Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Actionable genetic findings have implications for care of patients with kidney disease, and genetic testing is an emerging tool in nephrology practice. However, there are scarce data regarding best practices for return of results and clinical application of actionable genetic findings for kidney patients.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

We developed a return of results workflow in collaborations with clinicians for the retrospective recontact of adult nephrology patients who had been recruited into a biobank research study for exome sequencing and were identified to have medically actionable genetic findings.

Results

Using this workflow, we attempted to recontact a diverse pilot cohort of 104 nephrology research participants with actionable genetic findings, encompassing 34 different monogenic etiologies of nephropathy and five single-gene disorders recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for return as medically actionable secondary findings. We successfully recontacted 64 (62%) participants and returned results to 41 (39%) individuals. In each case, the genetic diagnosis had meaningful implications for the patients' nephrology care. Through implementation efforts and qualitative interviews with providers, we identified over 20 key challenges associated with returning results to study participants, and found that physician knowledge gaps in genomics was a recurrent theme. We iteratively addressed these challenges to yield an optimized workflow, which included standardized consultation notes with tailored management recommendations, monthly educational conferences on core topics in genomics, and a curated list of expert clinicians for patients requiring extranephrologic referrals.

Conclusions

Developing the infrastructure to support return of genetic results in nephrology was resource-intensive, but presented potential opportunities for improving patient care.

Podcast

This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2020_04_16_12481019.mp3.

SUBMITTER: Nestor JG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7269209 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesPublic access databases such as clinicaltrials.gov achieve dissemination of clinical trial design and aggregated study results. However, return of participant-level data is rarely done. A key barrier includes the proprietary ownership of data by the sponsor. Additionally, investigators may not have access to centralised data, and per International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Good Clinical Practice, must maintain the confidentiality of participants. This study piloted an approach to return both individual and aggregate clinical trial data to parents of children participating in a series of open-label clinical trials.Setting and designA small biotech company obtained central ethics approval (centralised institutional review board [IRB], non-exempt). The study was advertised via parent advocacy groups. Parents of trial participants were offered the option to contact an employee (coordinator) within the company, requesting return of their child's study results. Ethics approval covered participation in six countries. The study focused on the sequential clinical trials of vamorolone VBP15-002 (NCT02760264) and VBP15-003 (NCT02760277) (post-results).InterventionsContact initiated by the parent enabled the coordinator to obtain informed consent (and separate General Data Protection Regulations consent), with phone translation when needed. Using date of birth and study site location provided by the parent, the data manager reported the participant number to the coordinator. The coordinator retrieved and compiled data, along with an aggregate summary, which was mailed via a password protected and encrypted memory device to the parent. Prereturn and postreturn surveys were sent to consented parents (n=19; 40% of 48 total trial participants) and investigators.ResultsPrereturn surveys indicated a request for as much data as offered, in all formats offered. Postreturn survey showed high satisfaction with the process and data returned. Survey of the physician site investigators (n=10; 100% participation of investigators) voiced general satisfaction with the process, with some reservations.ConclusionsThis pilot study demonstrates an innovative, cost-effective, centralised and labour conservative approach to return of participant-level and aggregate data to participants in studies.

Project description:BackgroundUse of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in clinical practice can offer clinicians important information about the impact of illness on patients and their quality of life. Electronic reporting of patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) provide quick access of this information to the health care team. Although this type of information is acknowledged to be critical to not only improving the quality of care but also involving patients in care planning, little is known about how ePRO reports can be used in nephrology clinics to enhance person-centered care.ObjectiveThe purpose of this research was to examine how ePROs were used in home dialysis clinics.DesignA pilot qualitative research design was employed.SettingThe study was conducted in 2 home dialysis clinics over 6 months.PatientsA total of 99 home dialysis patients and 12 nurses participated in the study.MeasurementsPatients completed 2 ePROs (the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System revised for renal patients and Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36) prior to their clinic appointment, and results were given to their health care providers. Nurses saw patients first, along with ePRO data. Patients and nurses consented to having their clinic interactions observed and audio recorded (n = 169).MethodsSummative content analysis was used to synthesize the data.ResultsThe ePRO data were used to discuss 24 specific issues (brought up a total of 456 times over 165 interactions), most frequently: itchiness (n = 55), appetite (n = 51), problems with sleeping (n = 50), tiredness (n = 46), and shortness of breath (n = 45) as well as overall patient health and the general effects of kidney disease on the patient's daily life. The issues that most often prompted a change in care plan, referral to another health care professional, or further assessment included itching (n = 23), depression (n = 18), tiredness (n = 13), sleeping (n = 12), anxiety (n = 11), and disease interfering with daily life (n = 7).LimitationsLimitations include the duration of follow-up (6 months), the restriction to 2 home dialysis clinics, and the potential for the Hawthorne effect due to observation.ConclusionsUse of these ePROs in the home dialysis clinics provided useful information that guided focused assessments and augmented standard assessments to support person-centered care. Further studies are warranted to identify whether this practice offers benefits over usual care.