What has vaccination against COVID-19 in CKD patients taught us?

Effective vaccination strategies are of crucial importance to protecting patients who are vulnerable to infections, such as patients with chronic kidney disease. This is because the decreased efficiency of the immune system in chronic kidney disease impairs vaccine-induced immunisation. COVID-19 has prompted investigation of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in chronic kidney disease and in kidney transplant recipients in an effort to improve efficacy. The seroconversion rate after two vaccine doses is reduced, especially in kidney transplant recipients. Furthermore, although the seroconversion rate in chronic kidney disease patients is as high as in healthy subjects, anti-spike antibody titres are lower than in healthy vaccinated individuals, and these titres decrease rapidly. Although the vaccine-induced anti-spike antibody titre correlates with neutralising antibody levels and with protection against COVID-19, the protective prognostic significance of their titre is decreased due to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants other than the Wuhan index virus against which the original vaccines were produced. Cellular immunity is also relevant, and because of cross-reactivity to the spike protein, epitopes of different viral variants confer protection against newly emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2. A multi-dose vaccination strategy is the most effective way to obtain a sufficient serological response. In kidney transplant recipients, a 5-week discontinuation period from antimetabolite drugs in concomitance with vaccine administration may also increase the vaccine's efficacy. The newly acquired knowledge obtained from COVID-19 vaccination is of general interest for the success of other vaccinations in chronic kidney disease patients.

Strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission in hemodialysis centres across Europe-lessons for the future.

Background: Early reports on the pandemic nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) directed the nephrology community to develop infection prevention and control (IPC) guidance. We aimed to make an inventory of strategies that dialysis centres followed to prevent infection with COVID-19 in the first pandemic wave. Methods: We analyzed IPC measures taken by hemodialysis centres treating patients presenting with COVID-19 between 1 March 2020 and 31 July 2020 and that completed the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database centre questionnaire. Additionally, we made an inventory of guidelines published in European countries to prevent spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in dialysis centres. Results: Data from 73 dialysis units located in and bordering Europe were analyzed. All participating centres implemented IPC measures to mitigate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 during the first pandemic wave. Measures mentioned most often included triage with questions before entering the dialysis ward, measuring body temperature, hand disinfection, masking for all patients and staff, and personal protective equipment for staff members. These measures were also recommended in most of the 14 guidelines that were identified in the inventory of national guidelines and were also scored as being among the most important measures by the authors of this paper. Heterogeneity existed between centres and national guidelines regarding the minimal distance between dialysis chairs and recommendations regarding isolation and cohorting. Conclusions: Although variation existed, measures to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 were relatively similar across centres and national guidelines. Further research is needed to assess causal relationships between measures taken and spread of SARS-CoV-2.

A single dialysis session of hemodiafiltration with sorbent-regenerated endogenous ultrafiltrate reinfusion (HFR) removes hepcidin more efficiently than bicarbonate hemodialysis: a new approach to containing hepcidin burden in dialysis patients?

BACKGROUND: Most hemodialysis patients have high Hepcidin-25 levels, which may be involved in the pathogenesis of several uremic complications related to an altered iron biology. The hemodialysis procedure itself can influence Hepcidin-25 levels by removing Hepcidin-25 and maybe stimulating its production due to a pro-inflammatory effect. METHODS: To assess the relationship between dialysis-related inflammation and intradialysis changes in Hepcidin-25, we performed a crossover trial in 28 hemodialysis patients to compare the effects on serum levels of Hepcidin-25 and inflammatory markers activated during dialysis [Tumor Necrosis Factor-α (TNF-α), Interleukin-6, C-reactive protein (CRP), Pentraxin-3] of a single dialysis session using a technique capable of reducing inflammation, HFR (Hemo Filtrate Reinfusion: a hemodiafiltration system combining convection, diffusion and adsorption) or bicarbonate-dialysis using either the same low-flux membrane as in the diffusion stage of HFR (LFBD) or a high-flux membrane (HFBD). RESULTS: HFR achieved a greater reduction in Hepcidin-25 levels than both LFBD [-72% (95% CI: -11 to -133), p = 0.022] and HFBD [-137% (95% CI: -2 to -272), p = 0.047], conceivably due to both a greater removal (because of its convective/adsorptive component) and a lower inflammation-related Hepcidin-25 production. HFR also led to a greater decrease in TNF-α than LFBD [-277% (95% CI: -59 to -494), p = 0.014], while the two methods induced similar changes in Interleukin-6, CRP and Pentraxin-3 levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a single bicarbonate-dialysis session can upregulate Hepcidin-25 synthesis and that HFR can fully overcome this effect, enabling a greater Hepcidin-25 removal during dialysis. Adequately-designed studies are needed, however, to establish whether the beneficial effect of HFR emerging from our study could reduce Hepcidin-25 (and TNF-α) burden and improve clinically-relevant outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15957905.