The Need to Consider Context: A Systematic Review of Factors Involved in the Consent Process for Genetic Tests from the Perspective of Patients

Background: Informed consent for genetic tests is a well-established practice. It should be based on good quality information and in keeping with the patient's values. Existing informed consent assessment tools assess knowledge and values. Nevertheless, there is no consensus on what specific elements need to be discussed or considered in the consent process for genetic tests.Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify all factors involved in the decision-making and consent process about genetic testing, from the perspective of patients. Through public databases, we identified studies reporting factors that influence the decision to accept or decline genetic testing. Studies were included if they reported the perspective of patients or at-risk individuals. All articles were thematically coded.Results: 1989 articles were reviewed: 70 met inclusion criteria and 12 additional articles were identified through the references of included studies. Coding of the 82 articles led to the identification of 45 factors involved in decision-making and consent, which were initially divided into three domains: in favor of, against or with an undetermined influence on genetic testing. Each factor was also divided into three subdomains relating to the informed choice concept: knowledge, values or other. The factors in the "other" subdomain were all related to the context of testing (e.g. timing, cost, influence of family members, etc), and were present in all three domains.Conclusions: We describe the network of factors contributing to decision-making and consent process and identify the context of genetic testing as a third component to influence this process. Future studies should consider the evaluation of contextual factors as an important and relevant component of the consent and decision-making process about genetic tests. Based on these results, we plan to develop and test a more comprehensive tool to assess informed consent for genetic testing.

Development of a culturally targeted chatbot to inform living kidney donor candidates of African ancestry about APOL1 genetic testing: a mixed methods study

Clinical chatbots are increasingly used to help integrate genetic testing into clinical contexts, but no chatbot exists for Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) genetic testing of living kidney donor (LKD) candidates of African ancestry. Our study aimed to culturally adapt and assess perceptions of the Gia® chatbot to help integrate APOL1 testing into LKD evaluation. Ten focus groups and post-focus group surveys were conducted with 54 LKDs, community members, and kidney transplant recipients of African ancestry. Data were analyzed through thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. Key themes about making Gia culturally targeted included ensuring: (1) transparency by providing Black LKDs' testimonials, explaining patient privacy and confidentiality protections, and explaining how genetic testing can help LKD evaluation; (2) content is informative by educating Black LKDs about APOL1 testing instead of aiming to convince them to undergo testing, presenting statistics, and describing how genetic discrimination is legally prevented; and (3) content avoids stigma about living donation in the Black community. Most agreed Gia was neutral and unbiased (82%), trustworthy (82%), and words, phrases, and expressions were familiar to the intended audience (85%). Our culturally adapted APOL1 Gia chatbot was well regarded. Future research should assess how this chatbot could supplement provider discussion prior to genetic testing to scale APOL1 counseling and testing for LKD candidate clinical evaluation.

Evaluating ApoL1 Genetic Testing Policy Options for Transplant Centers: A Delphi Consensus Panel Project with Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) variants G1 and G2 are associated with a higher risk of kidney disease. ApoL1 risk variants are predominantly seen in individuals with sub-Saharan African ancestry. In most transplant centers, potential organ donors are being selectively genetically tested for ApoL1 risk variants. Transplant programs have highly variable ApoL1 testing practices and need guidance on essential ApoL1 clinical policy questions.

METHODS

We conducted a Delphi consensus panel focused on ApoL1 clinical policy questions, including who gets tested, who decides whether testing occurs, how test results are shared, who receives test results, and how test results are used. A total of 27 panelists across seven stakeholder groups participated: living kidney donors ( n =4), deceased donor family members ( n =3), recipients of a deceased donor kidney ( n =4), recipients of a living donor kidney ( n =4), nephrologists ( n =4), transplant surgeons ( n =4), and genetic counselors ( n =4). Nineteen panelists (70%) identified as Black. The Delphi panel process involved two rounds of educational webinars and three rounds of surveys administered to panelists, who were asked to indicate whether they support, could live with, or oppose each policy option.

RESULTS

The panel reached consensus on one or more acceptable policy options for each clinical policy question; panelists supported 18 policy options and opposed 15. Key elements of consensus include the following: ask potential donors about African ancestry rather than race; make testing decisions only after discussion with donors; encourage disclosure of test results to blood relatives and organ recipients but do not require it; use test results to inform decision making, but never for unilateral decisions by transplant programs.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel generally supported policy options involving discussion and shared decision making among patients, donors, and family stakeholders. There was general opposition to unilateral decision making and prohibiting donation altogether.

Implementation of a culturally competent APOL1 genetic testing programme into living donor evaluation: A two-site, non-randomised, pre-post trial design

INTRODUCTION

While living donor (LD) kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients with kidney failure, LDs assume a higher risk of future kidney failure themselves. LDs of African ancestry have an even greater risk of kidney failure post-donation than White LDs. Because evidence suggests that Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) risk variants contribute to this greater risk, transplant nephrologists are increasingly using APOL1 genetic testing to evaluate LD candidates of African ancestry. However, nephrologists do not consistently perform genetic counselling with LD candidates about APOL1 due to a lack of knowledge and skill in counselling. Without proper counselling, APOL1 testing will magnify LD candidates' decisional conflict about donating, jeopardising their informed consent. Given cultural concerns about genetic testing among people of African ancestry, protecting LD candidates' safety is essential to improve informed decisions about donating. Clinical 'chatbots', mobile apps that provide genetic information to patients, can improve informed treatment decisions. No chatbot on APOL1 is available and no nephrologist training programmes are available to provide culturally competent counselling to LDs about APOL1. Given the shortage of genetic counsellors, increasing nephrologists' genetic literacy is critical to integrating genetic testing into practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Using a non-randomised, pre-post trial design in two transplant centres (Chicago, IL, and Washington, DC), we will evaluate the effectiveness of culturally competent APOL1 testing, chatbot and counselling on LD candidates' decisional conflict about donating, preparedness for decision-making, willingness to donate and satisfaction with informed consent and longitudinally evaluate the implementation of this intervention into clinical practice using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will create a model for APOL1 testing of LDs of African ancestry, which can be implemented nationally via implementation science approaches. APOL1 will serve as a model for integrating culturally competent genetic testing into transplant and other practices to improve informed consent. This study involves human participants and was approved by Northwestern University IRB (STU00214038). Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04910867. Registered 8 May 2021, https://register.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AWZ6&selectaction=Edit&uid=U0001PPF&ts=7&cx=-8jv7m2 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04999436. Registered 5 November 2021, https://register.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AYWW&selectaction=Edit&uid=U0001PPF&ts=11&cx=9tny7v.

Genetic evaluation of living kidney donor candidates: A review and recommendations for best practices

The growing accessibility and falling costs of genetic sequencing techniques has expanded the utilization of genetic testing in clinical practice. For living kidney donation, genetic evaluation has been increasingly used to identify genetic kidney disease in potential candidates, especially in those of younger ages. However, genetic testing on asymptomatic living kidney donors remains fraught with many challenges and uncertainties. Not all transplant practitioners are aware of the limitations of genetic testing, are comfortable with selecting testing methods, comprehending test results, or providing counsel, and many do not have access to a renal genetic counselor or a clinical geneticist. Although genetic testing can be a valuable tool in living kidney donor evaluation, its overall benefit in donor evaluation has not been demonstrated and it can also lead to confusion, inappropriate donor exclusion, or misleading reassurance. Until more published data become available, this practice resource should provide guidance for centers and transplant practitioners on the responsible use of genetic testing in the evaluation of living kidney donor candidates.

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.

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.

Disparities in living donation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Living organ donation provides improved access to transplantation, thereby shortening transplant wait times and allowing for more deceased organ transplants. However, disparity in access to living donation has resulted in decreased rates of living donor transplants for some populations of patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Though there have been marked improvements in deceased donor equity, there are still challenges as it relates to gender, racial/ethnic, and socio-economic disparity. Improvements in living donation rates in Hispanic and Asian populations are tempered by challenges in African American rates of organ donation. Socio-economic disparity may drive gender disparities in organ donation resulting in disproportionate female living donors. Tailored approaches relating to language-specific interventions as well as directed educational efforts have helped mitigate disparity. Additionally, the use of apolipoprotein1 testing and modifications of glomerular filtration rate calculators may improve rates of African American donation. This review will evaluate recent data in living donor disparity as well as highlight successes in mitigating disparity.

SUMMARY

Though there are still challenges in living donor disparity, many efforts at tailoring education and access as well as modifying living donor evaluation and identifying systemic policy changes may result in improvements in living donation rates.

Diagnosis, Education, and Care of Patients with APOL1-Associated Nephropathy: A Delphi Consensus and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

APOL1 variants contribute to the markedly higher incidence of ESKD in Blacks compared with Whites. Genetic testing for these variants in patients with African ancestry who have nephropathy is uncommon, and no specific treatment or management protocol for APOL1-associated nephropathy currently exists.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary, racially diverse group of 14 experts and patient advocates participated in a Delphi consensus process to establish practical guidance for clinicians caring for patients who may have APOL1-associated nephropathy. Consensus group members took part in three anonymous voting rounds to develop consensus statements relating to the following: (1) counseling, genotyping, and diagnosis; (2) disease awareness and education; and (3) a vision for management of APOL1-associated nephropathy in a future when treatment is available. A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases was conducted to identify relevant evidence published from January 1, 2009 to July 14, 2020.

RESULTS

The consensus group agreed on 55 consensus statements covering such topics as demographic and clinical factors that suggest a patient has APOL1-associated nephropathy, as well as key considerations for counseling, testing, and diagnosis in current clinical practice. They achieved consensus on the need to increase awareness among key stakeholders of racial health disparities in kidney disease and of APOL1-associated nephropathy and on features of a successful education program to raise awareness among the patient community. The group also highlighted the unmet need for a specific treatment and agreed on best practice for management of these patients should a treatment become available.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary group of experts and patient advocates defined consensus-based guidance on the care of patients who may have APOL1-associated nephropathy.