PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Steven M. Brunelli AU - Scott Sibbel AU - Steph Karpinski AU - Gilbert Marlowe AU - Adam G. Walker AU - Jeffrey Giullian AU - David Van Wyck AU - Tara Kelley AU - Rachael Lazar AU - Meredith L. Zywno AU - Jeffrey J. Connaire AU - Amy Young AU - Francesca Tentori TI - Comparative Effectiveness of BNT162b2 versus Ad26.COV2.S for the Prevention of COVID-19 among Dialysis Patients AID - 10.1101/2021.10.21.21265339 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.10.21.21265339 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/25/2021.10.21.21265339.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/25/2021.10.21.21265339.full AB - Background mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been shown to be highly effective among dialysis patients. Because individual vaccines may be differentially available or acceptable to patients, it is important to understand comparative effectiveness of other vaccines, such those based on adeno-virus technologies.Methods This retrospective study compared the clinical effectiveness of Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson and Johnson) to BNT162b2 among dialysis patients. Patients initiating BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) were matched 1:1 to Ad26.COV2.S recipients based on age, race, US state of residence, calendar week of first vaccine receipt, and history of COVID-19. The primary outcome was the comparative rate of COVID-19 considered over 3 follow-up intervals: weeks 1-3, 4-6, and ≥ 7 post-vaccination. In a subset of consented Ad26.COV2.S patients, blood samples were collected ≥28 days after vaccination and anti-SARS-Cov-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies were measured.Results There were 2659 matched pairs of patients who received a first dose of each vaccine. During weeks 1-3, incidence rates were 1.13 vs 1.39 per 1000 patient-weeks (pt-wks) for BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S recipients, respectively (incident rate difference [IRD]: 0.25; 95% CI: -0.90, 1.36). During weeks 4-6, incidence rates were 0.78 vs 0.39 per 1000 pt-wks for BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S recipients, respectively (IRD: -0.39; 95% CI: -1.16, 0.38). After week 7, incidence rates were 1.29 vs 1.39 per 1000 pt-wks for BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S recipients, respectively (IRD: 0.10; 95% CI: -0.35, 0.55). Results were similar when considering only patients without a history of COVID-19 and among matched pairs in which BNT162b2 recipients completed the 2-dose regimen. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in 59.4% (95% CI: 53.0%-65.5%) of Ad26.COV2.S patients.Conclusion In a large real-world cohort of dialysis patients, no difference was detected in the clinical effectiveness of BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S, despite an inconsistent antibody response to the latter. These data support the use of either agent in ongoing vaccination efforts in this population.Competing Interest StatementS. M. Brunelli, S. Sibbel, S. Karpinski, G. Marlowe, A.G. Walker, T. Kelley, J.J. Connaire, A. Young, and F. Tentori are employees of DaVita Clinical Research. J. Giullian, D. Van Wyck, R. Lazar, and M.L. Zywno are employees of DaVita, Inc. S.M. Brunelli's spouse is an employee of AstraZeneca.Funding StatementNo external funding was received.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Quorum IRB gave ethical approval for the comparative effectiveness analyses portion of this work. Advarra IRB gave ethical approval for the antibody portion of this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are proprietary and property of a HIPAA covered entity and therefore cannot be shared