RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
Background: Kidney transplantation is the best treatment for end stage kidney disease. The allograft allocation system considers immunological factors and time in waiting list, but not the age of donors or recipients, in spite that both have prognostic relevance. Aim: To study the fairness of the allograft allocation system considering the age of donors and recipients. Material and Methods: Based in the age distribution of donors and waiting list of patients for kidney transplantation, we constructed probability functions for receiving a graft as an allocation system based on age changes from a strict to a more lax criteria. Finally, we compared our model with the real transplants performed during 2012. Results: The probability distribution for receiving a kidney transplantation is displaced to the right compared with the age distribution of graft donors. This gap increases as the procuring hospitals enlist progressively older graft candidates without accepting older donors in parallel. An allocation system that maintains age parity between donors and recipients is fairer that other that allows lax criteria for the same allocation. This phenomenon is attenuated if the procurement acceptance criterion allows older donors. Conclusions: It is necessary to reduce the gap between donor and recipient ages for kidney transplantation to improve the fairness of the graft allocation system.
Assuntos
Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto Jovem , Fatores Etários , Seleção do Doador/normas , Transplante de Rim , Seleção de Pacientes , Listas de Espera , Distribuição por Idade , Sobrevivência de EnxertoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is the best treatment for end stage kidney disease. The allograft allocation system considers immunological factors and time in waiting list, but not the age of donors or recipients, in spite that both have prognostic relevance. AIM: To study the fairness of the allograft allocation system considering the age of donors and recipients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based in the age distribution of donors and waiting list of patients for kidney transplantation, we constructed probability functions for receiving a graft as an allocation system based on age changes from a strict to a more lax criteria. Finally, we compared our model with the real transplants performed during 2012. RESULTS: The probability distribution for receiving a kidney transplantation is displaced to the right compared with the age distribution of graft donors. This gap increases as the procuring hospitals enlist progressively older graft candidates without accepting older donors in parallel. An allocation system that maintains age parity between donors and recipients is fairer that other that allows lax criteria for the same allocation. This phenomenon is attenuated if the procurement acceptance criterion allows older donors. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to reduce the gap between donor and recipient ages for kidney transplantation to improve the fairness of the graft allocation system.
