Hyeon Seok Hwang

Dialysis patients are more likely to die or become hospitalized from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Currently, only a few studies have evaluated the efficacy of a fourth booster vaccination in hemodialysis (HD) patients and there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against a fourth booster vaccination. This study compared the humoral response and disease severity of patients on HD who received either three or four doses of COVID-19 vaccine. A total of 88 patients were enrolled. Humoral response to vaccination was measured by quantifying immunoglobulin G levels against the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 (anti-RBD IgG) at five different times and plaque reduction neutralization tests (PRNT) at two different times after vaccination over a period of 18 months. Antibody levels were measured at approximately two-month intervals after the first and second dose, then four months after the third dose, and then one to six months after the fourth dose of vaccine. PRNT was performed two months after the second and four months after the third dose of vaccine. We classified patients into four groups according to the number of vaccine doses and presence of COVID-19 infection. Severe infection was defined as hospital admission for greater than or equal to two weeks or death. There was no difference in antibody levels between naïve and infected patients except after a fourth vaccination, which was effective for increasing antibodies in infection-naïve patients. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), dialysis vintage, and presence of diabetes mellitus (DM) did not show a significant correlation with antibody levels. Four patients who experienced severe COVID-19 disease tended to have lower antibody levels prior to infection. A fourth dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine significantly elevated antibodies in infection-naïve HD patients and may be beneficial for HD patients who have not been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 for protection against severe infection.

Background Hydrophilic and lipophilic statins have similar efficacies in treating coronary artery disease. However, specific factors relevant to renal impairment and different arterial pathogeneses could modify the clinical effects of statin lipophilicity, and create differences in protective effects between statin types in patients with renal impairment. Methods and Results A total of 2062 patients with acute myocardial infarction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 were enrolled from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry between November 2011 and December 2015. The primary end point was a composite of 2‐year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACEs) after acute myocardial infarction occurrence. MACEs were defined as all‐cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, revascularization, and stroke. Propensity‐score matching and Cox proportional hazards regression were performed. A total of 529 patients treated with hydrophilic statins were matched to 529 patients treated with lipophilic statins. There was no difference in the statin equivalent dose between the 2 statin groups. The cumulative event rate of MACEs, all‐cause mortality, and recurrent myocardial infarction were significantly lower in patients treated with hydrophilic statins in the propensity‐score matched population (all P <0.05). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, patients treated with hydrophilic statins had a lower risk for composite MACEs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55–0.90]), all‐cause mortality (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.49–0.93]), and recurrent myocardial infarction (HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.21–0.73]), but not for revascularization and ischemic stroke. Conclusions Hydrophilic statin treatment was associated with lower risk of MACEs and all‐cause mortality than lipophilic statin in a propensity‐score matched observational cohort of patients with renal impairment following acute myocardial infarction.