ABSTRACT
Background Limited data exists on the immunogenicity of vector-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with kidney disease. Given their use in over 180 countries, such data is of upmost importance to inform policy on optimal vaccination strategies. This study compares the immunogenicity of BNT162b2 with ChAdOx1 in patients receiving haemodialysis.
Methods 1021 patients were screened for spike protein antibodies (anti-S) following 2 doses of either BNT162b2 (n=523) or ChAdOx1 (n=498). 191 patients underwent assessment with T-cell ELISpot assays. 65 health care workers were used as a control group.
Results Anti-S was detected in 936 (91.2%) of patients post-vaccination. There was no difference in seroconversion rates between infection-naïve patients who received BNT162b2, 248/281 (88.3%), compared with ChAdOx1, 227/272 (83.5%), p=0.11. Anti-S concentrations were higher following BNT162b, 462(152-1171) BAU/ml, compared with ChAdOx-1 79(20-213) BAU/ml, p<0.0001. Immunosuppression was associated with failure to seroconvert (p<0.0001); whilst being active on the transplant wait list was a predictor for seroconversion (p=0.02).
Only 73 (38.2%) of patients had detectable T-cell responses post-vaccination, with no proportional difference between infection-naïve patients who received BNT162b2, 2/19 (10.5%), versus ChAdOx1, 15/75 (20.0%), p=0.34. There were no quantitative differences in T-cell responses in infection-naïve patients, with a median 2(0-16) SFU/106 PBMCs and 10(4-28) SFU/106 PBMCs in those receiving BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 respectively, p=0.35. These responses were significantly weaker compared with healthy controls.
Conclusions Enhanced immunogenicity was seen with BNT162b2 compared with ChAdOx1, driven by superior humoral responses, with attenuated T-cell responses to both vaccines. Comparative data on clinical efficacy is now required.
Significance Statement Limited data exist on the immunogenicity of vector-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with kidney disease. Given their use in over 180 countries worldwide, such data are of upmost importance to inform policy on optimal vaccination strategies. This study compares the immunogenicity of BNT162b2 (n=523) against the adenovirus vector vaccine, ChAdOx1 (n=498), in 1021 haemodialysis patients. In infection-naïve patients, overall seroconversion rates were comparable, however, spike protein antibody concentrations were significantly higher following BNT162b2. No difference in T-cell responses was seen, however, all naïve patients had weaker responses compared with healthy controls. Equivalent attenuated cellular responses to both vaccines, with greater humoral responses to BNT162b2, suggests BNT162b2 has superior immunogenicity in this patient population, with data on clinical efficacy required.
Competing Interest Statement
Peter Kelleher and Michelle Willicombe have received support to use the T-SPOT Discovery SARS-CoV-2 by Oxford Immunotec.
Funding Statement
The OCTAVE trial, which is part of the COVID-19 Immunity National Core Study Programme, was sponsored by the University of Birmingham and funded by a grant from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) administered by the Medical Research Council (grant reference number MC_PC_20031). It has been designated an Urgent Public Health (UPH) study by the National Institute of Health Research. This research is also supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London. The authors would like to thank the West London Kidney Patient Association, all the patients and staff at ICHNT (The Imperial COVID vaccine group and dialysis staff, and staff within the North West London Pathology laboratories). The authors are also grateful for the support from Hari and Rachna Murgai, The Nan Diamond Fund and the Auchi Charitable Foundation
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Impact of COVID-19 on Patients with Renal disease and Immunosuppressed Patients was approved by the Health Research Authority, Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/WA/0123) The OCTAVE study was approved by the Health Research Authority, Research Ethics Committee (Reference:21/HRA/0489).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data is not openly available on an external database. Requests for information can be made to the corresponding author.
