RESUMO
We aimed to describe the outcomes of Omicron infection in kidney transplant recipients (KTR), compare the efficacy of the community therapeutic interventions and report the safety profile of molnupiravir. From 142 KTRs diagnosed with COVID-19 infection after Omicron had become the dominant variant in the UK, 116 (78.9%) cases were diagnosed in the community; 47 receiving sotrovimab, 21 molnupiravir and 48 no treatment. 10 (20.8%) non-treated patients were hospitalised following infection, which was significantly higher than the sotrovimab group (2.1%), p=0.0048, but not the molnupiravir treated group (14.3%), p=0.47. The only admission following sotrovimab occurred in a patient infected with BA.2. One patient from the molnupiravir and no-treatment groups required ICU support, and both subsequently died, with one other death in the no-treatment group. No patient receiving sotrovimab died. 6/116 (5.2%) patients required dialysis following their diagnosis; 2 (9.5%) patients receiving molnupiravir and 4 (8.3%) no-treatment. This requirement was significantly higher in the molnupiravir group compared with the sotrovimab treated patients, in whom no patient required dialysis, p=0.035. Both molnupiravir treated patients requiring dialysis had features of systemic thrombotic microangiopathy. Post-vaccination serostatus was available in 110 patients. Seropositive patients were less likely to require hospital admission compared with seronegative patients, 6 (7.0%) and 6 (25.0%) respectively, p=0.023. Seropositive patients were also less likely to require dialysis therapy, p=0.016. In conclusion, sotrovimab treatment in the community was associated with superior patient and transplant outcomes; its clinical efficacy against the BA.2 variant requires a rapid review. The treatment benefit of molnupiravir was not evident, and wider safety reporting in transplant patients is needed.
RESUMO
BackgroundSolid organ transplant recipients have attenuated immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. In this study, we report on immune responses to 3rd- (V3) and 4th- (V4) doses of heterologous and homologous vaccines in a kidney transplant population. Methods724 kidney transplant recipients were prospectively screened for serological responses following 3 primary doses of a SARS-CoV2 vaccine. 322 patients were sampled post-V4 for anti-spike (anti-S), with 69 undergoing assessment of SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses. All vaccine doses were received post-transplant, only mRNA vaccines were used for V3 and V4 dosing. All participants had serological testing performed post-V2 and at least once prior to their 1st dose of vaccine. Results586/724 (80.9%) patients were infection-naive post-V3; 141/2586 (24.1%) remained seronegative at 31 (21-51) days post-V3. Timing of vaccination in relation to transplantation, OR: 0.28 (0.15-0.54), p=0.0001; immunosuppression burden, OR: 0.22 (0.13-0.37), p<0.0001, and a diagnosis of diabetes, OR: 0.49 (0.32-0.75), p=0.001, remained independent risk factors for non-seroconversion. Seropositive patients post-V3 had greater anti-S if primed with BNT162b2 compared with ChAdOx1, p=0.001. Post-V4, 45/239 (18.8%) infection-naive patients remained seronegative. De novo seroconversion post-V4 occurred in 15/60 (25.0%) patients who were seronegative post-V3. There was no difference in anti-S post-V4 by vaccine combination, p=0.50. Anti-S post-V4 were sequentially greater in those seroconverting post V2- compared with V3-, and V3- compared with V4-, at 1561 (567-5211), 379 (101-851) and 19 (9.7-48) BAU/ml respectively. T-cell responses were poor, with only 11/54 (20.4%) infection-naive patients having detectable T-cell responses post-V4, with no difference seen by vaccine type. ConclusionA significant proportion of transplant recipients remain seronegative following 3- and 4- doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, with poor T-cell responses, and are likely to have inadequate protection against infection.
