Quality of life of patients with kidney failure in sub-Saharan Africa: protocol for a systematic review of quantitative studies

Introduction: The burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is rising in sub-Saharan Africa. Access to kidney replacement therapy (KRT) remains limited and modelling suggests a significant hidden burden of kidney failure managed without KRT. Kidney failure is contributing to serious health-related suffering (SHS) at a global level. Despite this, access to palliative care remains extremely disparate. There is an urgent need for greater palliative care provision for patients with kidney failure in sub-Saharan Africa. To inform this, it is important to understand their current quality of life. This article outlines our review protocol, ensuring transparency of our planned methods and reporting. Methods and analysis: A comprehensive search will be conducted of MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, African Index Medicus and Africa Journals Online. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global will be searched for grey literature. Eligible sources will be quantitative observational studies, conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, and published in English or French. The primary outcome measure will be quality of life of those with kidney failure, measured using a validated quality of life tool. Abstract screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis will be performed on study subgroups, if appropriate, based on heterogeneity of included studies; otherwise results will be summarised narratively. This protocol is structured according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidance. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required because this review will synthesise published data. Findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration ID: 27543

Lack of seroresponse to SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccines given early post-transplant in patients primed pre-transplantation

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are recommended pre-transplantation, however, waning immunity and evolving variants mandate booster doses. Currently there no data to inform the optimal timing of booster doses post-transplant, in patients primed pre-transplant. We investigated serial serological samples in 204 transplant recipients who received 2 or 3 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines pre-transplant. Spike protein antibody concentrations, [anti-S], were measured on the day of transplantation and following booster doses post-transplant. In infection-naïve patients, post-booster [anti-S] did not change when V3 (1st booster) was given at 116(78-150) days post-transplant, falling from 122(32-574) to 111(34-682) BAU/ml, p=0.78. Similarly, in infection-experienced patients, [anti-S] on Day-0 and post-V3 were 1090(133-3667) and 2207(650-5618) BAU/ml respectively, p=0.26. In patients remaining infection-naïve, [anti-S] increased post-V4 (as 2nd booster) when given at 226(208-295) days post-transplant, rising from 97(34-1074) to 5134(229-5680) BAU/ml, p=0.0016. Whilst in patients who had 3 vaccines pre-transplant, who received V4 (as 1st booster) at 82(49-101) days post-transplant, [anti-S] did not change, falling from 981(396-2666) to 871(242-2092) BAU/ml, p=0.62. Overall, infection pre-transplant and [anti-S] at the time of transplantation predicted post-transplant infection risk. As [Anti-S] fail to respond to SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccines given early post-transplant, passive immunity may be beneficial to protect patients during this period

Immune responses following 3rd and 4th doses of heterologous and homologous COVID-19 vaccines in kidney transplant recipients

Background Solid 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. Methods We undertook a single centre cohort study of 724 kidney transplant recipients 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 first dose of vaccine. Findings 586/724 (80.9%) patients were infection-naïve 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-naïve patients remained seronegative. De novo seroconversion post-V4 occurred in 15/60 (25.0%) patients. There was no difference in anti-S post-V4 by vaccine combination, p=0.50. 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. Interpretation A 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. As such alternative strategies are required to provide protection to this vulnerable group. Funding MW/PK received study support from Oxford Immunotec