An analysis of antibody responses and clinical sequalae of the Sinopharm HB02 COVID19 vaccine in dialysis patients in the United Arab Emirates

Aim To establish the responses to the Sinopharm HB02 COVID‐19 vaccination in the dialysis population, which are not well established. We examined the humoral responses to the Sinopharm COVID vaccine in haemodialysis patients. Methods Standard vaccinations (two doses at interval of ~21 days) were given to all consenting haemodialysis patients on dialysis (n = 1296). We measured the antibody responses at 14–21 days after the second vaccine to define the development of anti‐spike antibodies >15 AU/ml after vaccination and observed the clinical effects of vaccination. Results Vaccination was very well tolerated with few side‐effects. In those who consented to antibody measurements, (n = 446) baseline sampling showed 77 had positive antibodies, yet received full vaccination without any apparent adverse events. Positive anti‐spike antibodies developed in 50% of the 270 baseline negative patients who had full sampling, compared with 78.1% in the general population. COVID infection continues to occur in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, but in the whole group vaccination appears to have been associated with a reduction in the case fatality rate. Conclusion The humoral immune responses to standard HB02 vaccination schedules are attenuated in a haemodialysis cohort, but likely the vaccine saves lives. We suggest that an enhanced HB02 vaccination course or antibody checking may be prudent to protect this vulnerable group of patients. We suggest a booster dose of this vaccine at 3 months should be given to all dialysis patients, on the grounds that it is well tolerated even in those with good antibody levels and there may be a survival advantage. SUMMARY AT A GLANCE In this analysis of humoral response to the Sinopharm COVID‐19 vaccine in over 400 haemodialysis patients in United Arab Emirates, positive anti‐spike antibodies (>15 AU/ml) developed in 50% of 270 COVID‐19 sero‐naive patients who had full sampling, compared with 78.1% in the general population. Side effects were remarkably few.