conclusion During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients receiving home dialysis have benefited from fewer healthcare facility visits and a greater ability to adhere to social distancing measures, thus limiting exposure to COVID-19 infection. Yet, patients may face challenges relating to delay or back order of dialysis supplies and social isolation, and may struggle with telehealth platforms. Our learning experience from this pandemic will help us identify the challenges encountered and measures taken to address them.