SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.82 número5Programa de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos durante la pandemia de COVID-19 índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados




  • No hay articulos citadosCitado por SciELO

Links relacionados

  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO


Medicina (Buenos Aires)

versión impresa ISSN 0025-7680versión On-line ISSN 1669-9106

Medicina (B. Aires) vol.82 no.5 Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires oct. 2022



Safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 SPUTNIK V vaccine in dialysis patients

Seguridad y efectividad de vacuna COVID-19 SPUTNIK V en pacientes en diálisis

Guillermo Rosa-Diez1  * 

María Marina Papaginovic Leiva2 

Fernando Lombi3 

María Soledad Crucelegui1 

Ricardo D. Martínez2 

Hernán Trimarchi3 

Rubén Schiavelli4 

Mercedes Grizzo4 

Miguel Raño4 

Ricardo M. Heguilén5 

Rocío A. Jones5 

Luciana González Paganti6 

Matías Ferrrari6 

Victoria Kjohede7 

Paula Zingoni8 

Jorge R. Geffner7 

Daniel Ferrante8 

Fernán González Bernaldo de Quirós8 

Vanina Pagotto9 

1 Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires

2 Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Médico Policial Churruca Visca

3 Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires

4 Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital General de Agudos Dr. Juan A. Fernández

5 Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital General de Agudos Dr. Cosme Argerich

6 Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Militar Central Cirujano Mayor Dr. Cosme Argerich

7 INBIRS (Instituto Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y SIDA), Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Buenos Aires

8 Ministerio de Salud del Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires

9 Departamento de Investigación, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina


Introduction: Given the vulnerability of chronic kidney disease individuals to SARS-CoV-2, nephrology societies have issued statements calling for prioritization of these patients for vaccination. It is not yet known whether COVID-19 vaccines grant the same high level of protection in patients with kidney disease compared to the non-dialysis population. The aims of this study were to evaluate the safety - measured by the adverse events potentially attributed to vaccines (ESAVI) - and the effectiveness - evaluated by the presence of antibodies - in dialysis patients immunized with the COVID-19 Sputnik V vaccine. Methods: multicenter, ob servational and analytical study of a prospective cohort of hemodialysis patients from the Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires participating in an official vaccination program. Dialysis requiring individuals older than 18 years, who received both components of the COVID-19 vaccine were included. Results: Data from 491 patients were included in the safety analysis. ESAVI with either the first or second component was detected in 186 (37.9%, 95% CI 33.6%-42.3%). Effectiveness analysis measuring antibodies levels against SARS-CoV-2 were performed in 102 patients; 98% presented these IgG antibodies at day 21 after the second component. In patients with COVID-19 prior to vaccination, antibodies at day 21 after the first component reached almost the highest levels compared to patients without previous COVID-19, but IgG rise among patients with previous COVID-19 was lower than in those without this previous disease. Conclusion: The Sputnik V vaccine has been shown to be safe and effective in this patient’s population.

Key words: COVID-19 vaccines; Dialysis; Serologic tests


Introducción: Dada la vulnerabilidad al SARS-CoV-2 de las personas con enfermedad renal crónica, las sociedades de nefrología han emitido declaraciones pidiendo priorizar a estos pacientes para la vacunación. Aún no se sabe si las vacunas COVID-19 confieren el mismo nivel de protección en pacientes con enfermedad renal. Los objetivos de este estudio fueron evaluar la seguridad, medida por eventos supuestamente atribuidos a las vacunas (ESAVI) y la efectividad, evaluada por la presencia de anticuerpos en pacientes en diálisis inmuniza dos con la vacuna COVID-19 Sputnik V. Métodos: estudio multicéntrico, observacional y analítico de una cohorte prospectiva de pacientes en hemodiálisis, en la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, con plan de vacunación. Se incluyeron pacientes mayores de 18 años en diálisis que recibieron ambos componentes de la vacuna COVID-19. Resultados: 491 pacientes fueron incluidos en el análisis de seguridad. Se detectó ESAVI con el primer o el segundo componente en 186 (37.9% IC 95%: 33.6%-42.3%). La efectividad medida por presencia de anticuerpos IgG contra SARS-Cov-2 se realizó en 102 pacientes, 98% presentaba IgG contra SARS-CoV-2, 21 días después del segundo componente. En pacientes con COVID-19 previo a la vacunación, los anticuerpos al día 21 del primer componente alcanzaron niveles casi mayores que en aquellos que no habían sufrido COVID-19, aunque el aumento de los niveles a los 21 días del segundo componente fue menor que en los pacientes sin COVID-19 previo. Conclusión: Los pacientes en diálisis constituyen una población vulnerable para la infección por SARS-CoV-2, por lo tanto, más allá de las recomendaciones implementadas por las unidades de diálisis, la vacunación completa es mandatoria. Se ha demostrado que la vacuna Sputnik V es segura y eficaz en esta población de pacientes.

Palabras clave: Vacunas COVID-19; Diálisis; Pruebas serológicas


Evidence before this study

• In the face of COVID pandemic, dialysis patients repre sent a population at high risk of severe outcomes. The COVID Registry of the Argentine Registry of Dialysis (Registro Argentino de Diálisis) showed that COVID in fection affected 12% of this population, and that mortality was 11 times higher compared to the general population.

• Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in preventing COVID-19 in the general population, but its performance in dialysis patients is unclear given the lack of appropriated trials carried out in this population.


• First published report on the safety and efficacy of the Sputnik V vaccine in dialysis patients.

• Sputnik V vaccine has been shown to be safe and ef fective in this patient population.

The World Health Organization (WHO)1 recommends vaccination against coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) as an essential primary prevention tool to limit the health and economic effects of the pandemic. As a consequence, having effective and safe vaccines in the short term, which can be used in a national strategy, will help to reduce the incidence of illness, hospitalizations and deaths related to COVID-19 and to gradually reestablish a new normality in the functioning of our country.

On December 23 (2020), the National Administration of Medicines, Food and Medical Technology (ANMAT) submitted the report on the Sputnik V vaccine to the National Ministry of Health to advance in the Emergency Authorization of a batch series of Sputnik V vaccine, which - according to preliminary phase 1, 2 and 3 studies - confer immunogenicity2,3.

After the emergency authorization of the Sputnik V vac cine, other vaccines were approved for use, including the recombinant ChAdOx1-S vaccine from AstraZeneca4,5 and the Sinopharm vaccine4. All of them demonstrated efficacy as was reported in several publications2,4,6. Effectiveness refers to the protection provided by the vaccine as mea sured in observational studies that include people with underlying medical conditions who have been receiving preparations from different healthcare providers under real-world conditions.

So far, there are no observational or epidemiological studies demonstrating the performance in those individu als vaccinated for COVID-19 in Argentina, and therefore evaluating their effectiveness and reactogenicity. The safety profile and reactogenicity of vaccines is a central element for their acceptance in the population. If a vaccine is perceived as too reactogenic, the involved subject may refuse additional doses, or the healthcare professional may choose not to recommend it. Therefore this can lead to incomplete protection of the individual and low rate of vaccination in a given population7,8.

Maintaining a high immunization coverage is critical to the success of any vaccination program. A few years ago, it was able to consider the concept “no pain, no gain”, as suming that, if a vaccine does not produce inflammation as a “proxy” for pain, the immune response achieved was poor, leaving a common belief that a reaction in the place of injection to a vaccine is a predictive sign of a desirable vaccine response9.

The Argentine Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud de la Nación Argentina)10, designed the Strategic Plan for vaccination against COVID-19 in Argentina11, being one of its specific objectives to establish essential priority axes to evaluate vaccination goals: coverage rates, continuous safety and effectiveness monitoring of vaccines, in asso ciation with the epidemiological impact that vaccination produces on COVID-1911.

Kidney disease substantially increases the risk of severe COVID-19. Considering the relative efficacy of the current therapeutic strategies available to reduce hospitalizations and mortality from COVID-19, effective and safe vaccination is currently the only genuine option to limit the ongoing pandemic and reduce SARS CoV-2 infec tions. Throughout 2020, several vaccines were licensed for emergency use, and many more are in development and in progress of approval12.

Dialysis patients constitute a population at risk, not only because of their vulnerability to COVID-19, but because they cannot adhere with social isolation since they must go to dialysis almost three times per week. The COVID Registry of the Argentine Registry of Dialysis (Registro Ar gentino de Diálisis) showed that COVID infection affected 12% of the dialysis population to date, and that mortality was 11 times higher compared to the general population13.

Given the vulnerability of people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) to COVID-19, nephrology societies, such as the UK Kidney Association and the US National Kidney Foundation, have issued statements calling for prioritiza tion of these patients for vaccination. The Argentine So ciety of Nephrology (Sociedad Argentina de Nefrología - SAN) timely presented it to the National Ministry of Health, which has considered the priority of this patient population. However, it is not yet known whether COVID-19 vaccines offer the same high degree of protection in kidney dis eased individuals as that obtained in healthy controls, as reported for participants in several current trials14.

Numerous SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in preventing COVID-19 in the gen eral population1-3. But dialysis patients were not included in any of the previously reported trials performed.

Further studies testing most of the available vaccines have been performed or are already in progress in dialysis patients; most of them, show a seroconversion rate of 67% to 100% which is similar to that obtained in the general population15-27.

At the present time only two papers refer to the safety of COVID immunization in dialysis patients (17-20); both of them report the results observed from a single category of vaccine. Therefore, it is critical that as dialysis units begin to vaccinate their patients, adverse events are reported and post-vaccination antibody levels are monitored to determine optimal immunization schedules. It should be noted that to date no study have been reported the results with the use of the Sputnik V vaccine in patients on maintenance dialysis.

The aims of this study were to evaluate the safety mea sured by the events potentially attributed to the vaccine and the effectiveness evaluated by the presence of anti bodies in dialysis patients immunized with the COVID-19 Sputnik V vaccine.

A previous version of this manuscript has been shared in medRxiv, a free online archive and distribution server for complete but unpublished manuscripts (preprints) in the medical, clinical, and related health sciences28.

Materials and methods

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Al berto C Taquini Institute for Translational Medicine Research, School of Medicine, Buenos Aires University (Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Buenos Aires). For the effectiveness study, based on the measurement of antibodies, informed consent was requested. The study protocol was registered in Identifier: NCT04944433

A multicenter, observational and analytical study was car ried out on a prospective cohort of hemodialysis patients in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires) participating in an official vaccination program. The date of inclusion in the cohort was the start date of vac cination. Dialysis-requiring patients older than 18 years who received both components of the COVID-19 vaccine were included.

Safety-related data were collected; events potentially at tributed to immunization (ESAVI) after receiving the Sputnik V vaccine, the history of COVID-19 prior to inoculation and the presence of symptomatic COVID-19 after it. Demographic and kidney disease-related (type of dialysis - hemodialysis or peritoneal; kidney transplant- as well as time on renal replacement therapy) information was obtained This information was retrieved by the health professionals of the individual centers who were in charge of the dialysis sessions of the patients using an epidemiological file designed for this study.

Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody titles against SARS-CoV-2 were assumed as effectiveness parameter The “CO VIDAR IgG” test, which is registered in ANMAT, was used for the determination of antibodies. The test detects antibodies in blood and serum that the immune system produces for the new coronavirus, specifically against two viral antigens: the spike protein (S) and the receptor-binding domain (RBD). It is performed on plates that allow testing 96 sera at the same time using the technique known as ELISA, the same one used, for example, for the detection of HIV and hepatitis B infection. The COVIDAR IgG test detects the presence of IgG qualitatively and semi-quantitatively. In the semi-quantitative determination, the values are measured in absorbance levels (DO) with a maximum of 3.3 and an inferior limit of detection of 0.3. The processing of the samples and the performance of the ELISA, both for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 were car ried out by the virology laboratory of the School of Medicine, Buenos Aires University (Facultad de Medicina - Universidad de Buenos Aires) - and the measurements were carried out before the administration of the first component, at 21 days of the same and at 21 days of the second component.

A sample size of 369 patients was estimated, for the safety end-point considering a prevalence of ESAVI with the Sputnik V vaccine29 of 60% with a precision of 5% and a 95% confidence interval (95%CI).

For the effectiveness end-point, considering a published phase 1 and 2 results of the Sputnik V vaccine study (2) and assuming that the vaccinated population in Buenos Aires will have the same behavior as reported, the following sample scenarios were evaluated:

a) For a difference of IgG antibody titers between 0 and 21 days of 1.24 with a standard deviation (SD) of 1, a power of 90% and an alpha error of 0.01, in a two-tailed hypothesis test, the resulting sample size is 11 individuals.

b) For a delta of IgG antibodies between 14 and 21 days of 0.57, and SD of 1, a power of 90% and an alpha of 0.01, for a two-tailed hypothesis test, the optimal sample size is 49.

Adjusting for a 20% loss to follow-up and considering that the immunogenicity of these patients is lower than that of the general population, the calculated sample size was estimated to be 100.

In the descriptive analysis, quantitative data were ex pressed as median and interquartile range (IQR) according to their distribution. Qualitative data were expressed as absolute (n) and relative (%) frequencies. To allow external compari sons with other publications, we also defined a dichotomous classification in ≤ 55 or > 55 years old individuals. For the comparisons according to the presence of ESAVI, the T or Wilcoxon test was used for the quantitative data according to their distribution and the Chi square or Fisher test according to the assumptions.

The proportion of patients with ESAVI was estimated with a 95% CI. To evaluate the factors associated with the pres ence of ESAVI, a multiple logistic regression was performed, considering as independent variables those statistically sig nificant in the bivariate analysis and those that were clinically significant according to the research team. The crude Odds ratio (OR) with their 95% CI are reported.

A fixed random effect model was used to compare the immunoglobulin G levels for coronavirus type 2 that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome. A level of statistical significance less than 5% was considered. The analysis was carried out with software R version 4.0.3

The COVIDAR group provided the serokits for sampling and the ELISA COVIDAR IgG kits, supported by Fondo para la Convergencia Estructural del Mercosur( FOCEM) and Asociación Civil Siempre Ayuda Nunca Dañes (SAND). None of the funding sources provided economical support for the data collection, statistical analysis, or were used to write the manuscript, or to submit it for publication.


A total of 996 patients were immunized with the two com ponents of the Sputnik V vaccine and 491 were included for the safety analysis. Of them, 186 people, 37.9% (95% CI 33.6%-42.34%) presented at least one ESAVI, with either the first or second component: 112 (28.3%) with the first component, and 99 (20.2%) with the second. The ad ministration of antipyretics before the second component was reported by 60 patients (12.2%). Of 99 individuals who had ESAVI - both with the first and second component -, 54 (54.5%) perceived symptoms resulting worse with the second component than with the first; while 13 (13.1%) perceived that with the second component, they suffered from fewer symptoms, and for 32 (32.3%) the symptoms resulted almost identical. Table 1 shows the characteris tics of the whole cohort and the comparison according to the presence or absence of ESAVI with any component of the vaccine.

Table 1 Characteristics of 491 patients and comparison according to the presence or absence of events supposedly attributed to vaccination-immunization (ESAVI) with any component of the Sputnik V vaccine 

There were 355 ESAVI, because some patients had more than one ESAVI. No events of special interest were observed (vaccine-augmented disease; multisystemic inflammatory syndrome; respiratory distress; acute heart failure; cardiomyopathy; arrhythmias; coronary artery disease; myocarditis; acute kidney failure; acute liver failure; Guillain Barré; encephalopathy; acute dissemi nated encephalomyelitis; transverse myelitis; seizures; meningoencephalitis; thromboembolism; thrombocytope nia vasculitis; acute septic arthritis; erythema multiforme; perineum erythema; anaphylaxis)

Of the total ESAVI, the most frequent was pain at the injection site with both components of the vaccine, new or worse muscular pain and fever. All ESAVI were more fre quent with the first component except pain at the injection site, which was the same in both components and vomit ing that was more frequent with the second component. Figure 1 shows the frequency of ESAVI globally and after each component.

Fig. 1 Local and systemic reactions in dialytic patients, globally and after each component of Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine received (n = 355) 

Considering having any ESAVI with either the first or the second component, any allergy prior to vaccination, being 55 years or younger and renal transplantation were predictors of ESAVI (Table 2)

Table 2 Predictor of Events Supposedly Attributed to Vaccines and Immunizations (ESAVI) in dialysis requiring patients after Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine 

Eighteen patients had COVID-19 infection after the first component, fifteen of them were symptomatic, 17 of them were detected by PCR; only in one patient the diagnosis was for epidemiological link. The median of time (days) lasting between the first component and COVID-19 was 23.5 with a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 65 days. All cases were mild.

The effectiveness analysis measuring antibodies against SARS-Cov-2 was performed in 102 patients, fifty of whom (49.0%) were female, with median age of 51.6 years (IQR 39.8-62.0) and 42; older than 55 years (41.0%). Sixteen pa tients (15.7%) suffered from COVID-19 prior to vaccination.

The median time from the diagnoses to the admin istration of the first component was 7.0 months (IQR 6-8). Median time for the administration of the second component was 2.8 month (IQR 2.7- 2.9). Twenty seven of the 102 patients (26.5%), had positive IgG against SARS-CoV-2 at baseline, and 13 did not refer previous COVID-19, which implies a rate of asymptomatic COVID disease of 13/102 = 12.7%. Median time in dialysis was 2.9 years (IQR 1.5-5.6).

Nine patients were diagnosed of COVID-19 between the first and the second component and 6 had positive an tibodies measured 21 days after the first component, and all had positive IgG 21 days after the second component.

Ninety eight percent of the patients had positive IgG against SARS-Cov-2 antibodies 21 days after the second component. Among the 16 patients that had COVID-19 before the first component, fourteen had positive IgG at baseline measure and only two hadn’t got positive IgG 21 days after the second component (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 Flowchart of the sequence of acquired antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (n: 102) 

Neither of these two patients, who did not show IgG at day 21, had COVID-19 between the first and the second component. Both patients had hemodialysis as renal replacement therapy (RRT); one was male and the other female with ages of 71 and 55 years old. Only the 71 years old man presented a mild adverse reaction to vaccine.

There were differences in the levels of IgG antibodies in each time measure between patients with or without COVID-19 prior to vaccination. The first group had higher levels in every measure. Patients without COVID-19 had the baseline measure under the detection limit (<0.38). Both groups of patients showed a significant rise in the level of IgG in the 3 measures (Table 3).

Table 3 Comparison of antibodies presence against SARS-Cov-2 in two groups, with and without previous COVID-19, at two periods of time after vaccination 

In patients with COVID-19 prior to vaccination, antibod ies at day 21 after the first component reached almost the highest levels compared to those patients who did not have COVID-19, and the rise between the first and second measures was lower than in patients without prior COVID-19 (Table 3, Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 Change in antibodies IgG level against SARS-CoV-2 in each measure in groups with or without pre vious COVID-19 


This study shows that Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine in dialysis patients had a low rate of ESAVI and highly remarkable immunogenicity. Regarding adverse events, none of those reported adverse events were considered as major adverse event, being the most frequent pain at the injection site with both components of the vaccine. Considering systemic symptoms, new or worsening muscle pain and fever were the most frequent although, none of the ESAVI, required hospitalization. ESAVI were less frequent compared to phase 2 and 3 studies of the vaccine and also lower compared to the ESAVI in health workers29. This could be due to the widespread use of antipyretics prior to vaccination. Studies in dialysis patients with BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine showed that also local pain was the most frequent ESAVI in dialysis patients, while diarrhea, fatigue and myalgia the most frequent systemic manifestations18-21. Symptoms were less frequent with the second component. We found that young age and a history of allergy or recent transplantation were associated with a higher frequency of adverse events.

Regarding the seroconversion rate, almost 40% of the patients did not achieve a detectable anti-SARS-Cov-2 IgG antibody titer with the first component, but had a significant increase after the administration of the second component. Patients with COVID-19 prior to vaccination reached almost maximum levels of antibodies at 21 days of the first component, remaining stable at 21 days of the second. Almost 98% of our population had detectable antibodies after vaccination at that time. Hypo-response to vaccines, in general, has been described in dialysis patients, in vaccination against hepatitis B, which shows a seroconversion of only 40-70% compared to more than 95% in healthy controls30, attributing associated factors such as age, the presence of diabetes, poor nutritional sta tus and altered innate and adaptive immune response31. However, in our experience, the level of seroconversion with the two Sputnik V components was, on the contrary, much higher, and has already been described with other COVID-19 vaccines in dialysis patients21-24,32,33, thus highlighting the importance of a complete vaccination in these individuals21-24. It is noteworthy that patients who presented COVID-19 after the first Sputnik V component had mild forms of the disease, as has been already seen in the general population34.

The case of patients who had detectable anti-SARS-Cov-2 IgG antibodies before the first dose, without a clini cal history of COVID-19, thus considered asymptomatic patients, has been already described in the literature35,36. This group of patients as well as those with known COVID-19 presented a significant seroconversion with the first component21. This characteristic is not reported in most of the published studies, since these patients were generally excluded. Here the presence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with a higher frequency of ESAVI. Recent studies show that the majority of patients with COVID-19 prior to vaccination develop robust and durable immune responses at 6 months, with less than 5% displaying no evidence of humoral and cellular im munity37,38. However, preliminary studies carried out with another category of vaccine showed that in the case of those immunized without previous infection, there was a drop in antibody levels at six months, considering the need for a third dose afterwards39,40. In this context, identifying which subgroup of dialysis patients would need a booster dose according to their characteristics, comorbidities and type of vaccine received deserves to be investigated in the coming months.

Our work has the strength of being the first published report on the safety and efficacy of the Sputnik V vac cine in dialysis patients, especially considering that this vaccine has not yet been recognized by the WHO. The weakness of this study was not being able to evaluate cellular immunity. Two reports18,24 found a cellular im munity (T response) close to 60% of those vaccinated, less than humoral immunity found in our study, which was almost 100%. In any case, the effectiveness of the vaccines applied in dialysis patients will be demonstrated by the reduction in the symptomatic infection rate as well as the fatality rate.

Dialysis patients constitute a vulnerable population for SARS-Cov-2 infection, beyond the recommendations that were implemented by dialysis units41, full vaccination is necessary and also a strong priority. The Sputnik V vaccine has been shown to be safe and effective in this patient population.


The authors thank the institutions and professionals who collaborated with the vaccination of their patients and with the registry of adverse events.

CEMIC Saavedra (Dr. Gustavo Laham, Dra. Anabel Abib); Centro Integral de Nefrología (Dr. Miguel Nadal); Centro de Diálisis Lacroze (Dra. Liliana Cavallero); Centro Médico FI NAER (Dr. Federico Cicora, Dra Liliana Reniero, Dra Jorgelina Petroni); Clínica San Camilo (Dr. Roberto Fruttero);

Dialitys S.A (Dra. Ana María Arcamone, Dr. Sebastían Fernández); Diaverum Argentina S.A, sede Barracas (Dr. Bruno Lococo); Diaverum Argentina S.A., sede Palermo y sede Paternal (Dr. Walter Labonia); FME Avellaneda (Dra. Andrea Sammartino, Dr.Omar Medina); FME Caballito (Dr. Manuel Canalis, Dra. Marina Bravo); FME Ciudad Evita (Dra. Norma Garrote, Dra. Pamela Lafroscia);

FME Ciudadela y San Justo (Dra. María Lujan Zunino, Dr. Gustavo Aguirre); FME Mansilla (Dra. Cecilia Mengarelli, Dra. Luciana Rossi); FME Martínez (Dr. Hugo Zelechower); FME Morón (Dr. Adrian Guinsburg, Dr. Martín Guinsburg, Dra. Sandra Moyano); FME San Fernando (Dr. Osvaldo Torrado; Dra.Patricia Sidoruk, Dr. Darío Campos); Fundación Favaloro (Dr. Pablo Rafaelle, Dr. Pablo Bridoux);

Hospital Británico (Dr. Mariano Forrester, Dra.Romina Iriar te, Dr. Matias Monkowski, Dr. Mauro Lampo, Dra. Jimena Lodolo, Dra. Mariana Ursino, Dr. Óscar Chávez); Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires (Dra.Agustina Heredia Martínez; Dra. Rosario Luxardo; Dra. Lorena Ocampo; Dr. Carlos Musso);

Hospital Donación Francisco Santojanni (Dr.Walter Labo nia); Hospital General de Agudos Dr. Juan A. Fernández (Dr. Bruno Lococco); Hospital Militar Central Cirujano Mayor Dr. Cosme Argerich (Dr Carlos Retamozo); Hospital General de Agudos Carlos G. Durand (Dra Ana Maria Arcamone; Dra Vall ve Cristina); Hospital General de Agudos Dr. Cosme Argerich; Hospital Naval Dr. Pedro Mallo (Dr.Carlos Blanco, Dr.Tomás Carone); Hospital Médico Policial Churruca Visca (Dr. Edgardo Mojico); Hospital Aeronáutico Central (Dra.Soledad Rumiz, Dra Velasquez Subieta); Hospital de Clínicas José de San Martín (Dr.Fernando Segovia, Dr.Mauro Lavorato, Dra.María José Arteaga); IART (Dr.Luis Pataro, Dr.Nelson Rojas Campo verde); Instituto de Nefrología del Oeste S.R.L.(Dr.Fernando Segovia, Dr.Pablo Barbero); Instituto Renal Metropolitano S.A (Dr. Juan Masculino); Servicio de Terapia Renal Argentina S.A sucursal Flores (Dr. Horacio Trevisani, Dr. Fernando Halac); Servicio de Terapia Renal Argentina S.A sucursal Pringles (Dra. Adriana Salmista).


1. World Health Organization. COVID-19 vaccines. 2021. In: In: virus-2019/covid-19-vaccines ; accessed September 2021. [ Links ]

2. Logunov DY, Dolzhikova IV, Zubkova OV, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of an rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine in two for mulations: two open, non-randomized phase 1/2 studies from Russia. Lancet 2020; 396: 887-97. [ Links ]

3. Logunov DY, Dolzhikova IV, Shcheblyakov DV, et al. Safety and efficacy of an rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine: an interim analysis of a randomized controlled phase 3 trial in Rus sia. Lancet 2021; 397: 671-81. [ Links ]

4. Ministry of Health, Argentine. Information Sinopharm. [In ternet]. [2021 Mar 4]. Available from: Available from: opharm_12-3-2021.pdf ; accessed September 2021. [ Links ]

5. Ministry of Health, Argentine. Emergency registration of the product “COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca” [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Mar 4]. Available from: Available from: id-19-vacuna-astrazeneca ; accessed September 2021. [ Links ]

6. Voysey M, Clemens SAC, Madhi SA, et al. Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four random ized controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK. Lancet 2021; 397: 99-111. [ Links ]

7. Di Pasquale A, Bonanni P, Garçon N, et al. Vaccine safety evaluation: Practical aspects in assessing benefits and risks. Vaccine 2016; 34: 6672-80. [ Links ]

8. Hervé C, Laupèze B, Del Giudice G, Didierlaurent AM, Tavares Da Silva F. The how’s and what’s of vaccine reactogenicity. NPJ Vaccines 2019; 4: 39. [ Links ]

9. Mitchell TC, Casella CR. No pain no gain? Adjuvant effects of alum and monophosphoryl lipid A in pertussis and HPV vaccines. Curr Opin Immunol 2017; 47: 17-25. [ Links ]

10. Ministry of Health, Argentine [official website]. Available from: Available from: ; accessed September 2021. [ Links ]

11. Ministry of health of the Argentine. Plan Estratégico de vacunación contra el COVID-19 en Argentina [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Dec 28]. Available from: Available from: ; accessed September 2021. [ Links ]

12. Windpessl M, Bruchfeld A, Anders H-J et al. COVID-19 vaccines and kidney disease. Nat Rev Nephrol 202; 17: 291-3. [ Links ]

13. Bisigniano L, Rosa-Diez G, Tagliafichi V, et al. Infección por COVID-19 en pacientes en diálisis crónica en Ar gentina [COVID-19 infection in chronic dialysis patients in Argentina]. Medicina (B Aires) 2021; 81: 916-921. [ Links ]

14. Heldman MR, Limaye AP. SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in kid ney transplant recipients: Will they be safe and effective and how will we know? J Am Soc Nephrol 2021; 32: 1021-4. [ Links ]

15. Lacson E, Argyropoulos C, Manley H, et al. Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2021; 32: 2735-42. [ Links ]

16. Longlune N, Nogier MB, Miedougé M, et al. High immu nogenicity of a messenger RNA-based vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in chronic dialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2021; 36:1704-9. [ Links ]

17. Zitt E, Davidovic T, Schimpf J, et al. The Safety and Im munogenicity of the mRNA-BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Hemodialysis Patients. Front Immunol 2021; 12: 704773. [ Links ]

18. Strengert M, Becker M, Ramos GM, et al. Cellular and humoral immunogenicity of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vac cine in patients on hemodialysis. EBioMedicine 2021; 70: 103524. [ Links ]

19. Kaiser RA, Haller MC, Apfalter P, et al. Comparison of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine immunogenicity in dialysis patients. Kidney Int 2021; 100:697-8. [ Links ]

20. Yau K, Abe KT, Naimark D, et al. Evaluation of the SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response to the BNT162b2 Vaccine in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e2123622. [ Links ]

21. Jahn M, Korth J, Dorsch O, et al. Humoral Response to SARS-CoV-2-Vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer- BioNTech) in Patients on Hemodialysis. Vaccines (Basel) 2021; 9:360. [ Links ]

22. Rodríguez-Espinosa D, Broseta JJ, Maduell F, et al. Hu moral response of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in peritoneal dialysis patients. Kidney Int 2021;100: 476-7. [ Links ]

23. Schrezenmeier E, Bergfeld L, Hillus D, et al. Immunogenic ity of COVID-19 Tozinameran Vaccination in Patients on Chronic Dialysis. Front Immunol 2021; 12: 690698. [ Links ]

24. Broseta JJ, Rodríguez-Espinosa D, Rodríguez N, et al. Humoral and Cellular Responses to mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines Administered to He modialysis Patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2021; 78: 571-81. [ Links ]

25. Garcia P, Anand S, Han J, et al. COVID-19 vaccine type and humoral immune response in patients receiving dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2021; 33: 33-7. [ Links ]

26. Billany RE, Selvaskandan H, Adenwalla SF, et al. Se roprevalence of antibody to S1 spike protein following vaccination against COVID-19 in patients receiving he modialysis: a call to arms. Kidney Int 2021; 99:1492-4. [ Links ]

27. Yanay NB, Freiman S, Shapira M, et al. Experience with SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in dialysis pa tients. Kidney Int 2021; 99:1496-8. [ Links ]

28. Rosa-Diez G, Papaginovic M, Lombi F, et al. Safety and Ef fectiveness of COVID-19 SPUTNIK V Vaccine in Dialysis Patients. Available from: [ Links ]

29. Pagotto V, Ferloni A, Mercedes Soriano M, et al. Active monitoring of early safety of Sputnik V vaccine in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Medicina (B Aires) 2021; 81: 408-14. [ Links ]

30. Stevens CE, Alter HJ, Taylor PE, et al. Hepatitis B Vaccine in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis. Immunogenicity and Efficacy. N Engl J Med 1984; 311: 496-501. [ Links ]

31. Saco TV, Strauss AT, Ledford DK. Hepatitis B Vaccine Nonresponders: Possible Mechanisms and Solutions. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2018; 121: 320-7. [ Links ]

32. Ikizler TA, Coates PT, Rovin BH, et al. Immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in patients receiving kidney replacement therapy. Kidney Int 2021; 99:1275-9. [ Links ]

33. Hou YC, Lu KC, Kuo KL. The Efficacy of COVID -19 Vac cines in Chronic Kidney Disease and Kidney Transplanta tion Patients: A Narrative Review. Vaccines (Basel) 2021; 9: 885. [ Links ]

34. González S, Olszevicki S, Salazar M, et al. Effectiveness of the first component of Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V) on reduction of SARS-CoV-2 confirmed infections, hospitali sations and mortality in patients aged 60-79: a retrospec tive cohort study in Argentina. E Clinical Medicine 2021; 40: 101126. [ Links ]

35. Corbett RW, Blakey S, Nitsch D, et al. Epidemiology of COVID-19 in an Urban Dialysis Center. J Am Soc Nephrol 2020; 31: 1815-23. [ Links ]

36. Novelli L, Raimondi F, Ghirardi A, et al. At the peak of COVID-19 age and disease severity but not comorbidities are predictors of mortality: COVID-19 burden in Bergamo, Italy. Panminerva Med 2021; 63: 51-61. [ Links ]

37. Clarke CL, Prendecki M, Dhutia A, et al. Longevity of SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in hemodialysis patients and protection against reinfection. Kidney Int 2021; 99: 1470-7. [ Links ]

38. Forbes S, Davari M, Gnanasampanthan S, et al. Persis tence of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of hemodialysis patients with COVID-19. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2021; 15:gfab066. [ Links ]

39. Robert T, Lano G, Giot M, et al. Humoral response after SARS-COV2 vaccination in patient undergoing mainte nance hemodialysis: loss of immunity, third dose and non-responders. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2021; 37: 390-2. [ Links ]

40. Davidovic T, Schimpf J, Abbassi-Nik A, et al. Waning humoral response six months after SARS-CoV-2 vac cination with the mRNA-BNT162b2 vaccine in hemo dialysis patients - time for a boost. Kidney Int 2021; 100: 1334-5. [ Links ]

41. Rosa Diez G, Bonanno C, Lombi F, et al. Recomen daciones prácticas para el manejo de los pacientes con enfermedad renal (Er) durante la pandemia por COVID-19 2020 [Practical Recommendations For The Management Of Patients With Kidney Disease (Kd) Dur ing The Covid-19 Pandemic 2020]. Revista Nefrología Argentina 2020. Available from: bre_2020_1609201.pdfLinks ]

Received: January 13, 2022; Accepted: April 11, 2022

*Postal address: Guillermo Rosa-Diez, Andonaegui 2349, 1431 Buenos Aires, Argentina e-mail:

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License