Pilot Study of Return of Genetic Results to Patients in Adult Nephrology

Nephrologists' Views on a Workflow for Returning Genetic Results to Research Participants

Introduction

Returning research-based genetic results (gRoR) to participants in nephrology research can improve care; however, the practice raises implementational questions and no established guidelines for this process currently exist. Nephrologists' views on this issue can inform the process but are understudied.

Methods

We developed a conceptual workflow for gRoR from literature and experience, covering aspects such as which results to return, how, and by whom. We surveyed US nephrologists to gauge their views on the workflow and anticipated barriers and collected participants' demographics, including professional backgrounds.

Results

A total of 201 adult and pediatric nephrologists completed the survey. Most of them agreed that all diagnostic kidney-related results (93%), secondary findings (80%), and kidney-related risk variants (83%) should be returned. No significant differences were found between adult and pediatric nephrologists' responses, except that 48% of adult nephrologists versus 26% of pediatric nephrologists supported returning polygenic risk scores (PRS) (P < 0.01). Seventy-nine percent wanted to know about research results before clinical confirmation. Most of them (63%) believed a genetic counselor should return clinically confirmed results. Key barriers included the cost of clinical validation (77%) and the unavailability of genetic counseling services (63%). Facilitators included educational resources on genetic kidney diseases (91%), a referral list of experts (89%), and clear clinical care guidelines (89%). We discuss findings' implications and provide "points to consider."

Conclusion

There is significant interest in gRoR among nephrologists; however, logistical and economic concerns need addressing. Identified facilitators can help large nephrology studies planning to return genetic results to participants.

Pediatric nephrologists' perspectives and clinical practices related to genetic testing and education

BACKGROUND

While genetic testing is now more accessible in pediatric nephrology, little is known about the views of pediatric nephrologists regarding genetic testing in clinical settings.

METHODS

An online 41-item survey was developed and distributed via professional listservs to self-identified U.S. licensed pediatric nephrologists from January 22 to May 4, 2021.

RESULTS

Pediatric nephrologists had a high referral rate to genetic counseling and agreed on the significant impact of genetic testing on diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, counseling, and kidney transplant planning. Challenges for the utilization of genetic testing among pediatric nephrologists include the need to (1) learn how to counsel patients on the risks and benefits of genetic testing, (2) choose appropriate testing, (3) interpret genetic results, and (4) return those results to patients and families.

CONCLUSION

There exists an opportunity to expand genetic testing education for pediatric nephrologists to assist incorporation of genetic testing into clinical practice.

Bridging the Gap in Genomic Implementation: Identifying User Needs for Precision Nephrology

Introduction

Genomic medicine holds transformative potential for personalized nephrology care; however, its clinical integration poses challenges. Automated clinical decision support (CDS) systems in the electronic health record (EHR) offer a promising solution but have shown limited impact. This study aims to glean practical insights into nephrologists' challenges using genomic resources, informing precision nephrology decision support tools.

Methods

We conducted an anonymous electronic survey among US nephrologists from January 19, 2021 to May 19, 2021, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. It assessed practice characteristics, genomic resource utilization, attitudes, perceived knowledge, self-efficacy, and factors influencing genetic testing decisions. Survey links were primarily shared with National Kidney Foundation members.

Results

We analyzed 319 surveys, with most respondents specializing in adult nephrology. Although respondents generally acknowledged the clinical use of genomic resources, varying levels of perceived knowledge and self-efficacy were evident regarding precision nephrology workflows. Barriers to genetic testing included cost/insurance coverage and limited genomics experience.

Conclusion

The study illuminates specific hurdles nephrologists face using genomic resources. The findings are a valuable contribution to genomic implementation research, highlighting the significance of developing tailored interventions to support clinicians in using genomic resources effectively. These findings can guide the future development of CDS systems in the EHR. Addressing unmet informational and workflow support needs can enhance the integration of genomics into clinical practice, advancing personalized nephrology care and improving kidney disease outcomes. Further research should focus on interventions promoting seamless precision nephrology care integration.

The Role of Genetic Testing in Adult CKD

Mounting evidence indicates that monogenic disorders are the underlying cause in a significant proportion of patients with CKD. In recent years, the diagnostic yield of genetic testing in these patients has increased significantly as a result of revolutionary developments in genetic sequencing techniques and sequencing data analysis. Identification of disease-causing genetic variant(s) in patients with CKD may facilitate prognostication and personalized management, including nephroprotection and decisions around kidney transplantation, and is crucial for genetic counseling and reproductive family planning. A genetic diagnosis in a patient with CKD allows for screening of at-risk family members, which is also important for determining their eligibility as kidney transplant donors. Despite evidence for clinical utility, increased availability, and data supporting the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing in CKD, especially when applied early in the diagnostic process, many nephrologists do not use genetic testing to its full potential because of multiple perceived barriers. Our aim in this article was to empower nephrologists to (further) implement genetic testing as a diagnostic means in their clinical practice, on the basis of the most recent insights and exemplified by patient vignettes. We stress why genetic testing is of significant clinical benefit to many patients with CKD, provide recommendations for which patients to test and which test(s) to order, give guidance about interpretation of genetic testing results, and highlight the necessity for and essential components of pretest and post-test genetic counseling.

Implementation and Evaluation of a National Multidisciplinary Kidney Genetics Clinic Network Over 10 Years

Introduction

Diagnostic genomic sequencing is the emerging standard of care in nephrology. There is a growing need to scale up the implementation of genomic diagnostics nationally to improve patient outcomes.

Methods

This pragmatic study provided genomic or genetic testing to patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease through a national network of kidney genetics clinics (KGCs). We sought to evaluate the experiences of implementing genomic diagnostics across Australia and associated diagnostic outcomes between 2013 and 2022.

Results

We successfully established and expanded a nationwide network of 20 clinics as of 2022; concurrently developing laboratory, research, and education programs to scale the clinical application of genomics in nephrology. We report on an Australian cohort of 1506 kidney patients, of whom 1322 received their test results. We assessed barriers to implementation in the nephrology context, and where possible, applied real-time solutions to improve clinical processes over 10 years.

Conclusion

Developing a multidisciplinary kidney genetics model across multiple health services nationally was highly successful. This model supported optimal care of individuals with monogenic kidney disease in an economically responsible way. It has continued to evolve with technological and service developments and is now set to scale further as genomic testing for kidney patients transitions to health care system funding.

A Drosophila model to screen Alport syndrome COL4A5 variants for their functional pathogenicity

Alport syndrome is a hereditary chronic kidney disease, attributed to rare pathogenic variants in either of three collagen genes (COL4A3/4/5) with most localized in COL4A5. Trimeric type IV Collagen α3α4α5 is essential for the glomerular basement membrane that forms the kidney filtration barrier. A means to functionally assess the many candidate variants and determine pathogenicity is urgently needed. We used Drosophila, an established model for kidney disease, and identify Col4a1 as the functional homolog of human COL4A5 in the fly nephrocyte (equivalent of human podocyte). Fly nephrocytes deficient for Col4a1 showed an irregular and thickened basement membrane and significantly reduced nephrocyte filtration function. This phenotype was restored by expressing human reference (wildtype) COL4A5, but not by COL4A5 carrying any of three established pathogenic patient-derived variants. We then screened seven additional patient COL4A5 variants; their ClinVar classification was either likely pathogenic or of uncertain significance. The findings support pathogenicity for four of these variants; the three others were found benign. Thus, demonstrating the effectiveness of this Drosophila in vivo kidney platform in providing the urgently needed variant-level functional validation.

The Clinical Utility of Genetic Testing in the Diagnosis and Management of Adults with Chronic Kidney Disease

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Accurate diagnosis of a patient's underlying cause of CKD can influence management and ultimately overall health. The single-arm, interventional, prospective Renasight Clinical Application, Review, and Evaluation study assessed the utility of genetic testing with a 385 gene kidney disease panel on the diagnosis and management of 1623 patients with CKD. Among 20.8% of patients who had positive genetic findings, half resulted in a new or reclassified diagnosis. In addition, a change in management because of genetic testing was reported for 90.7% of patients with positive findings, including treatment changes in 32.9%. These findings demonstrate that genetic testing has a significant effect on both CKD diagnosis and management.

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing in CKD has recently been shown to have diagnostic utility with many predicted implications for clinical management, but its effect on management has not been prospectively evaluated.

METHODS

Renasight Clinical Application, Review, and Evaluation RenaCARE (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05846113 ) is a single-arm, interventional, prospective, multicenter study that evaluated the utility of genetic testing with a broad, 385 gene panel (the Renasight TM test) on the diagnosis and management of adult patients with CKD recruited from 31 US-based community and academic medical centers. Patient medical history and clinical CKD diagnosis were collected at enrollment. Physician responses to questionnaires regarding patient disease categorization and management were collected before genetic testing and 1 month after the return of test results. Changes in CKD diagnosis and management after genetic testing were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 1623 patients with CKD in 13 predefined clinical disease categories (ages, 18-96; median, 55 years), 20.8% ( n =338) had positive genetic findings spanning 54 genes. Positive genetic findings provided a new diagnosis or reclassified a prior diagnosis in 48.8% of those patients. Physicians reported that genetic results altered the management of 90.7% of patients with a positive genetic finding, including changes in treatment plan, which were reported in 32.9% of these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic testing with a CKD-focused 385 gene panel substantially refined clinical diagnoses and had widespread implications for clinical management, including appropriate treatment strategies. These data support the utility of broader integration of panels of genetic tests into the clinical care paradigm for patients with CKD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05846113 .

Implementation and Feasibility of Clinical Genome Sequencing Embedded Into the Outpatient Nephrology Care for Patients With Proteinuric Kidney Disease

Introduction

The diagnosis and management of proteinuric kidney diseases such as focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) are challenging. Genetics holds the promise to improve clinical decision making for these diseases; however, it is often performed too late to enable timely clinical action and it is not implemented within routine outpatient nephrology visits.

Methods

We sought to test the implementation and feasibility of clinical rapid genome sequencing (GS) in guiding decision making in patients with proteinuric kidney disease in real-time and embedded in the outpatient nephrology setting.

Results

We enrolled 10 children or young adults with biopsy-proven FSGS (9 cases) or minimal change disease (1 case). The mean age at enrollment was 16.2 years (range 2-30). The workflow did not require referral to external genetics clinics but was conducted entirely during the nephrology standard-of-care appointments. The total turn-around-time from enrollment to return-of-results and clinical decision averaged 21.8 days (12.4 for GS), which is well within a time frame that allows clinically relevant treatment decisions. A monogenic or APOL1-related form of kidney disease was diagnosed in 5 of 10 patients. The genetic findings resulted in a rectified diagnosis in 6 patients. Both positive and negative GS findings determined a change in pharmacological treatment. In 3 patients, the results were instrumental for transplant evaluation, donor selection, and the immunosuppressive treatment. All patients and families received genetic counseling.

Conclusion

Clinical GS is feasible and can be implemented in real-time in the outpatient care to help guiding clinical management. Additional studies are needed to confirm the cost-effectiveness and broader utility of clinical GS across the phenotypic and demographic spectrum of kidney diseases.

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.

Kidney Genetics: Continuing Discoveries and a Roadmap to the Clinic

This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/JASN/2023_04_03_JASN2022060725.mp3

A Primer in Precision Nephrology: Optimizing Outcomes in Kidney Health and Disease through Data-Driven Medicine

This year marks the 63rd anniversary of the International Society of Nephrology, which signaled nephrology's emergence as a modern medical discipline. In this article, we briefly trace the course of nephrology's history to show a clear arc in its evolution-of increasing resolution in nephrological data-an arc that is converging with computational capabilities to enable precision nephrology. In general, precision medicine refers to tailoring treatment to the individual characteristics of patients. For an operational definition, this tailoring takes the form of an optimization, in which treatments are selected to maximize a patient's expected health with respect to all available data. Because modern health data are large and high resolution, this optimization process requires computational intervention, and it must be tuned to the contours of specific medical disciplines. An advantage of this operational definition for precision medicine is that it allows us to better understand what precision medicine means in the context of a specific medical discipline. The goal of this article was to demonstrate how to instantiate this definition of precision medicine for the field of nephrology. Correspondingly, the goal of precision nephrology was to answer two related questions: ( 1 ) How do we optimize kidney health with respect to all available data? and ( 2 ) How do we optimize general health with respect to kidney data?

Exome-First Strategy in Adult Patients With CKD: A Cohort Study

Introduction

Exome sequencing (ES) has widened the field of nephrogenomics in adult nephrology. In addition to reporting the diagnostic yield of ES in an adult cohort study, we investigated the clinical implications of molecular diagnosis and developed a clinical score to predict the probability of obtaining positive result.

Methods

From September 2018 we have used ES to prospectively perform a first-tier liberal exploration of adult nephropathies of unknown origin and/or when a genetic kidney disease was clinically suggested. We also analyzed copy number variant using the same assay.

Results

Molecular diagnosis was made in 127 of 538 patients sequenced (diagnostic yield: 24%), comprising 47 distinct monogenic disorders. Eight of these monogenic disorders (17% [8/47]) accounted for 52% of genetic diagnoses. In 98% (n = 125/127) of the patients, the genetic information was reported to have major clinical implications. We developed a 4-value clinical score to predict the probability of obtaining a molecular diagnosis (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC] 0.726 [95% confidence interval: 0.670-0.782]) (available at http://allogenomics.com/score).

Conclusion

This study reinforces the role of ES as a first-tier exploration for adult chronic kidney disease patients in whom phenotypes are often poor and atypical. Although external validation is required, our clinical score could be a useful tool for the implementation of nephrogenomics in adults.

The genetic landscape of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease in Kuwait

Background

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is the most common renal monogenic disease, characterized by bilateral accumulation of renal fluid-filled cysts leading to progressive renal volume enlargement and gradual impairment of kidney function, often resulting in end-stage renal disease. Kuwait could provide valuable genetic insights about ADPKD, including intrafamilial phenotypic variation, given its large household size. This study aims to provide a comprehensive description of the pathogenic variants linked to ADPKD in the Kuwaiti population using multiple genetic analysis modalities and to describe and analyse the ADPKD phenotypic spectrum in terms of kidney function, kidney volume and renal survival.

Methods

A total of 126 ADPKD patients from 11 multiplex families and 25 singletons were recruited into the study. A combination of targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS), long-range polymerase chain reaction, Sanger sequencing and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification were utilized for genetic diagnosis. Clinical evaluation was conducted through renal function testing and ultrasonographic kidney volume analysis.

Results

We identified 29 ADPKD pathogenic mutations from 36 families achieving an overall molecular genetic diagnostic rate of 112/126 (88.9%), including 29/36 (80.6%) in families. A total of 28/36 (77.8%) families had pathogenic mutations in PKD1, of which 17/28 (60.7%) were truncating, and 1/36 (2.8%) had a pathogenic variant in the IFT140 gene. A total of 20/29 (69%) of the identified ADPKD mutations were novel and described for the first time, including a TSC2-PKD1 contiguous syndrome. Clinical analysis indicated that genetically unresolved ADPKD cases had no apparent association between kidney volume and age.

Conclusion

We describe for the first time the genetic landscape of ADPKD in Kuwait. The observed genetic heterogeneity underlining ADPKD along with the wide phenotypic spectrum reveal the level of complexity in disease pathophysiology. ADPKD genetic testing could improve the care of patients through improved disease prognostication, guided treatment and genetic counselling. However, to fulfil the potential of genetic testing, it is important to overcome the hurdle of genetically unresolved ADPKD cases.

Return of individual genomic research results within the PRAEGNANT multicenter registry study

PURPOSE

The PRAEGNANT study is a registry study for metastatic breast cancer patients, focusing on biomarker detection. Recently, within this study, genetic alterations in 37 breast cancer predisposition genes were analyzed and genetic findings were detected for 396 participants. The aim of this project was to return genetic results to the physicians and to analyze actions taken (e.g., disclosure of results to patients, validation of results, clinical impact, and impact on the patient's quality of life) using a questionnaire.

METHODS

235 questionnaires were sent out to the study centers, with each questionnaire representing one patient with a genetic finding. The questionnaire consisted of twelve questions in the German language, referring to the disclosure of results, validation of test results, and their impact on treatment decisions and on the patient's quality of life.

RESULTS

135 (57.5%) questionnaires were completed. Of these, 46 (34.1%) stated that results were returned to the patients. In 80.0% (N = 36) of cases where results were returned, the patient had not been aware of the finding previously. For 27 patients (64.3%), genetic findings had not been validated beforehand. All validation procedures (N = 15) were covered by the patients' health insurance. For 11 (25.0%) patients, physicians reported that the research results influenced current or future decision-making on treatment, and for 37.8% (N = 17) the results influenced whether family members will be genetically tested.

CONCLUSION

This study provides novel insights into the return of research results and into clinical and personal benefits of disclosure of genetic findings within a German registry.

Assessment of the Needs of Nephrology Divisions to Implement Return of Clinically Significant Research Genetic Results: A Survey of Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE) Investigators

Introduction

There is an increasing need to return genetic testing results to patients with kidney disease who were first genotyped on a research basis. Operationalizing this process in nephrology clinics is challenged by a limited number of genetic providers with whom to partner and a general lack of support services for all clinicians.

Methods

We administered a survey in March 2022 to assess the current ability and ongoing needs of nephrology divisions to return clinically significant research genetic results to patients and to implement clinical genetic testing. This survey was distributed to institutions within the Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network (NEPTUNE) as part of the planning process for return of research genetic results to participants with pathogenic variants in Mendelian nephrotic syndrome genes.

Results

Twenty-seven of 28 sites (96%) completed the survey. 59% (n = 16) of sites said they could handle return of research genetic results independently, with the rest expressing hesitation about the volume and complexity of patients and the limited resources and access to genetics services. 81% (n = 22) of these institutions did have a genetics clinic and 26% (n = 7) have a nephrology genetics clinic. However, 70% (n = 10) of these clinics have a waiting time over 1 month. 89% of divisions (n = 24) were conducting genetic testing and 96% of those (n = 23) used a kidney multi-gene panel. In 46% of divisions (n = 11), nephrologists were handling logistics of obtaining genetic testing samples themselves.

Conclusion

We identified specific areas of support needed for return of clinically significant genetic results from research studies. While the surveyed nephrologists were conducting genetic testing, there were limitations in the support services available. This survey will help guide other research studies that wish to return genetic results to participants and also highlight the need for increasing support to effectively operationalize genetic testing in nephrology clinics.

Which patients with CKD will benefit from genomic sequencing? Synthesizing progress to illuminate the future

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will summarize and synthesize recent findings in regard to monogenic kidney disorders, including how that evidence is being translated into practice. It will add to existing key knowledge to provide context for clinicians in consolidating existing practice and approaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

Whilst there are long established factors, which indicate increased likelihood of identifying a monogenic cause for kidney disease, these can now be framed in terms of the identification of new genes, new indications for genomic testing and new evidence for clinical utility of genomic testing in nephrology. Further, inherent in the use of genomics in nephrology are key concepts including robust informed consent, variant interpretation and return of results. Recent findings of variants in genes related to complex or broader kidney phenotypes are emerging in addition to understanding of de novo variants. Phenocopy phenomena are indicating a more pragmatic use of broader gene panels whilst evidence is emerging of a role in unexplained kidney disease. Clinical utility is evolving but is being successfully demonstrated across multiple domains of outcome and practice.

SUMMARY

We provide an updated framework of evidence to guide application of genomic testing in chronic kidney disease (CKD), building upon existing principles and knowledge to indicate how the practice and implementation of this can be applied today. There are clearly established roles for genomic testing for some patients with CKD, largely those with suspected heritable forms, with these continuing to expand as new evidence emerges.

Participant Choice towards Receiving Potential Additional Findings in an Australian Nephrology Research Genomics Study

The choices of participants in nephrology research genomics studies about receiving additional findings (AFs) are unclear as are participant factors that might influence those choices. Methods: Participant choices and factors potentially impacting decisions about AFs were examined in an Australian study applying research genomic testing following uninformative diagnostic genetic testing for suspected monogenic kidney disease. Results: 93% of participants (195/210) chose to receive potential AFs. There were no statistically significant differences between those consenting to receive AFs or not in terms of gender (p = 0.97), median age (p = 0.56), being personally affected by the inherited kidney disease of interest (p = 0.38), or by the inheritance pattern (p = 0.12-0.19). Participants were more likely to choose not to receive AFs if the family proband presented in adulthood (p = 0.01), if there was family history of another genetic disorder (p = 0.01), and where the consent process was undertaken by an adult nephrologist (p = 0.01). Conclusion: The majority of participants in this nephrology research genomics study chose to receive potential AFs. Younger age of the family proband, family history of an alternate genetic disorder, and consenting by some multidisciplinary team members might impact upon participant choices.

Incorporating genetics services into adult kidney disease care

Studies have shown that as many as 1 in 10 adults with chronic kidney disease has a monogenic form of disease. However, genetic services in adult nephrology are limited. An adult Kidney Genetics Clinic was established within the nephrology division at a large urban academic medical center to increase access to genetic services and testing in adults with kidney disease. Between June 2019 and December 2021, a total of 363 patients were referred to the adult Kidney Genetics Clinic. Of those who completed genetic testing, a positive diagnostic finding was identified in 27.1%, a candidate diagnostic finding was identified in 6.7% of patients, and a nondiagnostic positive finding was identified in an additional 8.6% of patients, resulting in an overall yield of 42.4% for clinically relevant genetic findings in tested patients. A genetic diagnosis had implications for medical management, family member testing, and eligibility for clinical trials. With the utilization of telemedicine, genetic services reached a diverse geographic and patient population. Genetic education efforts were integral to the clinic's success, as they increased visibility and helped providers identify appropriate referrals. Ongoing access to genomic services will remain a fundamental component of patient care in adults with kidney disease.

Evaluation of Genetic Kidney Diseases in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Towards Precision Genomic Medicine in Donor Risk Assessment

Purpose of Review

To provide a comprehensive update on the role of genetic testing for the evaluation of kidney transplant recipient and living donor candidates.

Recent Findings

The evaluation of candidates for living donor transplantation and their potential donors occurs within an ever-changing landscape impacted by new evidence and risk assessment techniques. Criteria that were once considered contraindications to living kidney donation are now viewed as standard of care, while new tools identify novel risk markers that were unrecognized in past decades. Recent work suggests that nearly 10% of a cohort of patients with chronic/end-stage kidney disease had an identifiable genetic etiology, many whose original cause of renal disease was either unknown or misdiagnosed. Some also had an incidentally found genetic variant, unrelated to their nephropathy, but medically actionable. These patterns illustrate the substantial potential for genetic testing to better guide the selection of living donors and recipients, but guidance on the proper application and interpretation of novel technologies is in its infancy. In this review, we examine the utility of genetic testing in various kidney conditions, and discuss risks and unresolved challenges. Suggested algorithms in the context of related and unrelated donation are offered.

Summary

Genetic testing is a rapidly evolving strategy for the evaluation of candidates for living donor transplantation and their potential donors that has potential to improve risk assessment and optimize the safety of donation.

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.

Mainstreaming Genetic Testing for Adult Patients With Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease

PURPOSE

Genetic testing results are currently obtained approximately 1 year after referral to a medical genetics team for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). We evaluated a mainstream genetic testing (MGT) pathway whereby the nephrology team provided pre-test counseling and selection of patients with suspected ADPKD for genetic testing prior to direct patient interaction by a medical geneticist.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

A multidisciplinary team of nephrologists, genetic counselors, and medical geneticists developed an MGT pathway for ADPKD using current testing criteria for adult patient with suspected ADPKD and literature from MGT in oncology.

METHODS

An MGT pathway was assessed using a prospective cohort and compared to a retrospective cohort of 56 patients with ADPKD who received genetic testing using the standard, traditional pathway prior to implementing the MGT for ADPKD. The mainstream pathway was evaluated using time to diagnosis, diagnostic yield, and a patient survey to assess patient perceptions of the MGT pathway.

KEY FINDINGS

We assessed 26 patients with ADPKD using the MGT and 18 underwent genetic testing with return of results. Of them, 52 patients had data available for analysis in the traditional control cohort. The time for return of results using our MGT pathway was significantly shorter with a median time to results of 6 months compared to 12 months for the traditional pathway. We identified causative variants in 61% of patients, variants of uncertain significance in 28%, and 10% had negative testing which is in line with expectations from the literature. The patient surveys showed high satisfaction rates with the MGT pathway.

LIMITATIONS

This report is an evaluation of a new genetic testing pathway restricted to a single, publicly funded health care center. The MGT pathway involved a prospective collection of a limited number of patients with ADPKD with comparison to a retrospective cohort of patients with ADPKD evaluated by standard testing.

IMPLICATIONS

A MGT pathway using clearly defined criteria and commercially available gene panels for ADPKD can be successfully implemented in a publicly funded health care system to reduce the time required to obtain genetic results.

Return of Results Policies for Genomic Research: Current Practices & The Hearts in Rhythm Organization Approach

Research teams developing biobanks and/or genomic databases must develop policies for the disclosure and reporting of potentially actionable genomic results to research participants. Currently, a broad range of approaches to the return of results exist, with some studies opting for non-disclosure of research results while others follow clinical guidelines for the return of potentially actionable findings from sequencing. In this review, we describe current practices and highlight decisions a research team must make when designing a return of results policy, from informed consent to disclosure practices and clinical validation options. The unique challenges of returning incidental findings in cardiac genes, including reduced penetrance and the lack of clinical screening standards for phenotype-negative individuals are discussed. Lastly, the National Hearts in Rhythm Organization (HiRO) Registry approach is described to provide a rationale for the selective return of field-specific variants to those participating in disease-specific research. Our goal is to provide researchers with a resource when developing a return of results policy tailored for their research program, based on unique factors related to study design, research team composition and availability of clinical resources.

Genomics Integration Into Nephrology Practice

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

The etiology of kidney disease remains unknown in many individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We created the Mayo Clinic Nephrology Genomics Clinic to improve our ability to integrate genomic and clinical data to identify the etiology of unexplained CKD.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

An essential component of our program is the Nephrology Genomics Board which consists of nephrologists, geneticists, pathologists, translational omics scientists, and trainees who interpret the patient's clinical and genetic data. Since September 2016, the Board has reviewed 163 cases (15 cystic, 100 glomerular, 6 congenital anomalies of kidney and urinary tract (CAKUT), 20 stones, 15 tubulointerstitial, and 13 other).

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Testing was performed with targeted panels, single gene analysis, or analysis of kidney-related genes from exome sequencing. Variant classification was obtained based on the 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology guidelines.

RESULTS

A definitive genetic diagnosis was achieved for 50 families (30.7%). The highest diagnostic yield was obtained in individuals with tubulointerstitial diseases (53.3%), followed by congenital anomalies of the kidney and urological tract (33.3%), glomerular (31%), cysts (26.7%), stones (25%), and others (15.4%). A further 20 (12.3%) patients had variants of interest, and variant segregation, and research activities (exome, genome, or transcriptome sequencing) are ongoing for 44 (40%) unresolved families.

LIMITATIONS

Possible overestimation of diagnostic rate due to inclusion of individuals with variants with evidence of pathogenicity but classified as of uncertain significance by the clinical laboratory.

CONCLUSIONS

Integration of genomic and research testing and multidisciplinary evaluation in a nephrology cohort with CKD of unknown etiology or suspected monogenic disease provided a diagnosis in a third of families. These diagnoses had prognostic implications, and often changes in management were implemented.

A systematic literature review of disclosure practices and reported outcomes for medically actionable genomic secondary findings

Purpose:

Secondary findings (SF) are present in 1–4% of individuals undergoing genome/exome sequencing. A review of how SF are disclosed and what outcomes result from their receipt is urgent and timely.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic literature review of SF disclosure practices and outcomes after receipt including cascade testing, family and provider communication, and healthcare actions. Of the 1,184 non-duplicate records screened we summarize findings from 27 included research articles describing SF disclosure practices, outcomes after receipt, or both.

Results:

The included articles reported 709 unique SF index recipients/families. Referrals and/or recommendations were provided 647 SF recipients and outcome data were available for 236. At least one recommended evaluation was reported for 146 SF recipients; 16 reports of treatment or prophylactic surgery were identified. We found substantial variations in how the constructs of interest were defined and described.

Conclusion:

Variation in how SF disclosure and outcomes were described limited our ability to compare findings. We conclude the literature provided limited insight into how the ACMG guidelines have been translated into precision health outcomes for SF recipients. Robust studies of SF recipients are needed and should be prioritized for future research.

Disclosure of clinically actionable genetic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of pathogenic variants to thoracic aortic dissection biobank participants was implemented. The impact and costs, including confirmatory genetic testing in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratory, were evaluated.

METHODS

We exome sequenced 240 cases with thoracic aortic dissection and 258 controls, then examined 11 aortopathy genes. Pathogenic variants in 6 aortopathy genes (COL3A1, FBN1, LOX, PRKG1, SMAD3, and TGFBR2) were identified in 26 participants, representing 10.8% of the cohort (26/240). A second research sample was used to validate the initial findings. Mailed letters to participants disclosed that a potentially disease causing DNA alteration had been identified (neither the gene nor variant was disclosed). Participants were offered clinical genetic counseling and confirmatory genetic testing in a CLIA laboratory.

RESULTS

Excluding 6 participants who were deceased or lost to follow-up, 20 participants received the disclosure letter, 10 of whom proceeded with genetic counseling, confirmatory genetic testing, and enrolled in a survey study. Participants reported satisfaction with the letter (4.2 ± 0.7) and genetic counseling (4.4 ± 0.4; [out of 5, respectively]). The psychosocial impact was characterized by low decisional regret (11.5 ± 11.6) and distress (16.0 ± 4.2, [out of 100, respectively]). The average cost for 26 participants was $400, including validation and sending letters. The average cost for those who received genetic counseling and CLIA laboratory confirmation was $605.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants were satisfied with the return of clinically significant biobank genetic results and CLIA laboratory testing; however, the process required significant time and resources. These findings illustrate the trade-offs involved for researchers considering returning research genetic results.

Clinical Genetic Screening in Adult Patients with Kidney Disease

Expanded accessibility of genetic sequencing technologies, such as chromosomal microarray and massively parallel sequencing approaches, is changing the management of hereditary kidney diseases. Genetic causes account for a substantial proportion of pediatric kidney disease cases, and with increased utilization of diagnostic genetic testing in nephrology, they are now also detected at appreciable frequencies in adult populations. Establishing a molecular diagnosis can have many potential benefits for patient care, such as guiding treatment, familial testing, and providing deeper insights on the molecular pathogenesis of kidney diseases. Today, with wider clinical use of genetic testing as part of the diagnostic evaluation, nephrologists have the challenging task of selecting the most suitable genetic test for each patient, and then applying the results into the appropriate clinical contexts. This review is intended to familiarize nephrologists with the various technical, logistical, and ethical considerations accompanying the increasing utilization of genetic testing in nephrology care.

Clinical impact of genomic testing in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease

Purpose

To determine the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of exome sequencing (ES) in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease.

Methods

We performed clinically accredited singleton ES in a prospectively ascertained cohort of 204 patients assessed in multidisciplinary renal genetics clinics at four tertiary hospitals in Melbourne, Australia.

Results

ES identified a molecular diagnosis in 80 (39%) patients, encompassing 35 distinct genetic disorders. Younger age at presentation was independently associated with an ES diagnosis (p < 0.001). Of those diagnosed, 31/80 (39%) had a change in their clinical diagnosis. ES diagnosis was considered to have contributed to management in 47/80 (59%), including negating the need for diagnostic renal biopsy in 10/80 (13%), changing surveillance in 35/80 (44%), and changing the treatment plan in 16/80 (20%). In cases with no change to management in the proband, the ES result had implications for the management of family members in 26/33 (79%). Cascade testing was subsequently offered to 40/80 families (50%).

Conclusion

In this pragmatic pediatric and adult cohort with suspected monogenic kidney disease, ES had high diagnostic and clinical utility. Our findings, including predictors of positive diagnosis, can be used to guide clinical practice and health service design.