Dataset Information

Genomics Integration Into Nephrology Practice

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Pinto e Vairo F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8551494 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe clinical utility of early detection and treatment of allograft rejection is well-established. Despite frequent testing called for by standard of care protocols, the five-year kidney allograft survival rate is estimated to be as low as 71%. Herein, we report on posttransplant care provided to kidney allograft recipients by board-certified nephrologists in the United States.MethodsWe measured clinical practice in a representative sample of 175 practicing nephrologists. All providers cared for simulated patients' status after renal transplant ranging from 30-75 years in age and 3-24 months after transplant. Our sample of nephrologists cared for a total of 525 allograft cases. Provider responses to the cases were reviewed by trained clinicians, and care was compared to evidence-based care standards and accepted standard of care protocols.ResultsAmong nephrologists, practicing in settings ranging from transplant centers to community practice, we found that the clinical workup of kidney injury in posttransplant patients is highly variable and frequently deviates from evidence-based care. In cases with pathologic evidence of rejection, only 29.1% (102/350) received an appropriate, evidence-based biopsy, whereas, in cases with no pathological evidence of rejection, 41.3% (45/109) received low-value, unnecessary biopsies.ConclusionClinical care in the posttransplant setting is highly variable. Biopsies are often ordered in cases where their results do not alter treatment. Additionally, we found that misdiagnosis was common as were opportunities for earlier biopsy and detection of rejection. This evidence suggests that better diagnostic tools may be helpful to determine which transplant patients should be biopsied and which should not. This study suggests that nephrologists and transplant patients need better tests than creatinine and proteinuria and less invasive approaches than routine biopsies to determine when transplant patients should be investigated for rejection and additional treatment.