Title: Long-term antibody response after the third dose of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine
in MASLD patients
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors present an interesting manuscript addressing long-term response to inactivated anti-
SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The manuscript is well written but needs a few corrections in my opinion.
1. In all sections NAFLD should be substituted with MASLD
2. In introduction section, MASLD prevalnce has, unfortunately, risen to more than 30%;
this percentage should substitute the 25% found in the manuscript (ref:   doi: 10.1016/
S2468-1253(22)00165-0; doi:10.3350/cmh.2022.0365). Moreover, in introduction section,
page 60 the following references should be added: doi: 10.15403/jgld-5268; doi: 10.4254/
wjh.v16.i6.912)
3. In materials and methods section, were patients with inflammatory bowel disease excluded
even if not under immunosupressants? If so, this should be explained, otherwise it should not
stand as a different exclusion criterion. Moreover, in exclusion criteria, 'other significant disease'
is found. This should be better explained
4. In table 1, 24 patients with MASLD had DM and 2 without MASLD, however the number
in the whole population is 25. This should be fixed
5. In results section, no reference regarding patients with liver cirrhosis is found. Where they
excluded? If not, their number should be stated, since patients with cirrhosis are known to hypo-
respond to inactivated vaccines (ref: doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2021.12.003; doi: 10.1086/315245; doi:
10.1155/2013/196704 among others)
6. In discussion section, the authors should compare their findings both to studies of patients
with chronic liver disease and 2 vaccines (ref: doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.12.022;  doi: 10.1007/
s12072-023-10598-7,doi: 10.3390/vaccines11020452) as well as  those with 3 vaccines (ref:
doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2024.06.015; doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2023.102150) and address differences in
results.
7. In limitations section, it should be added that COVID-19 was solely based upon patients'
reports and no other means
8. It would be interesting to know if any of the patients suffered from COVID-19 during the 6
months post-vaccination. Do the authors have such data?
Title: Long-term antibody response after the third dose of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine
in MASLD patients
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors present an interesting manuscript addressing long-term response to inactivated anti-
SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The manuscript is well written but needs a few corrections in my opinion.
1. In all sections NAFLD should be substituted with MASLD
2. In introduction section, MASLD prevalnce has, unfortunately, risen to more than 30%;
this percentage should substitute the 25% found in the manuscript (ref:   doi: 10.1016/
S2468-1253(22)00165-0; doi:10.3350/cmh.2022.0365). Moreover, in introduction section,
page 60 the following references should be added: doi: 10.15403/jgld-5268; doi: 10.4254/
wjh.v16.i6.912)
3. In materials and methods section, were patients with inflammatory bowel disease excluded
even if not under immunosupressants? If so, this should be explained, otherwise it should not
stand as a different exclusion criterion. Moreover, in exclusion criteria, 'other significant disease'
is found. This should be better explained
4. In table 1, 24 patients with MASLD had DM and 2 without MASLD, however the number
in the whole population is 25. This should be fixed
5. In results section, no reference regarding patients with liver cirrhosis is found. Where they
excluded? If not, their number should be stated, since patients with cirrhosis are known to hypo-
respond to inactivated vaccines (ref: doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2021.12.003; doi: 10.1086/315245; doi:
10.1155/2013/196704 among others)
6. In discussion section, the authors should compare their findings both to studies of patients
with chronic liver disease and 2 vaccines (ref: doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.12.022;  doi: 10.1007/
s12072-023-10598-7,doi: 10.3390/vaccines11020452) as well as  those with 3 vaccines (ref:
doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2024.06.015; doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2023.102150) and address differences in
results.
7. In limitations section, it should be added that COVID-19 was solely based upon patients'
reports and no other means
8. It would be interesting to know if any of the patients suffered from COVID-19 during the 6
months post-vaccination. Do the authors have such data?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Long-term antibody response after the third dose of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine
in MASLD patients
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jul 2024
Reviewer's report:
The authors present an interesting manuscript addressing long-term response to inactivated anti-
SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The manuscript is well written but needs a few corrections in my opinion.
1. In all sections NAFLD should be substituted with MASLD
2. In introduction section, MASLD prevalnce has, unfortunately, risen to more than 30%;
this percentage should substitute the 25% found in the manuscript (ref:   doi: 10.1016/
S2468-1253(22)00165-0; doi:10.3350/cmh.2022.0365). Moreover, in introduction section,
page 60 the following references should be added: doi: 10.15403/jgld-5268; doi: 10.4254/
wjh.v16.i6.912)
3. In materials and methods section, were patients with inflammatory bowel disease excluded
even if not under immunosupressants? If so, this should be explained, otherwise it should not
stand as a different exclusion criterion. Moreover, in exclusion criteria, 'other significant disease'
is found. This should be better explained
4. In table 1, 24 patients with MASLD had DM and 2 without MASLD, however the number
in the whole population is 25. This should be fixed
5. In results section, no reference regarding patients with liver cirrhosis is found. Where they
excluded? If not, their number should be stated, since patients with cirrhosis are known to hypo-
respond to inactivated vaccines (ref: doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2021.12.003; doi: 10.1086/315245; doi:
10.1155/2013/196704 among others)
6. In discussion section, the authors should compare their findings both to studies of patients
with chronic liver disease and 2 vaccines (ref: doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.12.022;  doi: 10.1007/
s12072-023-10598-7,doi: 10.3390/vaccines11020452) as well as  those with 3 vaccines (ref:
doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2024.06.015; doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2023.102150) and address differences in
results.
7. In limitations section, it should be added that COVID-19 was solely based upon patients'
reports and no other means
8. It would be interesting to know if any of the patients suffered from COVID-19 during the 6
months post-vaccination. Do the authors have such data?
assistant