Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 5;19(3):e0297568. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297568

Minimal change disease following COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review

Konstantinos S Kechagias 1,*, Joshua D Laleye 1, Jan Drmota 1, Georgios Geropoulos 2, Georgios Kyrtsonis 1, Marina Zafeiri 3, Konstantinos Katsikas Triantafyllidis 4, Dimitra Stathi 5
Editor: Rajendra Bhimma6
PMCID: PMC10914286  PMID: 38442131

Abstract

Background

The newly developed COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective and safe. However, a small portion of vaccine recipients experience a wide range of adverse events. Recently, glomerular disease, including the development of Minimal Change Disease (MCD), has been observed after administration of different COVID-19 vaccines, although causality remains a matter of debate.

Aim

The aim of this systematic review was to comprehensively examine the available literature and provide an overview of reported cases of MCD following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.

Results

We identified 46 eligible articles which included 94 cases with MCD following COVID-19 vaccination of which one case was reported twice due to a second relapse. Fifty-five participants were males (59.1%, 55/93) and 38 (40.9%, 38/93) were females with a mean age of 45.02 years (SD:20.95). From the included patients 50 (50/94, 53.1%) were described as new-onset and 44 (46.9%, 44/94) as relapse. On average, symptomatology developed 16.68 days (SD: 22.85) after the administration of the vaccine irrespective of the dose. Data about symptoms was reported in 68 cases with the most common being oedema (80.8%, 55/68), followed by weight gain (26.5%, 18/68) and hypertension (16.1%, 11/68). In terms of outcome, more than half of the patients went into remission (61%, 57/94), while 18 recovered or improved post treatment (19.1%, 18/94). Two people relapsed after treatment (2.1%, 2/94) and two cases (2.1%, 2/94) were reported as not recovered.

Conclusion

MCD is possibly a condition clinicians may see in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Although this adverse event is uncommon, considering the limited published data and the absence of confirmed causality, increased clinical awareness is crucial for the early recognition and optimal management of these patients.

Introduction

In late 2019, a global pandemic, which created extraordinary socio-economic consequences, emerged due to an outbreak of an uncommon viral pneumonia [13]. The aetiological factor was later identified as a previously unknown strain of coronavirus named Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), responsible for the onset of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The disease has since spread extensively, impacting hundreds of millions of individuals across the globe [4, 5].

Various vaccines have been utilised successfully against SARS-CoV-2 such as COMIRNATY (BioNTech-Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2), COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna (Moderna’s mRNA vaccine-1273), VAXZEVRIA (AstraZeneca-Oxford University’s ChAdOx1-nCoV19), COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen (Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S) and CoronaVac COVID19 vaccine (Sinovac Biotech’s Vero cell) [6, 7]. Currently, nearly two-thirds of the global population have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, with more than 13 billion doses administered worldwide [8].

A plethora of published studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the aforementioned vaccines, with only infrequent adverse events reported in the literature [912]. Nonetheless, isolated adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccine administration are unavoidable, given the vast amount of vaccination doses needed to curb the spread of COVID-19 [13, 14]. At present, patients commonly experience various reported adverse symptoms, such as muscle pain, fever, headache, nausea, and vomiting. In addition to the frequently observed adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccination, patients have also reported a wide range of complaints and symptoms, including immune-mediated adverse events [13, 1518].

Recently, there is a growing number of reports regarding the development of Minimal Change Disease (MCD) in patients following their initial or second COVID-19 vaccine doses; However, these cases have not yet undergone thorough investigation, and the administration of COVID-19 vaccines has not been recognised as a causative factor for renal dysfunction. To address this gap, our study systematically analysed the existing literature to present a comprehensive summary of documented cases of MCD following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Methods

This review was reported based on the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) guidelines (S1 Fig).

Literature search

Two reviewers (KSK, JDL) searched PubMed and Scopus library databases from inception until January 2023 independently. The search included the following terms: “(COVID 19 vaccin* OR SARS-COV2 vaccin*) AND (minimal change disease OR glomerulonephritis OR nephrotic OR nephritic)”. There were no limitations placed regarding study design, geographic region, or language. Additionally, a manual search of references cited in the included articles and relevant published reviews was conducted to identify any missed studies. Discrepancies during the literature search were resolved by a third investigator (DS).

Eligibility criteria

We included studies that provided data for new onset or relapse of MCD following COVID-19 vaccination with at least one dose. All study designs were considered eligible for inclusion. Review articles, abstracts submitted in conferences and non-peer reviewed sources were not eligible for inclusion. Studies on in vitro and animal models were excluded.

Data extraction and handling

In all studies, patient data was retrieved and handled by two authors (JDL, JD) who conducted the data extraction independently. We collected the following information: sex, age, comorbidities, vaccine type, number of doses received, presenting complains and symptoms, history of previous COVID-19 infection, laboratory tests including antibodies, primary diagnosis, imaging findings, therapeutic management and clinical outcome. Any disagreements were discussed and resolved by a third author (KSK).

Quality assessment

The quality of the included studies was assessed using the criteria established by the Task Force for Reporting Adverse Events of the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP) [19]. The evaluation was based on the satisfactory reporting of 12 different elements, including the title, patient demographics, current health status, medical history, physical examination, patient disposition, drug identification, dosage, administration/drug reaction interface, concomitant therapies, adverse events, and discussion. Each element was assigned a score of either 0 (lack of information) or 1 (information present) for the studies.

Results

Study characteristics

The initial literature search yielded 830 publications. In the first screening 777 studies were excluded as irrelevant. Forty-six studies [2065] were found to be eligible for the systematic review based on the predefined inclusion criteria (Fig 1). Twenty of the studies were conducted in Asia, 16 in Europe, 9 in Americas, and 1 in Australia. Seven studies were case series and 39 were case reports (Table 1).

Fig 1. PRISMA flowchart.

Fig 1

IPD: individual patient data.

Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.

Author, Year, Country Case number, Age, Gender Comorbidities Previous glomerulopathy Previous COVID-19 infection COVID-19 vaccine type and dose New onset/relapse of minimal change disease post vaccination Main presenting symptoms Days for the onset of symptoms Treatment Outcome
Marampudi 2022
USA
case 1
54 F
Hypertension MCD none mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse • Lower Limb Oedema
• Foamy Urine
7 Prednisolone (50mg/day) prednisone taper rituximab if relapses
Pella 2022
Greece
case 1
18 M
None None none mRNA (Pfizer),
first
new • Nausea
• Bloating
• Abdominal Pain
• Lower Limb Oedema
• Weight Gain
11 Irbesartan 150 mg
Methylprednisolone 48 mg
Complete remission in 6 weeks
Alhosaini 2022
UAE
case 1
16 M
None n/a NA mRNA (Pfizer),
second
new • Lower Limb Oedema
• Ankle Swelling
• Abdominal Pain
• Weight gain
7 Prednisone 60mg,
furosemide, Olmesartan
Oedema resolved after 1 week
Mochizuki 2022
Japan
case 1
25 F
None None NA mRNA (Moderna),
first
new • Facial Oedema
• Peripheral oedema
• Weight gain
26 IV Methylprednisolone 500 mg/day for 3 days
Oral Prednisolone 45mg/day.
Complete remission by day 10
Park 2022
Korea
case 1
34 M
NA None NA mRNA (Moderna), second new • Peri-ocular oedema
• Dyspnoea
• Weight gain
3 Prednisolone Remission after 11 weeks
case 2
60 M
NA None NA mRNA (Moderna), second new • Oedema
• Weight gain
5 Steroids Complete remission after 2 weeks
Hartley 2022
UK
case 1
80s F
None None NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
new • Oedema
• Reduced urine output
• Hypertension
2 Loop diuretics,
Low molecular weight heparin,
Steroids,
Levothyroxine
Complete remission
case 2
40s M
Wolf-Parkinson-White Syndrome,
Cardiac ablation
MCD NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse • Oedema
• Diarrhoea
• Vomiting
1 Furosemide,
Prednisolone,
Ciclosporin
Complete remission
Leong 2021
Singapore
case 1
42 F
None MCD NA mRNA (Moderna), second relapse • Oedema
• Frothy urine
11 Prednisolone Remission within 2 weeks
case 2
30 M
None MCD NA mRNA (Pfizer), second relapse • Oedema
• Frothy urine
7 Prednisolone Remission within 2 weeks
Tanaka 2022
Japan
case 1
69 F
Hypertension,
Hyperlipidaemia
None NA mRNA (Pfizer), second new • Oedema
• Weight gain
9–18 days Prednisolone Complete remission within 1 month
Jongvilaikasem 2022
Thailand
case 1
14 M
None None NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
new • Oedema
• Hypertension
5 Corticosteroids Partial remission after 5 weeks treatment
Marinaki 2021
Greece
case 1
55 F
Hypothyroidism None NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first and second
mode (after second dose) • Oedema
• Weight gain
4 days after first dose. 1 day after second Prednisolone Remission after 10 days
Biradar 2021
India
case 1
22 M
None None NA Viral Vector (Oxford-Astrazeneca),
first
new • Oedema 11 Prednisolone Remission after 1 week
Unver 2021
Turkey
case 1
67 F
Type 2 diabetes mellitus None NA Inactivated (Sinovac),
first
new • Oedema
• Weight gain
20 Ramipril,
Valsartan,
Nebivolol,
Rosuvastatin,
Furosemide
Represented after second dose
Lebedev 2021
Israel
case 1
50 M
None None NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
new • Oedema
• Abdominal distension
4 days Prednisolone Improved 17 days later
Hanna 2021
Canada
case 1
60 M
None None NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
new • Oedema
• Fatigue
• Shortness of breath on exertion
10 Ramipril,
Furosemide,
Prednisolone
Remission from 14 days confirmed 3 weeks later
Baskaran 2022
Australia
case 1
31 F
NA None NA mRNA (Pfizer), second new • Oedema 21 High-dose steroids Good response to treatment
case 2
55 M
NA None NA Viral Vector (Oxford-Astrazeneca), second new • Oedema
• Ascites
7 Prednisolone Improved kidney function and proteinuria
Thappy 2021
Qatar
case 1
43 M
None None none mRNA (Moderna), first new • Oedema
• Dyspnoea
7 Furosemide,
Amlodipine,
Prednisolone
No oedema, raised serum albumin, reduced urine protein after 2 weeks
Abdulgayoom 2021
Qatar
case 1
45 F
Hypothyroidism,
Atopic dermatitis,
Heterozygous factor V mutation
None NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
new • Oedema
• Abdominal distention
• Foamy urine
• Abdominal ascites
4 Furosemide,
Prednisolone,
Vitamin D,
Calcium,
Pantoprazole,
Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole
NA
Klomjit 2021
USA
case 1
83 M
NA None NA mRNA (Moderna), second new • AKI 28 High dose steroids Responded to treatment at 1 month follow-up
case 2
67 F
NA NA NA mRNA (Moderna), second relapse • Oedema 21 High dose steroids,
Rituximab
Responded to treatment at 2-month follow-up
Lim 2021
Korea
case 1
51 M
None None NA Viral Vector (Janssen),
first
new • Oedema
• Reduced urination
• Weight gain
7 Furosemide,
Methylprednisolone
Decreased serum creatinine, increased serum albumin after 7 days
Salem 2021
USA
case 1
33 F
None MCD NA mRNA (Moderna), second relapse • Oedema
• Headache
• Vomiting
• Hypertension
21 NA NA
case 2
41 F
Asthma None NA mRNA (Pfizer), second new • Fever
• Oedema
• Weight gain
• Hypertension
5 NA NA
case 3
34 F
None MCD NA mRNA (Pfizer), second relapse • Oedema
• Abdominal pain
28 NA NA
Morlidge 2021
UK
case 1
30 M
None MCD NA Viral Vector
(Oxford-Astrazeneca),
first
relapse • Headache
• Frothy urine
2 Prednisolone Complete remission after 10 days treatment
case 2
40 F
None MCD NA Viral Vector
(Oxford-Astrazeneca),
first
relapse • Headache
• Frothy urine
• Oedema
1 Prednisolone increased Complete remission within 2 weeks
Özkan 2022
Turkey
case 1
33 F
None MCD NA inactive SARS-CoV-2, second relapse • Foamy urine
• Oedema
14 Methylprednisolone NA
Kervella 2021
France
case 1
34 F
None MCD NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse • Oedema 10 Increased corticosteroid dose Complete remission after second dose relapse
Chandra 2022
USA
case 1
23 F
None None NA mRNA (Moderna), second new • Oedema
• Elevated blood pressure
7 Corticosteroids Complete remission after 4 weeks
case 2
74 M
Hypertension None NA mRNA (Pfizer), second new • Oedema
• Weight gain
2 Supportive therapy Complete remission after ~6 weeks
case 3
72 F
Hypertension,
Obesity,
Dyslipidaemia
None None Viral Vector
(Oxford-AstraZeneca),
First
new • Oedema
• Dyspnoea
• Fatigue
14 Prednisolone Complete remission of proteinuria and improved creatinine and albumin after 2 weeks treatment
case 4
71 M
Acute myeloid leukaemia,
Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation,
Glucocorticoid-induced diabetes,
Mild GVHD in liver
MCD
(GVHD)
NA mRNA (Moderna), second relapse • Foamy and dark urine
• Oedema
• Abdominal bloating
7 Prednisolone,
Rituximab,
Loop diuretic
Complete remission after 7 months
Hummel 2022
France
case 1
38 M
NA NA NA Viral Vector
(Oxford-AstraZeneca),
first
relapse NA 14 Corticosteroids,
Mycophenolate Mofetil
Complete remission after 1 month
case 3
74 M
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse NA 21 Corticosteroids,
Calcineurin inhibitor
Complete remission after 3 months
case 4
46 F
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse NA 11 Corticosteroids,
Calcineurin inhibitor
Complete remission after 1 month
case 5
23 M
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse NA 21 Corticosteroids,
Obinutuzumab
Complete remission after 1 month
case 6
30 F
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer), second relapse NA 6 Corticosteroids,
Rituximab
Complete remission after 1 month
case 7
36 F
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse NA 10 Corticosteroids,
Rituximab
Complete remission after 1 month
case 8
41 F
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse NA 30 Corticosteroids,
Calcineurin inhibitor
Complete remission after 1 month
case 9
16 M
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse NA 15 Corticosteroids Complete remission after 1 month
case 10
19 M
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse NA 21 Corticosteroids Complete remission after 1 month
case 11
48 M
NA NA NA mRNA (Moderna), first relapse NA 7 Corticosteroids,
Mycophenolate mofetil
Complete remission after 1 month
case 12
40 M
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse NA 7 Corticosteroids Complete remission after 1 month
case 14
83 M
NA NA NA Viral Vector (Oxford-AstraZenecca),
second
relapse NA 20 Corticosteroids Complete remission after 3 months
case 15
53 F
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse NA 26 Corticosteroids Complete remission after 1 month
case 16
25 M
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse NA8 21 Corticosteroids,
Mycophenolate mofetil
Complete remission after 1 month
case 17
19 M
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer), second relapse NA 25 Corticosteroids Complete remission after 1 month
case 18
15 M
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse NA 28 Corticosteroids Complete remission after 1 month
case 19
31 M
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse NA 21 Corticosteroids Complete remission after 1 month
case 20
21 M
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
second
relapse NA 20 Corticosteroids Complete remission after 3 months
case 21
42 M
NA NA NA Viral Vector
(Oxford-AstraZeneca), first
relapse NA 11 Corticosteroids Complete remission after 3 months
case 22
72 M
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
third
relapse NA 7 Corticosteroids,
Mycophenolate mofetil
NA
case 23
18 F
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse NA 14 Corticosteroids,
Mycophenolate mofetil
Complete remission after 1 month
case 24
16 F
NA NA NA mRNA (Moderna), second relapse NA 1 Corticosteroids Complete remission after 1 month
case 25
72 M
NA NA NA mRNA (Pfizer),
third
relapse NA 2 Corticosteroids NA
Güngör 2022
Turkey
case 1
17 F
No Idiopathic nephrotic syndrome NA modRNA,
second
relapse • Oedema 19 Corticosteroids Remission after 2 weeks of treatment
case 2
17.5 F
No Idiopathic nephrotic syndrome NA NA,
second
relapse • Oedema 12 Corticosteroids Remission after 2 weeks of treatment
Fenoglio 2022
Italy
case 5
36 M
NA No NA mRNA (Pfizer), second new • Urinary abnormalities 82 Rituximab NA
case 7
82 M
NA No NA mRNA (Moderna), second new • Renal failure
• Nephrotic syndrome
79 Glucocorticoids NA
case 8
54 F
NA No NA mRNA (Moderna), second new • Nephrotic syndrome 62 Glucocorticoids NA
case 12
42 F
NA No NA mRNA (Pfizer), second new • Renal failure
• Nephrotic syndrome
88 MC NA
case 16
20 M
NA No NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
new • Nephrotic syndrome 46 Rituximab NA
Lim 2022
Korea
case 2
52 M
No No NA Viral Vector (Janssen),
first
new • Oedema
• Nephrotic syndrome
• Weight gain
7 Prednisolone Complete response at 31 weeks
Dormann 2021
Germany
case 1
78 M
Arterial hypertension,
Coronary heart disease,
Hyperlipoproteinemia,
COPD,
Allergies
No none mRNA (Pfizer),
first
new • Oedema
• Weight gain
4 Diuretics Relapse after second dose (see row below)
case 1 (2)
78 M
(See row above) (See row above) (See row above)  second relapse • Oedema
• Weight gain
• Pleural effusion
14 Prednisolone,
Diuretics,
Anticoagulants
Partial remission, reduced proteinuria and weight loss after 3 weeks
case 2
31 F
Lipedema No none Viral Vector (Janssen),
first
new • Oedema
• Foamy urine
• Syncope with orthostatic dysregulation
0 Prednisolone,
Antibiotics,
Immunoglobulin,
Rituximab,
Anticoagulation,
Diuretics
Complete remission with mild hyperlipoproteinemia at day 52
Anupama 2021
India
case 1
19 F
NA No NA Viral Vector
(Oxford-AstraZeneca),
first
new • Oedema 8 Prednisolone Clinical and biochemical remission
Schwotzer 2021
Switzerland
case 1
22 M
No MCD NA mRNA (Pfizer),
NA
relapse • Chills and low-grade fever
• Proteinuria
2 Prednisolone,
Tacrolimus
Remission after 17 days treatment
Hong 2022
Taiwan
case 1
51 M
No No NA mRNA (Moderna), second new • Oedema
• Foamy urine
3 Prednisolone,
Angiotensin 2 receptor blocker
Complete remission at 10 weeks treatment
Timmermans 2022
Netherlands
case 1
64 F
NA
No none Viral Vector
(Oxford-AstraZeneca), first
new • Oedema 7 Prednisolone Complete remission after 4 months
case 2
34 M
NA No none mRNA (Pfizer), second new NA 28 No NA
case 3
74 M
NA No none mRNA (Pfizer), second new NA 42 Prednisolone NA
Nakazawa 2022
Japan
case 1
15 M
No No yes mRNA (Pfizer),
first
new • Oedema
• Weight gain
4 Prednisolone Complete remission at 12 days of treatment
Arias 2022
Spain
case 1
28 F
No Idiopathic nephrotic syndrome yes Viral Vector
(Oxford-AstraZeneca),
first
relapse • Oedema 2 Prednisolone,
Atorvastatin,
Antiplatelet therapy,
Omeprazole,
Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole
Negative proteinuria and no oedema after 4 weeks of treatment
Haider 2022
Italy
case 1
63 M
No MCD NA mRNA (Pfizer), booster relapse • Oedema
• Weight gain
• Elevated blood pressure
< 7 Prednisolone Normal protein:creatinie ratio after 2 weeks treatment
Fehr 2021
Switzerland
case 1
65 M
Collagenous colitis No NA mRNA (Moderna), first new • Nephrotic syndrome
• AKI
8 Dialysis,
Immunosuppressive therapy
Complete remission after treatment
Nagai 2022
Japan
case 1
22 M
No No NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
new • Oedema 9 Heparin,
Prednisolone,
Furosemide
Clinical signs disappeared on 7th day of treatment
Caza 2021
USA
case 3
70 F
NA No none mRNA (Pfizer), second new • AKI
• Nephrotic syndrome
< 7 Steroid therapy Recovery at 4 weeks
case 4
43 F
NA No none mRNA (Pfizer), second new • Nephrotic syndrome 14 Steroid therapy Recovery at 4 weeks
case 5
79 M
NA No none mRNA (NA),
first
new • AKI
• Nephrotic syndrome
< 14 Steroid therapy Recovery at 4 weeks
case 6
72 M
NA No none mRNA (Moderna), second new Nephrotic syndrome 7 Steroid therapy, ACEi Recovery at 2 weeks
case 7
47 F
NA No none mRNA (Pfizer), second new • AKI
• Nephrotic syndrome
< 14 Dialysis,
Steroid therapy,
ACEi
No recovery at 4 weeks
case 8
23 M
NA No none Viral Vector
(Oxford-AstraZeneca), first
new • AKI
• Nephrotic syndrome
14 Steroid therapy,
Dialysis
Recovery at 3 weeks
case 9
45 F
NA No none mRNA (Moderna), first new • Nephrotic syndrome < 14 Steroid therapy NA
Fornara 2022
Italy
case 4
66 F
Hypertension
TIA
No NA mRNA (Pfizer), second new NA 160 Oral steroids Partial remission after 56 days
Leclerc 2021
Canada
case 1
71 M
Dyslipidaemia No NA Viral Vector
(Oxford-AstraZeneca), first
new • Oedema
• Elevated blood pressure
• AKI
1 Methylprednisolone,
Prednisolone,
Haemodialysis
Improvement after 30 days treatment
Mancianti 2021
Italy
case 1
39 M
No MCD none in the weeks prior mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse • Oedema
• Fatigue
• AKI
3 Prednisolone Complete remission after 4 weeks treatment
Holzworth 2021
USA
case 1
63 F
Hypertension,
Tobacco dependence
No NA mRNA (Moderna), first new • Oedema
• Dyspnoea
• Fatigue
• Frothy urine
• Elevated blood pressure
• Mild AKI
less than 7 days Methylprednisolone,
Prednisolone,
Valsartan,
Loop diuretic
NA
Komaba 2021
Japan
case 1
60s M
No MCD NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
relapse • Frothy urine 8 Prednisolone,
Cyclosporine
Proteinuria resolved within 2 weeks treatment
D’Agati 2021
USA
case 1
77 M
Type 2 diabetes mellitus,
Coronary artery disease,
Obesity
No NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
new • Oedema
• Weight gain
• Elevated blood pressure
• Proteinuria
7 Methylprednisolone,
Prednisolone,
Furosemide,
Bumetanide
No improvement after 3 weeks treatment
Maas 2021
Netherlands
case 1
80s M
Venous thromboembolism No NA mRNA (Pfizer),
first
new • Oedema
• Weight gain
7 Prednisolsteone Improvement after 10 days treatment

ACEi: angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, AKI: acute kidney injury, F: female, GVHD: graft versus host disease, M: male, MCD: Minimal Change Disease, NA: not available

We identified a total of 94 cases of MCD following COVID-19 vaccination, of which one case was reported twice after relapsing following the second dose.

Fifty-five participants were males (59.1%, 55/93) and 38 (40.9%, 38/93) were females with a mean age of 45.02 years (SD:20.95). From the included patients 50 (50/94, 53.1%) were characterised as new-onset and 44 (46.9%, 44/94) as relapse. The mean age of individuals with MCD relapse was 41.6 (SD:20). For most of the patients (79.5%, 74/93) data regarding COVID-19 infection before or at the time of diagnosis was not provided. Among the remaining patients only 2 were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. In 2 cases, vaccine brand was not reported (2.1%, 2/94). The majority of the patients received COMIRNATY (58.5%, 55/94), followed by COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna (20.2%, 19/94) and VAXZEVRIA (14%, 13/94), while 4 participants received COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen (3.2%, 3/94) and CoronaVac (1%, 1/94). In one case vaccine type was reported as modRNA (1%, 1/94). The majority of patients developed symptoms after the first dose (55.5%, 52/94), followed by the second dose (39.3%, 37/94), third dose (2.2%, 2/94), booster (1%, 1/94), both first and second doses (1%, 1/94), while in one case relevant data was not provided (1%, 1/94).

On average, the symptoms developed 16.68 days (SD: 22.85) after the administration of the vaccine irrespective of the dose. Data about symptomatology was reported in 68 individuals with the most common symptom being oedema (80.8%, 55/68), weight gain (26.5%, 18/68) and hypertension (16.1%, 11/68). MCD was confirmed with biopsy in 76 cases (80.8%, 76/94). Sixteen cases (17%, 16/94) were relapses and biopsy was not repeated. In two cases (2.1%), diagnosis was based on clinical suspicion (S1 Table). The majority of patients received steroids (91.5%, 86/94), while some patients were treated with immunosuppressive agents (22.3%, 21/94) and diuretics (17%, 16/94). More than half went to remission (61%, 57/94), while 18 achieved recovery or improved following treatment (19.1%, 18/94). Two people relapsed after treatment (2.1%, 2/94) and two cases (2.1%, 2/94) were reported as not recovered. In 15 cases (16%, 15/94) data about outcome was not provided.

Quality of the studies

The mean quality score indicated that the studies reported on average 10 of the recommended 12 elements, defined by the guidelines. Ten studies had a perfect score of 12 while the second most common score was 11 (S2 Table).

Discussion

The administration of COVID-19 vaccines has not been deemed as a causative factor for kidney disease. However, recent findings, primarily derived from case reports and case series, indicate that various kidney disorders such as Minimal Change Disease (MCD), IgA nephropathy, membranous glomerulopathy, and IgG4-related disease have been observed to initially manifest or relapse subsequent to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. These observations suggest a potential link between COVID-19 vaccination and the occurrence or recurrence of MCD. In this study, we conducted a thorough screening of the existing literature to present a comprehensive summary of documented cases of MCD following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Our systematic review identified 46 relevant reports, involving a total of 93 patients, in which MCD was observed subsequent to the administration of various COVID-19 vaccines. In the majority of cases, symptoms began to emerge following the first vaccine dose, and clinical improvement was reported for most patients.

Results in the context of the literature

MCD consists the most frequent cause of nephrotic syndrome in childhood and rarely affects adults. MCD generally presents with a sudden onset of symptoms and signs of nephrotic syndrome and requires histologic confirmation in adults. Its pathogenesis remains to be elucidated, however, evidence points towards T cell dysfunction being a major mechanism [66]. It has been previously proposed that a glomerular permeability factor is produced, attacks the glomerular filtration barrier and leads to the destruction of podocytes and subsequent proteinuria. It’s most commonly idiopathic, but infections, medications, vaccinations, malignancies, and allergens are among the secondary etiologic factors [67]. Infections including syphilis, hepatitis C and tuberculosis, and vaccinations against hepatitis B, influenza, measles and rubella are established triggering factors for the relapse of primary glomerulonephritis, potentially with a similar mechanism involved in the development of MCD [68].

In animal models the prevalence of CD8+ suppressor T-cells and subsequent cytokine-induced injury has been observed in the active phase of MCD [60, 69]. This could provide a possible explanation for the aforementioned cases since the existent vaccinations against COVID-19 are known to strongly induce T-cell activation and this could lead to immune mediated podocyte damage. It’s worth noting that during the vaccine-induced T-cell activation, interferon gamma and inerleukin-2 (IL-2) are increased and IL-2 has been found to be raised in the acute phase and relapses of idiopathic nephrotic syndrome [22]. Direct podocyte injury could also be implicated in MCD in both COVID-19 infection and vaccination and interestingly ACE-2 is expressed in podocytes, however there is currently not adequate evidence to establish a causative mechanism. Moreover, similarities between vaccine adjuvants and human proteins could lead to immune cross-reactivity and drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions through molecular mimicry [70, 71].

Even though MCD most commonly presents during childhood, it has been reported mainly in adults following COVID-19 vaccination, however this is to be expected considering the high vaccination rates in these age groups. MCD symptomatology commenced within 3 weeks from the first dose in more than half of the patients, although a significant amount of people developed symptoms after the second dose, which could be associated to the amplitude of the immune response. Symptoms did not differ from those commonly reported in literature and glucocorticoids were chosen as first-line treatment in 91.5% of the cases. Concerns about potential interference of immunosuppressive agents such as rituximab in the vaccination efficacy has been raised, however, relevant treatment to achieve best clinical response should be prioritised over immunisation in these cases. Overall the vast majority responded to treatment and maintained positive outcomes.

Strengths and limitations

Our study represents the first systematic review conducted on the relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and the occurrence or relapse of MCD. Our findings present a comprehensive overview of published reports with quality assessment of the included studies.

However, it is important to highlight certain limitations linked to our study. One major limitation stems from the low quality nature of the case reports and case series included in this review, which can impact the validity and generalizability of the conclusions. These studies are susceptible to potential biases including overinterpretation and selection bias. Consequently, while the reported findings are interesting, they may not necessarily provide an accurate representation of the true effect of COVID-19 vaccination in relation to renal dysfunction. Therefore, establishing causality requires insight from mechanistic studies and well-designed appropriately powered prospective studies.

Conclusion

While the current COVID-19 vaccines are generally considered safe and the advantages of vaccination outweigh the potential occurrence of adverse events, it is possible for patients to develop mild to moderate side effects, including complications related to renal dysfunction. Minimal change disease is possibly a condition clinical doctors and other healthcare professionals may expect to see in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Although this adverse event is uncommon, considering the limited published data and the absence of confirmed causality, increased clinical awareness is crucial for the early recognition and optimal management of these patients.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Laboratory results and imaging findings for the included cases.

(DOCX)

pone.0297568.s001.docx (37.4KB, docx)
S2 Table. Quality assessment of the included studies.

(DOCX)

pone.0297568.s002.docx (24.7KB, docx)
S1 Fig. Prisma checklist.

(DOC)

pone.0297568.s003.doc (64KB, doc)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Lu H, Stratton CW, Tang YW. Outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan, China: The mystery and the miracle. J Med Virol. 2020;92(4):401. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Yang X, Yu Y, Xu J, Shu H, Liu H, Wu Y, et al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2020;8(5):475–81. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30079-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Delardas O, Kechagias KS, Pontikos PN, Giannos P. Socio-Economic Impacts and Challenges of the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19): An Updated Review. Sustainability. 2022;14(15):9699. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kechagias K, Giannos P, Triantafyllidis K, Falagas M. Spotlight on early COVID-19 research productivity: a 1-year bibliometric analysis. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 5.Patel N, Nicolae R, Geropoulos G, Mandal P, Christou CD, Gavala M, et al. Pneumomediastinum in the COVID-19 era: to drain or not to drain? Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2022. Epub 20220727. doi: 10.4081/monaldi.2022.2338 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Loubet P, Wittkop L, Tartour E, Parfait B, Barrou B, Blay J-Y, et al. A French cohort for assessing COVID-19 vaccine responses in specific populations. Nat Med. 2021:1–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tanriover MD, Doğanay HL, Akova M, Güner HR, Azap A, Akhan S, et al. Efficacy and safety of an inactivated whole-virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac): interim results of a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial in Turkey. The Lancet. 2021;398(10296):213–22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01429-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mathieu E, Ritchie H, Ortiz-Ospina E, Roser M, Hasell J, Appel C, et al. A global database of COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature human behaviour. 2021;5(7):947–53. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01122-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Livingston EH, Malani PN, Creech CB. The Johnson & Johnson Vaccine for COVID-19. JAMA. 2021;325(15):1575–. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mulligan MJ, Lyke KE, Kitchin N, Absalon J, Gurtman A, Lockhart S, et al. Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults. Nature. 2020;586(7830):589–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Barrett JR, Belij-Rammerstorfer S, Dold C, Ewer KJ, Folegatti PM, Gilbride C, et al. Phase 1/2 trial of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 with a booster dose induces multifunctional antibody responses. Nat Med. 2021;27(2):279–88. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-01179-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Anderson EJ, Rouphael NG, Widge AT, Jackson LA, Roberts PC, Makhene M, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 vaccine in older adults. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(25):2427–38. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2028436 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Katsikas Triantafyllidis K, Giannos P, Mian IT, Kyrtsonis G, Kechagias KS. Varicella zoster virus reactivation following COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review of case reports. Vaccines. 2021;9(9):1013. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9091013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/medicines-and-healthcare-products-regulatory-agency.
  • 15.Giannos P, Triantafyllidis KK, Geropoulos G, Kechagias KS. Persistent Hiccups as an Atypical Presentation of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review of Case Reports. Front Neurol. 2022;13. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.819624 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Dias L, Soares-dos-Reis R, Meira J, Ferrão D, Soares PR, Pastor A, et al. Cerebral venous thrombosis after BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2021;30(8):105906. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2021.105906 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bril F, Al Diffalha S, Dean M, Fettig DM. Autoimmune hepatitis developing after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine: causality or casualty? J Hepatol. 2021;75(1):222–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.04.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Triantafyllidis KK, Giannos P, Stathi D, Kechagias KS. Graves ‘disease following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review of the reported cases. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:938001. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.938001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kelly WN, Arellano FM, Barnes J, Bergman U, Edwards IR, Fernandez AM, et al. Guidelines for submitting adverse event reports for publication. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(5):581–7. doi: 10.1002/pds.1399 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Marampudi S, Beshai R, Banker G. Reactivation of minimal change disease after pfizer vaccine against COVID-19. Journal of Osteopathic Medicine. 2022;122(10):499–501. doi: 10.1515/jom-2022-0064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Pella E, Sarafidis PA, Alexandrou M-E, Stangou M, Nikolaidou C, Kosmidis D, et al. De novo Minimal Change Disease in an Adolescent after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccination: A Case Report. Case Reports in Nephrology and Dialysis. 2022;12:44–9. doi: 10.1159/000521981 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Alhosaini MN. A Case of Minimal Change Disease after SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination under the Age of 18. Avicenna Journal of Medicine. 2022;12(01):031–3. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1743209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mochizuki RI, Takahashi N, Ikenouchi K, Shoda W, Kuyama T, Takahashi D. A de novo case of minimal change disease following the first dose of the Moderna mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine without relapse after the second dose. CEN case reports. 2022;11(4):477–81. doi: 10.1007/s13730-022-00702-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Park HJ, An WS, Rha SH, Kim SE, Lee SM. Minimal change glomerulonephritis following the second dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. QJM: An International Journal of Medicine. 2022;115(7):490–1. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcac094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hartley JL, Bailey N, Sharma A, Shawki H. Nephrotic syndrome with minimal change disease after the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: two cases. BMJ Case Reports CP. 2022;15(3):e244638. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2021-244638 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Leong C-Y, Hong W-Z, Khatri P. Reactivation of minimal change disease and IgA nephropathy after COVID-19 vaccination. Clinical kidney journal. 2022;15(3):569–70. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfab241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tanaka F, Katayama K, Joh K, Tsujimoto K, Yamawaki M, Saiki R, et al. Minimal change disease with thrombotic microangiopathy following the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Clinical Kidney Journal. 2022;15(3):567–8. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfab234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Jongvilaikasem P, Rianthavorn P. Minimal change disease and acute interstitial nephritis following SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccination. Pediatr Nephrol. 2022;37(6):1419–21. doi: 10.1007/s00467-022-05470-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Marinaki S, Kolovou K, Liapis G, Skalioti C, Tsiakas S, Boletis I. De Novo Minimal Change Disease following Vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in a Living Kidney Donor. Medicina. 2021;58(1):37. doi: 10.3390/medicina58010037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Biradar V, Konnur A, Gang S, Hegde U, Rajapurkar M, Patel H, et al. Adult-onset nephrotic syndrome following coronavirus disease vaccination. Clinical Kidney Journal. 2021;15(1):168–70. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfab153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Unver S, Haholu A, Yildirim S. Nephrotic syndrome and acute kidney injury following CoronaVac anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Clinical Kidney Journal. 2021;14(12):2608–11. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfab155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lebedev L, Sapojnikov M, Wechsler A, Varadi-Levi R, Zamir D, Tobar A, et al. Minimal change disease following the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;78(1):142–5. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.03.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hanna J, Ingram A, Shao T. Minimal change disease after first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: a case report and review of minimal change disease related to COVID-19 vaccine. Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease. 2021;8:20543581211058271. doi: 10.1177/20543581211058271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Baskaran K, Cohen AWS, Weerasinghe N, Vilayur E. Report of two cases of minimal change disease following vaccination for COVID‐19. Nephrology (Carlton, Vic). 2022;27(1):111. doi: 10.1111/nep.13995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Thappy S, Thalappil SR, Abbarh S, Al-Mashdali A, Akhtar M, Alkadi MM. Minimal change disease following the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine: first case report. BMC Nephrol. 2021;22:1–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Abdulgayoom M, Albuni MK, Abdelmahmuod E, Murshed K, Eldeeb Y. Minimal change nephrotic syndrome four days after the administration of Pfizer‐BioNTech COVID‐19 vaccine—a new side effect or coincidence? Clinical Case Reports. 2021;9(10). doi: 10.1002/ccr3.5003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Klomjit N, Alexander MP, Fervenza FC, Zoghby Z, Garg A, Hogan MC, et al. COVID-19 vaccination and glomerulonephritis. Kidney international reports. 2021;6(12):2969–78. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2021.09.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lim J-H, Han M-H, Kim Y-J, Kim M-S, Jung H-Y, Choi J-Y, et al. New-onset nephrotic syndrome after Janssen COVID-19 vaccination: a case report and literature review. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36(30). doi: 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Salem F, Rein JL, Yu M-W, Abramson M, Cravedi P, Chung M. Report of three cases of minimal change disease following the second dose of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 vaccine. Kidney International Reports. 2021;6(9):2523–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2021.07.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Morlidge C, El-Kateb S, Jeevaratnam P, Thompson B. Relapse of minimal change disease following the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Kidney Int. 2021;100(2):459. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2021.06.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Özkan G, Bayrakçı N, Karabağ S, Güzel EÇ, Ulusoy S. Relapse of minimal change disease after inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: case report. Int Urol Nephrol. 2022:1–2. doi: 10.1007/s11255-021-02889-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kervella D, Jacquemont L, Chapelet-Debout A, Deltombe C, Ville S. Minimal change disease relapse following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. Kidney Int. 2021;100(2):457–8. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2021.04.033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Chandra P, Roldao M, Drachenberg C, Santos P, Washida N, Clark A, et al. Minimal change disease and COVID-19 vaccination: Four cases and review of literature. Clinical Nephrology Case Studies. 2022;10:54. doi: 10.5414/CNCS110924 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hummel A, Oniszczuk J, Kervella D, Charbit M, Guerrot D, Testa A, et al. Idiopathic nephrotic syndrome relapse following COVID-19 vaccination: a series of 25 cases. Clinical kidney journal. 2022;15(8):1574–82. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfac134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Güngör T, Yazılıtaş F, Kargın Çakıcı E, Karakaya D, Bülbül M. Relapse of Idiopathic Nephrotic Syndrome After SARS‐CoV‐2 Vaccination: Two Case Reports. J Paediatr Child Health. 2022;58(5):939–40. doi: 10.1111/jpc.15977 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Fenoglio R, Lalloni S, Marchisio M, Oddone V, De Simone E, Del Vecchio G, et al. New onset biopsy-proven nephropathies after COVID vaccination. Am J Nephrol. 2022;53(4):325–30. doi: 10.1159/000523962 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lim J-H, Kim M-S, Kim Y-J, Han M-H, Jung H-Y, Choi J-Y, et al. New-onset kidney diseases after COVID-19 vaccination: a case series. Vaccines. 2022;10(2):302. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10020302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Dormann H, Knüppel-Ruppert A, Amann K, Erley C. Nephrotic syndrome after vaccination against COVID-19: three new cases from Germany. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International. 2021;118(39):662. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Anupama Y, Patel RG, Vankalakunti M. Nephrotic syndrome following ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARScoV-2. Kidney International Reports. 2021;6(8):2248. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2021.06.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Schwotzer N, Kissling S, Fakhouri F. Letter regarding “Minimal change disease relapse following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine”. Kidney Int. 2021;100(2):458–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hong L-Y, Lee C-H, Chiu I-J. De novo podocytopathy following moderna COVID-19 vaccine: A case report and racial disproportionality in adverse effect reports. Frontiers in Medicine. 2022;9. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.844004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Timmermans SA, Busch MH, Abdul-Hamid MA, Frenken LA, Aarnoudse A-J, van Paassen P. Primary podocytopathies after COVID-19 vaccination. Kidney International Reports. 2022;7(4):892. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2021.12.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Nakazawa E, Uchimura T, Hirai Y, Togashi H, Oyama Y, Inaba A, et al. New-onset pediatric nephrotic syndrome following Pfizer-BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: a case report and literature review. CEN case reports. 2022:1–5. doi: 10.1007/s13730-021-00656-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Arias C, De Pedro F, Caliva E, Farias B, Iotti A, Rubio D. Glomerulonephritis due to minimal change disease post COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca. Revista De Nefrologia Dialisis Y Trasplante. 2022:65–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Haider S, Corbin D, Uppal N. Minimal Change Disease Relapse After SARS-CoV-2 Booster Vaccine. Am J Kidney Dis. 2022:S88–S. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Fehr N, Berney-Meyer L, Hopfer H, Räz H. Minimal change disease (MCD) after Moderna COVID-19 vaccination. Swiss Med Wkly. 2021:35S–S. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Nagai K, Kageyama M, Iwase M, Ueda A. A young adult with nephrotic syndrome following COVID-19 vaccination. CEN Case Reports. 2022;11(3):397–8. doi: 10.1007/s13730-021-00673-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Caza TN, Cassol CA, Messias N, Hannoudi A, Haun RS, Walker PD, et al. Glomerular disease in temporal association with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: a series of 29 cases. Kidney360. 2021;2(11):1770. doi: 10.34067/KID.0005372021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Fornara L, Musetti C, Guglielmetti G, Cantaluppi V. De Novo Glomerulonephritides Following BNT162B2 COVID-19 Vaccine: A Case Series. Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation: official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association-European Renal Association. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Leclerc S, Royal V, Lamarche C, Laurin L-P. Minimal change disease with severe acute kidney injury following the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: a case report. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;78(4):607–10. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.06.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Mancianti N, Guarnieri A, Tripodi S, Salvo DP, Garosi G. Minimal change disease following vaccination for SARS-CoV-2. Journal of nephrology. 2021;34(4):1039–40. doi: 10.1007/s40620-021-01091-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Holzworth A, Couchot P, Cruz-Knight W, Brucculeri M. Minimal change disease following the Moderna mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Kidney Int. 2021;100(2):463–4. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2021.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Komaba H, Wada T, Fukagawa M. Relapse of minimal change disease following the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;78(3):469–70. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.05.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.D’Agati VD, Kudose S, Bomback AS, Adamidis A, Tartini A. Minimal change disease and acute kidney injury following the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Kidney Int. 2021;100(2):461–3. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2021.04.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Maas RJ, Gianotten S, van der Meijden WA. An additional case of minimal change disease following the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;78(2):312. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.05.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Maas RJ, Deegens JK, Wetzels JF. Permeability factors in idiopathic nephrotic syndrome: historical perspectives and lessons for the future. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2014;29(12):2207–16. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfu355 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Glassock RJ. Secondary minimal change disease. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2003;18(suppl_6):vi52–vi8. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfg1060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Patel C, Shah HH. Vaccine-associated kidney diseases: A narrative review of the literature. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2019;30(5):1002–9. doi: 10.4103/1319-2442.270254 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Berre LL, Herva C, Buzelin F, Usal C, Soulillou J-P, Dantal J. Renal macrophage activation and Th2 polarization precedes the development of nephrotic syndrome in Buffalo/Mna rats. Kidney Int. 2005;68(5):2079–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2005.00664.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Segal Y, Shoenfeld Y. Vaccine-induced autoimmunity: the role of molecular mimicry and immune crossreaction. Cell Mol Immunol. 2018;15(6):586–94. doi: 10.1038/cmi.2017.151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Zhang J, Cao J, Ye Q. Renal Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccination. Vaccines. 2022;10(11):1783. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10111783 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Rajendra Bhimma

3 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-13443Minimal change disease following COVID-19 vaccination a systematic reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr.Konstantinos S. Kechagias,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 15 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rajendra Bhimma, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://rcastoragev2.blob.core.windows.net/09e270450a896d88e5d0c14e0f588a12/PMC9552880.pdf

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. Please include a caption for figure 1. 

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for your submisson of the manuscript "Minimal change disease following COVID-19 vaccination a systematic review". Three reviewers have raised concerns and these need to be addressed.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Please see the updated articles on various adverse effect of astrazeneca and other mrna covid vaccine.Authors missed the major complication such as sinus venous thrombosis as well as inflammatory cns disorders post vaccination and other relevant findings.

Also the information can be obrained from Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) data as well from Vaccine adverse events reporting system

Reviewer #2: The research question is clear. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are well defined. The search strategy, study selection and data extraction appear comprehensive. Data synthesis is appropriate.

The interpretation of the findings and conclusion are accurate.

The following revisions are required:

Line 29 change “renal dysfunction” to more appropriate term – *Glomerular disease or chronic kidney disease

Line 45 change terms – “into remission “

Line 49 change “clinical doctors” to clinicians in the paper

Line 91 correct spelling of vaccine

Line 147/8 biopsy reported in only 71% of cases ( ? diagnosis) – important limitation , if these were relapses then a second biopsy would be unlikely , although first time diagnosis would require a biopsy , specify if primary or relapse.

First line of discussion “renal dysfunction” term should be changed

Second line of paragraph : Results in context of literature:

“Evidence points towards T cell dysfunction being a major Mechanism” Is this immune dysregulation with dysfunction of T regulatory cells as with other cases of MCD?

Line 3-4 “glomerular capillary wall” could be restated as the glomerular filtration barrier.

Last line “requires histologic confirmation in adults” is fundamental to diagnosis. MCD is a histological diagnosis. Unless there was relapse which did not warrant a biopsy, then all other cases would require confirmatory histology. If this is not so, then it should be listed as a limitation of the review.

Reviewer #3: It is a relevant topic with billions of doses of vaccines used in such a short period of time and also Being RNA based.

1. Need clarity on that only 76% had histological classification of their nephrosis. what criteria were used to establish minimal change.

2. Was there any particular vaccine type that caused the most or least number of nephrotic syndrome cases. I know that then we have to look at the number of vaccine doses but was there a particular type involved with the new cases compared to the relapses?

3. There are 2 diabetics with a possibility of diabetic neohropathy? Was minimal change confirmed on histology?

4. The other secondary involvement were cardiac problems such as hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and arrthytmias

althoiugh hypertension and hyperlipdaemis can be caused by the nephrosis

5. If only 76% had renal histology, which criteria were used to prove minimal change?

6. Infections that were mentioned in the discussion such as Hep 'B' cause membranous nephropathy.

It is well written. Just the above queries or clarification.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: shitiz sriwastava

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 5;19(3):e0297568. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297568.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Oct 2023

Dear Editor,

Thank you for considering our article ‘Minimal change disease following COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review’ for publication in your journal.

We enclose below a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and a revised version of the manuscript. We have also adjusted the format according to the journal’s guidance.

We look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely

Konstantinos Kechagias MD, MSc

Clinical research fellow

Institute of Reproductive and Developmental Biology, Department of Metabolism Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London

Reviewer #1: Please see the updated articles on various adverse effect of astrazeneca and other mrna covid vaccine. Authors missed the major complication such as sinus venous thrombosis as well as inflammatory cns disorders post vaccination and other relevant findings.

Also the information can be obtained from Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) data as well from Vaccine adverse events reporting system.

Thank you for the comment. Although different types of adverse events secondary to Covid-19 vaccine have been recognized, the focus of the current literature review was minimal change disease. In the introduction section of the article, we briefly mention the plethora of other adverse events related to Covid-19 vaccines and we have now also included the MHRA guidance as reference.

Line 72.

Reviewer #2: The research question is clear. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are well defined. The search strategy, study selection and data extraction appear comprehensive. Data synthesis is appropriate.

The interpretation of the findings and conclusion are accurate.

The following revisions are required:

Line 29 change “renal dysfunction” to more appropriate term – *Glomerular disease or chronic kidney disease. Line 45 change terms – “into remission “

Line 49 change “clinical doctors” to clinicians in the paper

Line 91 correct spelling of vaccine.

We thank the reviewer for the annotations. The above have now been changed as per recommendations. Regarding line 91, the term vaccin* was used in order to identify articles including words such as vaccine, vaccines and vaccination.

Lines 29, 45 and 49.

Line 147/8 biopsy reported in only 71% of cases (? diagnosis) – important limitation, if these were relapses then a second biopsy would be unlikely, although first time diagnosis would require a biopsy, specify if primary or relapse.

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We elaborated on the use of biopsy as a diagnostic tool. Biopsy reports were provided for 67 cases (71.2%, 67/94) and were consistent with MCD. MCD was confirmed with biopsy in 76 cases (80.8%, 76/94). Sixteen cases (17%, 16/94) were a relapse and biopsy was not repeated. In two cases (2.1%), diagnosis was based on clinical suspicion (Nagai et al, Nakazawa et al).

Lines 147 and 148.

First line of discussion “renal dysfunction” term should be changed.

Thank you for the annotation. Renal dysfunction has been replaced by kidney disease.

Line 161

Second line of paragraph: Results in context of literature:

“Evidence points towards T cell dysfunction being a major Mechanism” Is this immune dysregulation with dysfunction of T regulatory cells as with other cases of MCD?

We thank the reviewer for this comment. Yes, this refers to the dysfunction of T regulatory cells and the hypothesis that a glomerular permeability factor is produced that subsequently attacks the glomerular membrane, which has been proposed in the past as a potential mechanism for MCD. This has now been clarified in the manuscript.

Line 175

Line 3-4 “glomerular capillary wall” could be restated as the glomerular filtration barrier.

Thank you for the annotation. This has now been restated as suggested.

Lines 3 and 4.

Last line “requires histologic confirmation in adults” is fundamental to diagnosis. MCD is a histological diagnosis. Unless there was relapse which did not warrant a biopsy, then all other cases would require confirmatory histology. If this is not so, then it should be listed as a limitation of the review.

We thank the reviewer for the comment, and we agree. Biopsy reports were provided for 67 cases (71.2%, 67/94) and were consistent with MCD. MCD was confirmed with biopsy in 76 cases (80.8%, 76/94). Sixteen cases (17%, 16/94) were relapses and biopsy was not repeated. In two cases (2.1%), diagnosis was based on clinical suspicion.

Lines 147-149

Reviewer #3: It is a relevant topic with billions of doses of vaccines used in such a short period of time and also Being RNA based.

1. Need clarity on that only 76% had histological classification of their nephrosis. what criteria were used to establish minimal change.

We thank the reviewer for the comment and we agree. Biopsy reports were provided for 67 cases (71.2%, 67/94) and were consistent with MCD. MCD was confirmed with biopsy in 76 cases (80.8%, 76/94). Sixteen cases (17%, 16/94) were a relapse and biopsy was not repeated. In two cases (2.1%), diagnosis was based on clinical suspicion (Nagai, Nakazawa).

Lines 147-149

2. Was there any particular vaccine type that caused the most or least number of nephrotic syndrome cases. I know that then we have to look at the number of vaccine doses but was there a particular type involved with the new cases compared to the relapses?

We thank the reviewer for the comment. In the results section, both the vaccine type and the number of doses before the development of nephrotic syndrome are mentioned. The majority of the patients received COMIRNATY (58.5%, 55/94), followed by COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna (20.2%, 19/94) and VAXZEVRIA (14%, 13/94), while 4 participants received COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen (3.2%, 3/94) and CoronaVac (1%, 1/94). In one case vaccine type was reported as modRNA (1%, 1/94). The majority of patients developed symptoms after the first dose (55.5%, 52/94), followed by the second dose (39.3%, 37/94), third dose (2.2%, 2/94), booster (1%, 1/94), both first and second doses (1%, 1/94), while in one case relevant data was not provided (1%, 1/94).

Lines 138-143

3. There are 2 diabetics with a possibility of diabetic nephropathy? Was minimal change confirmed on histology? The other secondary involvement were cardiac problems such as hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and arrthytmias although hypertension and hyperlipdaemis can be caused by the nephrosis

Thank you for your comment. Patients with the above comorbidities had histological diagnosis of MCD.

5. If only 76% had renal histology, which criteria were used to prove minimal change?

We thank the reviewer for this comment. Biopsy reports were provided for 67 cases (71.2%, 67/94) and were consistent with MCD. MCD was confirmed with biopsy in 76 cases (80.8%, 76/94). Sixteen cases (17%, 16/94) were relapses and biopsy was not repeated. In two cases (2.1%), diagnosis was based on clinical suspicion.

Lines 147-149

6. Infections that were mentioned in the discussion such as Hep 'B' cause membranous nephropathy.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We mentioned Hep B and other viruses as triggering factors for primary glomerulonephrosis including MCD given that a similar pathophysiological mechanism could be implicated.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

pone.0297568.s004.docx (26.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Rajendra Bhimma

9 Jan 2024

Minimal change disease following COVID-19 vaccination a systematic review

PONE-D-23-13443R1

Dear Dr. Kostantionos S Kechagias

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rajendra Bhimma, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have indicated that they will amend the paper according to each point raised. If this is done completely then they have complied with the review.

Reviewer #3: It is a relevant review ion that the complication of nephrotic syndrome or relapse is an infrequent occurrernce of Covid vaccination.The practising physicians need to know of the renal complications of Covid vaccination. Also alert the researchers to do a prospective studies as regards incidence, severity, associated factors, type of vaccine etc. This was a systemic review of the literature, where their is no uniformity of the reported information and almost a third were case reports.

In my opinion it is a relevant review to spark prospective studies.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Rajendra Bhimma

24 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-13443R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kechagias,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Rajendra Bhimma

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Laboratory results and imaging findings for the included cases.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0297568.s001.docx (37.4KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Quality assessment of the included studies.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0297568.s002.docx (24.7KB, docx)
    S1 Fig. Prisma checklist.

    (DOC)

    pone.0297568.s003.doc (64KB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0297568.s004.docx (26.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES