RESUMEN
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic is a global public health problem. Patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis are at a higher risk of infection and mortality than the general population. Worldwide, a vaccination campaign has been developed that has been shown to reduce severe infections and deaths in the general population. However, there are currently limited data on the clinical efficacy of vaccinations in the hemodialysis population. Methods: A national multicenter observational cohort was performed in Chile to evaluate the clinical efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in end-stage renal disease patients on chronic hemodialysis from February 2021 to August 2021. In addition, the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and CoronaVac (Sinovac) vaccines were evaluated. The efficacy of vaccination in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalizations, and deaths associated with COVID-19 was determined. Results: A total of 12,301 patients were evaluated; 10,615 (86.3%) received a complete vaccination (2 doses), 490 (4.0%) received incomplete vaccination, and 1196 (9.7%) were not vaccinated. During follow-up, 1362 (11.0%) patients developed COVID-19, and 150 died (case fatality rate: 11.0%). The efficacy of the complete vaccination in preventing infection was 18.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]:11.8-23.8%), and prevention of death was 66.0% (95% CI:60.6-70.7%). When comparing both vaccines, BNT162b2 and CoronaVac were effective in reducing infection and deaths associated with COVID-19. Nevertheless, the BNT162b2 vaccine had higher efficacy in preventing infection (42.6% vs. 15.0%) and deaths (90.4% vs. 64.8%) compared to CoronaVac. Conclusion: The results of our study suggest that vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients on chronic hemodialysis was effective in preventing infection and death associated with COVID-19.
RESUMEN
This study aimed to describe the population pharmacokinetics of vancomycin in critically ill patients with refractory septic shock undergoing continuous venovenous high-volume haemofiltration (HVHF) and to define appropriate dosing for these patients. This was a prospective pharmacokinetic study in the ICU of a university hospital. Eight blood samples were taken over one vancomycin dosing interval. Samples were analysed by a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay. Non-linear mixed-effects modelling was used to describe the population pharmacokinetics. Dosing simulations were used to define therapeutic vancomycin doses for different HVHF settings. Nine patients were included (five male). The mean weight and SOFA score were 70 kg and 11, respectively. Mean HVHF settings were: blood flow rate, 240 mL/min; and haemofiltration exchange rate, 100 mL/kg/h. A linear two-compartment model with zero-order input adequately described the data. Mean parameter estimates were: clearance, 2.9 L/h; volume of distribution of central compartment (V(1)), 11.8L; volume of distribution of peripheral compartment (V(2)), 18.0 L; and intercompartmental clearance, 9.3 L/h. HVHF intensity was strongly associated with vancomycin clearance (P < 0.05) and was a covariate in the final model. Simulations indicate that after a loading dose, vancomycin doses required for different HVHF intensities would be 750 mg every 12h (q12h) for 69 mL/kg/h, 1000 mg q12h for 100 mL/kg/h and 1500 mg q12h for 123 mL/kg/h. Continuous infusion would also be a valuable administration strategy. In conclusion, variable and much higher than standard vancomycin doses are required to achieve therapeutic concentrations during different HVHF settings.
