Dataset Information

Differential methylation as a diagnostic biomarker of rare renal diseases: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The challenges in diagnosis of rare renal conditions can negatively impact patient prognosis, quality of life and result in significant healthcare costs. Differential methylation is emerging as an important biomarker for rare diseases and should be evaluated for rare renal conditions.

Methods

A comprehensive systematic review of methylation and rare renal disorders was conducted by searching the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, alongside grey literature from GreyLit and OpenGrey databases, for publications published before September 2018. Additionally, the reference lists of the included papers were searched. Data was extracted and appraised including the primary focus, measurement and methodological rigour of the source. Eligibility criteria were adapted using the inclusion criteria from 'The 100,000 Genomes Project' and The National Registry of Rare Kidney Diseases, with additional focus on methylation.

Results

Thirteen full text articles were included in the review. Diseases analysed for differential methylation included glomerular disease, IgA nephropathy, ADPKD, rare causes of proteinuria, congenital renal agenesis, and membranous nephropathy.

Conclusions

Differential methylation has been observed for several rare renal diseases, highlighting its potential for improving molecular characterisation of these disorders. Further investigation of methylation following a standardised reporting structure is necessary to improve research quality. Multi-omic data will provide insights for improved diagnosis, prognosis and support for individuals living and working with rare renal diseases.

SUBMITTER: Kerr K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6697952 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe minimum data set (MDS) is a collection of data elements to be grouped using a standard approach to allow the use of data for clinical and research purposes. Health data are typically voluminous, complex, and sometimes too ambiguous to generate indicators that can provide knowledge and information on health. This complexity extends further to the rare disease (RD) domain. MDSs are essential for health surveillance as they help provide services and generate recommended population indicators. There is a bottleneck in international literature that reveals a global problem with data collection, recording, and structuring in RD.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify and analyze the MDSs used for RD in health care networks worldwide and compare them with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.MethodsThe population, concept, and context methodology proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute was used to define the research question of this systematic review. A total of 4 databases were reviewed, and all the processes were reported using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. The data elements were analyzed, extracted, and organized into 10 categories according to WHO digital health guidelines. The quality assessment used the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist.ResultsWe included 20 studies in our review, 70% (n=14) of which focused on a specific health domain and 30% (n=6) of which referred to RD in general. WHO recommends that health systems and networks use standard terminology to exchange data, information, knowledge, and intelligence in health. However, there was a lack of terminological standardization of the concepts in MDSs. Moreover, the selected studies did not follow the same standard structure for classifying the data from their MDSs. All studies presented MDSs with limitations or restrictions because they covered only a specific RD, or their scope of application was restricted to a specific context or geographic region. Data science methods and clinical experience were used to design, structure, and recommend a fundamental global MDS for RD patient records in health care networks.ConclusionsOur study highlights the difficulties in standardizing and categorizing findings from MDSs for RD because of the varying structures used in different studies. The fundamental RD MDS designed in this study comprehensively covers the data needs in the clinical and management sectors. These results can help public policy makers support other aspects of their policies. We highlight the potential of our results to help strategic decisions related to RD.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021221593; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=221593.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.034.

Project description:BackgroundAccording to the International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC), a known rare disease (RD) should be diagnosable within a year. This study sought: firstly, to ascertain how long it takes to obtain the diagnosis of a RD in Spain, along with its associated time trend; and secondly, to identify and measure diagnostic delay (defined by the IRDiRC as any period exceeding a year) by reference to the characteristics of RDs and the persons affected by them.MethodsUsing data sourced from the Spanish Rare Diseases Patient Registry, we performed a descriptive analysis of the time elapsed between symptom onset and diagnosis of each RD, by sex, age and date of symptom onset, and type of RD. We analysed the time trend across the period 1960-2021 and possible change points, using a Joinpoint regression model and assuming a Poisson distribution. The multivariate analysis was completed with backward stepwise logistic regression.ResultsDetailed information was obtained on 3304 persons with RDs: 56.4% had experienced delay in diagnosis of their RDs, with the mean time taken being 6.18 years (median = 2; IQR 0.2-7.5). Both the percentage of patients with diagnostic delay and the average time to diagnosis underwent a significant reduction across the study period (p < 0.001). There was a higher percentage of diagnostic delays: in women (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.07-1.45); in cases with symptom onset at age 30-44 years (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.19-1.84): and when analysed by type of RD, in mental and behavioural disorders (OR 4.21; 95% CI 2.26-7.85), followed by RDs of the nervous system (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.02-1.88).ConclusionsThis is the first study to quantify time to diagnosis of RDs in Spain, based on data from a national registry open to any RD. Since over half of all persons affected by RDs experience delay in diagnosis, new studies are needed to ascertain the factors associated with this delay and the implications this has on the lives of patients and their families.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Patients with rare diseases have limited access to useful information to guide treatment decisions. Engagement of patients and other stakeholders in clinical research may help to ensure that research efforts in rare diseases address relevant clinical questions and patient-centered health outcomes. Rare disease organizations may provide an effective means to facilitate patient engagement in research. However, the effectiveness of patient-engagement approaches, particularly for the study of rare diseases, has not been well studied. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize evidence about engagement of patients and other stakeholders in research on rare diseases, including the role of rare disease organizations in facilitating patient-centered research. METHODS/RESEARCH DESIGN: A systematic review and gray literature search were guided by a technical expert panel composed of patient representatives, clinicians, and researchers. English-language studies that engaged patients or other stakeholders in research on rare diseases or evaluated engagement were included. Studies were assessed on how well key research questions were answered, based on the level of detail describing engagement activities and whether outcomes from engagement were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included, although many reported minimal information on engagement. Patients and other stakeholders were most commonly engaged to identify patient-centered research agendas, to select which study outcomes were important to patients, to provide input on study design, and to identify strategies for increasing enrollment in trials. Rare disease organizations mainly helped provide access to patients and communicated research opportunities and findings. They also helped promote collaborative networks and provided financial support for research infrastructures. Although authors reported benefits of engagement and identified changes to their research processes, no empirical assessments of engagement practices and their effectiveness were found. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers studying rare diseases can obtain patient input regarding which research questions and health outcomes to study; however, the most effective approaches to engagement have not been well defined.

Project description:Multiple studies have investigated global DNA methylation profiles and gene-specific DNA methylation in blood-based DNA to develop powerful screening markers for cancer. This systematic review summarizes the current evidence on methylation studies that investigated methylation level of blood-derived DNA of breast cancer (BC) patients in comparison to healthy controls by conducting a systematic literature review in PubMed and Web of Science. Essential results, such as methylation levels of BC cases and healthy controls, p values, and odds ratios, were extracted from these studies by two investigators independently. Overall, 45 publications met the inclusion criteria for this review. DNA from whole blood, as well as cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from serum or plasma, was used in these studies. The most common method used for measuring global DNA methylation was the investigation of repetitive elements as surrogates and the application of array-based genome-wide methylation analysis. For measuring gene-specific methylation level, methylation-specific PCR and pyrosequencing were the most frequently used methods. Epigenome-wide blood DNA hypomethylation in BC patients were reported in several studies; however, the evidence is still not conclusive. The most frequently investigated gene in whole blood was BRCA1, which was found more frequently methylated in patients compared to controls. RASSF1A was the most widely investigated gene in cfDNA of serum or plasma, which was also found more frequently methylated in patients compared to controls. Several of the eligible studies reported the associations of global hypomethylation and increased BC risk. Studies investigated associations between gene-specific methylation and BC risk, while got heterogeneous results. But two studies reported that hypermethylation of ATM gene was associated with increased BC risk, which suggest the potential use of this gene for BC risk stratification. Overall, our review suggests the possibility of using blood-based DNA methylation marker as promising marker for BC risk stratification, as several studies found associations between certain methylation level in blood and BC risk. However, so far, the evidence is still quite limited. Optimal markers are yet to be developed and promising results needed to be validated in prospective study cohorts and tested in large screening populations.