Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review

Geographical ancestry has been associated with an increased risk of various genetic conditions. Race and ethnicity often have been used as proxies for geographical ancestry. Despite numerous problems associated with the crude reliance on race and ethnicity as proxies for geographical ancestry, some genetic testing in the clinical, research, and employment settings has been and continues to be race- or ethnicity-based. Race-based or race-targeted genetic testing refers to genetic testing offered only or primarily to people of particular racial or ethnic groups because of presumed differences among groups. One current example is APOL1 testing of Black kidney donors. Race-based genetic testing raises numerous ethical and policy questions. Given the ongoing reliance on the Black race in genetic testing, it is important to understand the views of people who identify as Black or are identified as Black (including African American, Afro-Caribbean, and Hispanic Black) regarding race-based genetic testing that targets Black people because of their race. We conducted a systematic review of studies and reports of stakeholder-engaged projects that examined how people who identify as or are identified as Black perceive genetic testing that specifically presumes genetic differences exist among racial groups or uses race as a surrogate for ancestral genetic variation and targets Black people. Our review identified 14 studies that explicitly studied this question and another 13 that implicitly or tacitly studied this matter. We found four main factors that contribute to a positive attitude toward race-targeted genetic testing (facilitators) and eight main factors that are associated with concerns regarding race-targeted genetic testing (barriers). This review fills an important gap. These findings should inform future genetic research and the policies and practices developed in clinical, research, public health, or other settings regarding genetic testing.

Use of Race in Kidney Function Estimation: Lessons Learned and the Path Toward Health Justice

In 2020, the nephrology community formally interrogated long-standing race-based clinical algorithms used in the field, including the kidney function estimation equations. A comprehensive understanding of the history of kidney function estimation and racial essentialism is necessary to understand underpinnings of the incorporation of a Black race coefficient into prior equations. We provide a review of this history, as well as the considerations used to develop race-free equations that are a guidepost for a more equity-oriented, scientifically rigorous future for kidney function estimation and other clinical algorithms and processes in which race may be embedded as a variable.

Apolipoprotein L1 Opinions of African American Living Kidney Donors, Kidney Transplant Patients, and Nonpatients

INTRODUCTION

The discovery of apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) has raised important ethical and clinical questions about genetic testing in the context of living and deceased kidney donation. Largely missing from this discussion are the perspectives of those African Americans (AA) most likely to be impacted by ApoL1 testing.

METHODS

We surveyed 331 AA potential and former living kidney donors (LKDs), kidney transplant candidates and recipients, and nonpatients at three United States transplant programs about their ApoL1 testing attitudes.

RESULTS

Overall, 72% felt that transplant programs should offer ApoL1 testing to AA potential LKDs. If a potential LKD has the high-risk genotype, 79% felt that the LKD should be allowed to make their own donation decision or participate in shared decision-making with transplant doctors. More than half of the potential LKDs (58%) would undergo ApoL1 testing and 81% of former LKDs would take the test now if offered. Most transplant candidates expressed a low likelihood of accepting a kidney from a LKD (79%) or a deceased donor (67%) with the high-risk genotype.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong support among LKDs and transplant patients for ApoL1 testing when evaluating potential kidney donors of African ancestry. Inclusion of AA stakeholders in developing guidelines and educational programs for ApoL1 testing is critical.

Impact of education on APOL1 testing attitudes among prospective living kidney donors

It is unknown how providing prospective living donors with information about APOL1, including the benefits and drawbacks of testing, influences their desire for testing. In this study, we surveyed 102 participants with self-reported African ancestry and positive family history of kidney disease, recruited from our nephrology waiting room. We assessed views on APOL1 testing before and after presentation of a set of potential benefits and drawbacks of testing and quantified the self-reported level of influence individual benefits and drawbacks had on participants' desire for testing in the proposed context of living donation. The majority of participants (92%) were aware of organ donation and more than half (56%) had considered living donation. And though we found no significant change in response following presentation of the potential benefits and the drawbacks of APOL1 testing by study end significance, across all participants, "becoming aware of the potential risk of kidney disease among your immediate family" was the benefit with the highest mean influence (3.3±1.4), while the drawback with the highest mean influence (2.9±1.5) was "some transplant centers may not allow you to donate to a loved one". This study provides insights into the priorities of prospective living donors and suggests concern for how the information affects family members may strongly influence desires for testing. It also highlights the need for greater community engagement to gain a deeper understanding of the priorities that influence decision making on APOL1 testing.

Gender and race/ethnicity differences in living kidney donor demographics: Preference or disparity?

In the United States, women are over-represented and Blacks are under-represented as living kidney donors. A traditional bioethics approach would state that as long as living donors believe that the benefits of participation outweigh the risks and harms (beneficence) and they give a voluntary and informed consent, then the demographics reflect a mere difference in preferences. Such an analysis, however, ignores the social, economic and cultural determinants as well as various forms of structural discrimination (e.g., racism, sexism) that may imply that the distribution is less voluntary than may appear initially. The distribution also raises justice concerns regarding the fair recruitment and selection of living donors. We examine the differences in living kidney donor demographics using a vulnerabilities analysis and argue that these gender and racial differences may not reflect mere preferences, but rather, serious justice concerns that need to be addressed at both the individual and systems level.

Opinions of African American adults about the use of apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) genetic testing in living kidney donation and transplantation

Apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) predictive genetic testing for kidney disease, and its emerging role in transplantation, remains controversial as it may exacerbate underlying disparities among African Americans (AAs) at increased risk. We conducted an online simulation among AAs (N = 585) about interest in ApoL1 testing and its cofactors, under 2 scenarios: as a potential living donor (PLD), and as a patient awaiting transplantation. Most respondents (61%) expressed high interest in genetic testing as a PLD: age ≥35 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18, 2.60, P = .01), AA identity (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.02, 2.72, P = .04), perceived kidney disease risk following donation (aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.03, 2.73, P = .03), interest in genetics (aOR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.95, 4.29, P = .001), and genetics self-efficacy (aOR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.54, 3.67, P = .001) were positively associated with ApoL1 test interest. If awaiting transplantation, most (89%) believed that ApoL1 testing should be done on AA deceased donors, and older age (aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.03, 3.32, P = .04) and greater interest in genetics (aOR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.41, 4.81, P = .002) were associated with interest in testing deceased donors. Findings highlight strong support for ApoL1 testing in AAs and the need to examine such opinions among PLDs and transplant patients to enhance patient education efforts.

Apolipoprotein L1: role in the evaluation of kidney transplant donors

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the current state of evidence regarding the role of apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) genotyping in evaluating donors for kidney transplantation.

RECENT FINDINGS

African ancestry is associated with an increased risk of kidney failure following living donation. Moreover, kidney transplants from African ancestry deceased donors have an increased risk of graft failure. Preliminary evidence suggests that APOL1 genotype may mediate at least a portion of this racial variation, with high-risk APOL1 genotypes defined by presence of two renal risk variants (RRVs). A pilot study 136 African ancestry living donors found that those with APOL1 high-risk genotypes had lower baseline kidney function and faster rates of kidney function decline after donation. To date, three retrospective studies identified a two-to-three times greater risk of allograft failure associated with kidneys from donors with high-risk APOL1 genotype. Active research initiatives seek to address unanswered questions, including reproducibility in large national samples, the role of 'second hits' injuries, and impact of recipient genotype, with a goal to build consensus on applications for policy and practice.

SUMMARY

As evidence evolves, APOL1 genotyping may have applications for organ quality scoring in deceased donor kidney allocation, and for the evaluation and selection of living donor candidates.

Clinical Applications of Genetic Discoveries in Kidney Transplantation: a Review

Growth in knowledge of the genetics of kidney disease has revealed that significant percentages of patients with diverse types of nephropathy have causative mutations. Genetic testing is poised to play an increasing role in the care of patients with kidney disease. The role of genetic testing in kidney transplantation is not well established. This review will explore the ways in which genetic testing may be applied to improve the care of kidney transplant recipients and donors.

Practical Considerations for APOL1 Genotyping in the Living Kidney Donor Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Association between the apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) and nephropathy has altered the epidemiology of chronic kidney disease. In addition, donor APOL1 genotypes play important roles in the time to allograft failure in kidneys transplanted from deceased donors and the safety of living kidney donation.

METHODS

This article reviews genetic testing for inherited kidney disease in living kidney donors to improve donor safety. APOL1 genotyping in donors with recent African ancestry is considered.

RESULTS

Based on current data, transplant physicians should discuss APOL1 genotyping with potential living kidney donors self-reporting recent African ancestry. Until results from APOL1 Long-term Kidney Transplant Outcomes Network ancillary studies are available, we present practical approaches from our experience for considering APOL1 genotyping in the living donor evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant physicians should inform potential living kidney donors at risk for APOL1-associated nephropathy about the gene and possibility of genetic testing early in the donor evaluation, well before scheduling the donor nephrectomy. Transplant programs must weigh risks of performing a donor nephrectomy in those with 2 APOL1 renal risk variants (high-risk genotypes), particularly younger individuals. Our program counsels kidney donors with APOL1 high-risk genotypes in the same fashion as with risk genotypes in other nephropathy genes. Because most African American kidney donor candidates lacking hypertension, proteinuria and reduced kidney function after workup will not possess APOL1 high-risk genotypes, genetic testing is unlikely to markedly increase donor declines and may reassure donors with regard to their long-term kidney outcomes, potentially increasing the number of African American donors.

Variation of ApoL1 Testing Practices for Living Kidney Donors

INTRODUCTION

Tests exist for ApoL1 genetic variants to determine whether a potential donor's kidneys are at increased risk of kidney failure. Variants of the ApoL1 gene associated with increased risk are primarily found in people with West African ancestry. Given uncertainty about clinical implications of ApoL1 test results for living kidney donors and recipients and the lack of uniform guidelines for ApoL1 testing, transplant centers across the United States vary in ApoL1 testing practices.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

(1) What approach do transplant centers take to determine whether prospective donors are of West African ancestry? (2)How do transplant centers engage potential donors during the ApoL1 testing process? (3) What do transplant centers identify as concerns and barriers to ApoL1 testing? and (4) What actions do transplant centers take when a potential donor has 2 ApoL1 risk variants?

DESIGN

We explored the current practices of transplant centers by surveying nephrologists and transplant surgeons at transplant centers evaluating the majority of black living donors in the United States.

RESULTS

About half of these transplant centers offered ApoL1 testing. Of those who offered ApoL1 testing, only half involved the donor in decision-making about donation when the donor has 2 risk variants.

DISCUSSION

Unaddressed differences in the priorities of transplant centers and black living donors may stigmatize black donors and undermine trust in the health-care and organ donation systems. Variation in transplant center testing practices points to the critical need for further research and community engagement to inform the development of guidelines for ApoL1 testing.

Donor-Recipient Relationship and Risk of ESKD in Live Kidney Donors of Varied Racial Groups

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Risk factors for kidney failure are the basis of live kidney donor candidate evaluation. We quantified risk for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) by the biological relationship of the donor to the recipient, a risk factor that is not addressed by current clinical practice guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

A cohort of 143,750 US kidney donors between 1987 and 2017.

EXPOSURE

Biological relationship of donor and recipient.

OUTCOME

ESKD. Donors' records were linked to national dialysis and transplantation registries to ascertain development of the outcome.

ANALYTIC APPROACH

Donors were observed over a median of 12 (interquartile range, 6-18; maximum, 30) years. Survival analysis methods that account for the competing risk for death were used.

RESULTS

Risk for ESKD varied by orders of magnitude across donor-recipient relationship categories. For Asian donors, risks compared with unrelated donors were 259.4-fold greater for identical twins (95% CI, 19.5-3445.6), 4.7-fold greater for full siblings (95% CI, 0.5-41.0), 3.5-fold greater for offspring (95% CI, 0.6-39.5), 1.0 for parents, and 1.0 for half-sibling or other biological relatives. For black donors, risks were 22.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 4.7-107.0), 4.1-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 2.1-7.8), 2.7-fold for offspring (95% CI, 1.4-5.4), 3.1-fold for parents (95% CI, 1.4-6.8), and 1.3-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.5-3.3). For white donors, risks were 3.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 0.5-25.3), 2.0-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 1.4-2.8), 1.4-fold for offspring (95% CI, 0.9-2.3), 2.9-fold for parents (95% CI, 2.0-4.1), and 0.8-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.3-1.6).

LIMITATIONS

Insufficient sample size in some race and relationship groups. Absence of data for family history of kidney disease for donors biologically unrelated to their recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Marked differences in risk for ESKD across types of donor-recipient relationship were observed for Asian, black, and white donors. These findings warrant further validation with more robust data to better inform clinical practice guidelines.

Cases in Precision Medicine: APOL1 and Genetic Testing in the Evaluation of Chronic Kidney Disease and Potential Transplant

This article discusses potential indications for genetic testing in an African American patient with chronic kidney disease who is being evaluated for a kidney transplant. Two known risk variants in the APOL1 (apolipoprotein L1) gene predispose to kidney disease and are found almost exclusively in persons of African ancestry. APOL1 risk variants are considered, including whether clinicians should incorporate genetic testing in the screening process for living kidney donors. In addition to APOL1 testing, the role of diagnostic exome sequencing in evaluating potential transplant recipients and donors with a positive family history of kidney disease is discussed.

APOL1 Genetic Testing in Living Kidney Transplant Donors

The presence of 2 apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) risk variants is associated with increased risk for chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease. Inferior allograft outcomes following transplantation with kidneys from donors with 2 risk variants have also been reported. These data, coupled with anecdotal case reports and a recent cohort study of living donors, raise important questions about the potential increased kidney disease risk for living donors with APOL1 risk variants and the need for testing as part of the standard living donor evaluation process. We identify a series of questions that are central to the development of clinical policy regarding APOL1 testing of potential living kidney donors given the current uncertainty over the clinical implications of having 2 risk variants. We explore the ethical challenges that arise when determining when and to whom APOL1 testing should be offered, what potential donors should be told about APOL1 testing, how test results should be used to determine suitability for donation, if and when recipients should have access to results, and how clinical policy regarding APOL1 testing should be established.

Developing an ethics framework for living donor transplantation

Both living donor transplantation and human subjects research expose one set of individuals to clinical risks for the clinical benefits of others. In the Belmont Report, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavior Research (National Commission) articulated three principles to serve as the basis for a research ethics framework: respect for persons, beneficence and justice. In contrast, living donor transplantation lacks a framework. In this manuscript, we adapt the three principles articulated in the Belmont Report to serve as the foundation for an ethics framework for living donor transplantation which we supplement with the principles of vulnerability and responsibility. The National Commission supported additional protections for vulnerable groups of potential research participants. In 2001, Kenneth Kipnis effectively argued that the concept of vulnerable groups failed to explore in what ways particular groups of people were vulnerable, thereby risking unnecessary protections for some and inadequate protections for others. He proposed a taxonomy that explored different types of vulnerabilities that all research participants may experience to provide a more robust framework for human subjects protections, which we adapt to living donors. Robert Goodin claims that health professionals, who stand in special relationship with patients, are responsible for promoting and protecting their well-being. In living donor transplantation, the donor transplant team is responsible for empowering prospective donors to address their vulnerabilities and/or for protecting those who cannot by disqualifying them from donation.

Clinical Genetic Testing for APOL1: Are we There Yet?

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) disproportionately affects African Americans, who are two to four times more likely than European Americans to develop ESRD. Two independent variants of the apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) gene, G1 and G2, have been associated with a 7- to 10-fold greater risk of developing nondiabetic ESRD in African Americans. Those who inherit two risk variants (G1/G1, G2/G2, or G1/G2) are also more likely to develop ESRD at a younger age and to have progression of chronic kidney disease. Currently, it is not known what proportion of persons with high-risk genotypes will develop ESRD in the general population, the exact mechanism of injury for APOL1-related risk, its relation to environmental exposures, or whether patients with comorbid conditions are more likely to develop ESRD. To address the above uncertainties, research that includes assessment of APOL1 status is needed before guidelines for general testing can be endorsed. Currently, APOL1 testing has been proposed as part of kidney transplant protocols both for living donors and recipients. However, because of uncertainties regarding the clinical implications of APOL1 variants, testing could generate confusion, anxiety, or stigma. Multiple forms of evidence, including the views of community members, are needed to support responsible approaches to providing information about APOL1 status as part of clinical care or in population screening. Informed consent with subsequent counseling regarding the risks and benefits of APOL1 testing should be considered for patients at high risk.

APOL1 Nephropathy: A Population Genetics and Evolutionary Medicine Detective Story

Common DNA sequence variants rarely have a high-risk association with a common disease. When such associations do occur, evolutionary forces must be sought, such as in the association of apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) gene risk variants with nondiabetic kidney diseases in populations of African ancestry. The variants originated in West Africa and provided pathogenic resistance in the heterozygous state that led to high allele frequencies owing to an adaptive evolutionary selective sweep. However, the homozygous state is disadvantageous and is associated with a markedly increased risk of a spectrum of kidney diseases encompassing hypertension-attributed kidney disease, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, human immunodeficiency virus nephropathy, sickle cell nephropathy, and progressive lupus nephritis. This scientific success story emerged with the help of the tools developed over the past 2 decades in human genome sequencing and population genomic databases. In this introductory article to a timely issue dedicated to illuminating progress in this area, we describe this unique population genetics and evolutionary medicine detective story. We emphasize the paradox of the inheritance mode, the missing heritability, and unresolved associations, including cardiovascular risk and diabetic nephropathy. We also highlight how genetic epidemiology elucidates mechanisms and how the principles of evolution can be used to unravel conserved pathways affected by APOL1 that may lead to novel therapies. The APOL1 gene provides a compelling example of a common variant association with common forms of nondiabetic kidney disease occurring in a continental population isolate with subsequent global admixture. Scientific collaboration using multiple experimental model systems and approaches should further clarify pathomechanisms further, leading to novel therapies.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Transplant genetics and genomics

Ever since the discovery of the major histocompatibility complex, scientific and clinical understanding in the field of transplantation has been advanced through genetic and genomic studies. Candidate-gene approaches and recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have enabled a deeper understanding of the complex interplay of the donor-recipient interactions that lead to transplant tolerance or rejection. Genetic analysis in transplantation, when linked to demographic and clinical outcomes, has the potential to drive personalized medicine by enabling individualized risk stratification and immunosuppression through the identification of variants associated with immune-mediated complications, post-transplant disease or alterations in drug-metabolizing genes.

Living Organ Donation and Informed Consent in the United States: Strategies to Improve the Process

About 6,000 individuals participate in the U.S. transplant system as a living organ donor each year. Organ donation (most commonly a kidney or part of liver) by living individuals is a unique procedure, where healthy patients undergo a major surgical operation without any direct functional benefit to themselves. In this article, the authors explore how the ideal of informed consent guides education and evaluation for living organ donation. The authors posit that informed consent for living organ donation is a process. Though the steps in this process are partially standardized through national health policy, they can be improved through institutional structures at the local, transplant center-level. Effective structures and practices aimed at supporting and promoting comprehensive informed consent provide more opportunities for candidates to ask questions about the risks and benefits of living donation and to opt out voluntarily Additionally, these practices could enable new ways of measuring knowledge and improving the consent process.