Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36105874›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022

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

Tina Thomson, Maria Prendecki, Sarah Gleeson, Paul Martin, Katrina Spensley, Rute Cardoso De Aguiar, Bynvant Sandhu, Charlotte Seneschall, Jaslyn Gan, Candice L Clarke and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tina ThomsonImperial College Renal and Transplant Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom.
Maria PrendeckiCentre for Inflammatory Disease, Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, United Kingdom.
Sarah GleesonImperial College Renal and Transplant Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom.
Paul MartinImperial College Renal and Transplant Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom.
Katrina SpensleyCentre for Inflammatory Disease, Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, United Kingdom.
Rute Cardoso De AguiarImperial College Renal and Transplant Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom.
Bynvant SandhuImperial College Renal and Transplant Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom.
Charlotte SeneschallImperial College Renal and Transplant Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom.
Jaslyn GanImperial College Renal and Transplant Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom.
Candice L ClarkeCentre for Inflammatory Disease, Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, United Kingdom.
Shanice LewisCentre for Inflammatory Disease, Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, United Kingdom.
Graham PickardDepartment of Infection and Immunity Sciences Northwest London Pathology NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road W6 6RF, United Kingdom.
David ThomasCentre for Inflammatory Disease, Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, United Kingdom.
Stephen P McAdooCentre for Inflammatory Disease, Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, United Kingdom.
Liz LightstoneCentre for Inflammatory Disease, Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, United Kingdom.
Alison CoxDepartment of Infection and Immunity Sciences Northwest London Pathology NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road W6 6RF, United Kingdom.
Peter KelleherDepartment of Infection and Immunity Sciences Northwest London Pathology NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road W6 6RF, United Kingdom.
Michelle WillicombeCentre for Inflammatory Disease, Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, United Kingdom.
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBCharing Cross Hospital · GBImperial College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

COVID-19ImmunosuppressionKidney transplantVaccination

Identifiers

PMID36105874
PMCPMC9462844
OpenAlexW4295872549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.