Genomics Integration Into Nephrology Practice

Whole genome sequencing identifies monogenic disease in 56.1% of families with early-onset steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome

Genetic causes of steroid-resistant-nephrotic-syndrome (SRNS) represent a rapidly growing number of monogenic diseases. The reported diagnostic yield of various studies applying genetic panels and exome-sequencing to diagnose SRNS is usually < 30%. We performed genome-sequencing in a cohort of Egyptian SRNS patients. We recruited 47 SRNS patients belonging to 41 unrelated families [28 males/19 females; median (range): 6 (0.5-22 years)]. We established a pipeline for genome sequencing, bioinformatics analysis, variant curation and protein modeling at the Egypt Center for Research and Regenerative Medicine (ECRRM). Disease-causing variants were detected in 27/47 patients (57.4%) belonging to 23/41 families (56.1%), including nine novel variants in NPHS1, NPHS2, COL4A3, MYO1E, NUP93, PLCE1, PODXL, SMARCAL1 and WT1. Novel variants were confirmed by Sanger sequencing and were segregated in families of affected patients. NPHS2 was the most common causative gene in 8/23 (34.8%) of confirmed families, followed by NPHS1, WT1, and SMARCAL1 in 2/23 families (8.7%) each. All detected missense variants were evaluated through protein modeling and were predicted deleterious. Our study expanded the spectrum of SRNS disease-causing variants and revealed a monogenic cause in 56.1% of investigated families. In our cohort, no deep intronic or regulatory variants were detected by genome-sequencing. Pursuing genetic diagnosis in SRNS patients is crucial to inform clinical decision making, genetic counseling, transplantation strategy and prenatal diagnosis thus improving clinical outcome of affected patients.

Pathogenic variants in the Alport genes are prevalent in the Singapore multiethnic population with highest frequency in the Chinese

Alport syndrome is a common monogenic kidney disease resulting from pathogenic variants in COL4A3, COL4A4 or COL4A5 genes. The estimated global population prevalence is one in 106 individuals for autosomal dominant (AD) and one in 2,320 for sex-linked (XL) conditions. Here, we aimed to estimate the population prevalence of individuals carrying pathogenic variants that cause Alport syndrome in Singapore, and to stratify the prevalence by ancestry. We used population-scale genomic data of 9,051 unrelated subjects, comprising 5,443 (60.8%) Chinese, 1,922 (21.4%) Indian and 1,686 (17.8%) Malay individuals. The prevalence of individuals with pathogenic variants that cause AD and XL Alport syndrome are 1 in 165 and 1 in 2,262 respectively. Additionally, 0.8% of Chinese and 0.3% of Malay populations carry pathogenic Alport syndrome variants, with Chinese individuals being 2.7 times more affected than Malays (95% CI:1.147-6.437, P = 0.027). Interestingly, each pathogenic variant was associated with people of a single ancestry. The two most prevalent pathogenic variants, COL4A3: c.3856G > A (p.Gly1286Arg) (n = 8) and COL4A3: c.4793T > G (p.Leu1598Arg) (n = 4), were exclusively found in the Chinese population. In conclusion, AD Alport syndrome may be prevalent in Singapore, with higher frequencies among the Chinese. Furthermore, founder effects may exist within the ancestries.

Diagnostic yield of exome and genome sequencing after non-diagnostic multi-gene panels in patients with single-system diseases

BACKGROUND

Though next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests like exome sequencing (ES), genome sequencing (GS), and panels derived from exome and genome data (EGBP) are effective for rare diseases, the ideal diagnostic approach is debated. Limited research has explored reanalyzing raw ES and GS data post-negative EGBP results for diagnostics.

RESULTS

We analyzed complete ES/GS raw sequencing data from Mayo Clinic's Program for Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases (PRaUD) patients to assess whether supplementary findings could augment diagnostic yield. ES data from 80 patients (59 adults) and GS data from 20 patients (10 adults), averaging 43 years in age, were analyzed. Most patients had renal (n=44) and auto-inflammatory (n=29) phenotypes. Ninety-six cases had negative findings and in four cases additional genetic variants were found, including a variant related to a recently described disease (RRAGD-related hypomagnesemia), a variant missed due to discordant inheritance pattern (COL4A3), a variant with high allelic frequency (NPHS2) in the general population, and a variant associated with an initially untargeted phenotype (HNF1A).

CONCLUSION

ES and GS show diagnostic yields comparable to EGBP for single-system diseases. However, EGBP's limitations in detecting new disease-associated genes underscore the necessity for periodic updates.

Reclassification of Variants Following Renal Genetics Testing: Uncommon Yet Impactful for Diagnosis and Management

Introduction

Genetic testing is increasingly utilized in nephrology practice, but limited real-world data exist on variant reclassification following renal genetics testing.

Methods

A cohort of patients at the Cleveland Clinic Renal Genetics Clinic who underwent genetic testing through clinical laboratories was assessed with their clinical and laboratory data analyzed.

Results

Between January 2019 and June 2023, 425 new patients with variable kidney disorders from 413 pedigrees completed genetic testing through 10 clinical laboratories, including 255 (60%) females with median (25th, 75th percentiles) age of 36 (22-54) years. Multigene panel was the most frequently used modality followed by single-gene testing, exome sequencing (ES), chromosomal microarray (CMA), and genome sequencing (GS). At initial report, 52% of patients had ≥1 variants of uncertain significance (VUS) with or without concurrent pathogenic variant(s). Twenty amendments were issued across 19 pedigrees involving 19 variants in 17 genes. The overall variant reclassification rate was 5%, with 63% being upgrades and 32% downgrades. Of the reclassified variants, 79% were initially reported as VUS. The median time-to-amendments from initial reports was 8.4 (4-27) months. Following the variant reclassifications, 60% of the patients received a new diagnosis or a change in diagnosis. Among these, 67% of patients received significant changes in clinical management.

Conclusion

Variant reclassification following genetic testing is infrequent but important for diagnosis and management of patients with suspected genetic kidney disease. The majority of variant reclassifications involve VUS and are upgrades in clinically issued amended reports. Further studies are needed to investigate the predictors of such events.

Chronic kidney disease in children: an update

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major healthcare issue worldwide. However, the prevalence of pediatric CKD has never been systematically assessed and consistent information is lacking in this population. The current definition of CKD is based on glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and the extent of albuminuria. Given the physiological age-related modification of GFR in the first years of life, the definition of CKD is challenging per se in the pediatric population, resulting in high risk of underdiagnosis in this population, treatment delays and untailored clinical management. The advent and spreading of massive-parallel sequencing technology has prompted a profound revision of the epidemiology and the causes of CKD in children, supporting the hypothesis that CKD is much more frequent than currently reported in children and adolescents. This acquired knowledge will eventually converge in the identification of the molecular pathways and cellular response to damage, with new specific therapeutic targets to control disease progression and clinical features of children with CKD. In this review, we will focus on recent innovations in the field of pediatric CKD and in particular those where advances in knowledge have become available in the last years, with the aim of providing a new perspective on CKD in children and adolescents.

Genetic Counseling in Kidney Disease: A Perspective

As genetic testing is increasingly integrated into nephrology practice there is a growing need for partnership with genetic experts. Genetic counselors are ideally suited to fill this role. The value of genetic counseling is born out of the clinical value of genetic test results against the backdrop of the complexity of genetic testing. Genetic counselors who specialize in nephrology are trained to understand and explain the potential effects of genes on kidney disease, which can enable patients to make informed decisions about proceeding with genetic testing, navigating variants of uncertain significance, educating on extrarenal features of hereditary kidney disease, facilitating cascade testing, providing post-test education about testing results, and assisting with family planning. Genetic counselors can partner with the nephrologist and provide the knowledge needed to maximize the use of genetic testing for patients for nephrology consultation. Genetic counseling is more than an element or extension of genetic testing; it is a dynamic, shared conversation between the patient and the genetic counselor where concerns, sentiments, information, and education are exchanged, and value-based decision making is facilitated.

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 Clinical Workflow for Cost-Saving High-Rate Diagnosis of Genetic Kidney Diseases

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

To optimize the diagnosis of genetic kidney disorders in a cost-effective manner, we developed a workflow based on referral criteria for in-person evaluation at a tertiary center, whole-exome sequencing, reverse phenotyping, and multidisciplinary board analysis. This workflow reached a diagnostic rate of 67%, with 48% confirming and 19% modifying the suspected clinical diagnosis. We obtained a genetic diagnosis in 64% of children and 70% of adults. A modeled cost analysis demonstrated that early genetic testing saves 20% of costs per patient. Real cost analysis on a representative sample of 66 patients demonstrated an actual cost reduction of 41%. This workflow demonstrates feasibility, performance, and economic effect for the diagnosis of genetic kidney diseases in a real-world setting.

BACKGROUND

Whole-exome sequencing (WES) increases the diagnostic rate of genetic kidney disorders, but accessibility, interpretation of results, and costs limit use in daily practice.

METHODS

Univariable analysis of a historical cohort of 392 patients who underwent WES for kidney diseases showed that resistance to treatments, familial history of kidney disease, extrarenal involvement, congenital abnormalities of the kidney and urinary tract and CKD stage ≥G2, two or more cysts per kidney on ultrasound, persistent hyperechoic kidneys or nephrocalcinosis on ultrasound, and persistent metabolic abnormalities were most predictive for genetic diagnosis. We prospectively applied these criteria to select patients in a network of nephrology centers, followed by centralized genetic diagnosis by WES, reverse phenotyping, and multidisciplinary board discussion.

RESULTS

We applied this multistep workflow to 476 patients with eight clinical categories (podocytopathies, collagenopathies, CKD of unknown origin, tubulopathies, ciliopathies, congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract, syndromic CKD, metabolic kidney disorders), obtaining genetic diagnosis for 319 of 476 patients (67.0%) (95% in 21 patients with disease onset during the fetal period or at birth, 64% in 298 pediatric patients, and 70% in 156 adult patients). The suspected clinical diagnosis was confirmed in 48% of the 476 patients and modified in 19%. A modeled cost analysis showed that application of this workflow saved 20% of costs per patient when performed at the beginning of the diagnostic process. Real cost analysis of 66 patients randomly selected from all categories showed actual cost reduction of 41%.

CONCLUSIONS

A diagnostic workflow for genetic kidney diseases that includes WES is cost-saving, especially if implemented early, and is feasible in a real-world setting.

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.

Theory Designed Strategies to Support Implementation of Genomics in Nephrology

(1) Background: Genomic testing is increasingly utilized as a clinical tool; however, its integration into nephrology remains limited. The purpose of this study was to identify barriers and prioritize interventions for the widespread implementation of genomics in nephrology. (2) Methods: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 Australian adult nephrologists to determine their perspectives on interventions and models of care to support implementation of genomics in nephrology. Interviews were guided by a validated theoretical framework for the implementation of genomic medicine-the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR). (3) Results: Nephrologists were from 18 hospitals, with 7 having a dedicated multidisciplinary kidney genetics service. Most practiced in the public healthcare system (n = 24), a large number were early-career (n = 13), and few had genomics experience (n = 4). The top three preferred interventions were increased funding, access to genomics champions, and education and training. Where interventions to barriers were not reported, we used the CFIR/Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change matching tool to generate theory-informed approaches. The preferred model of service delivery was a multidisciplinary kidney genetics clinic. (4) Conclusions: This study identified surmountable barriers and practical interventions for the implementation of genomics in nephrology, with multidisciplinary kidney genetics clinics identified as the preferred model of care. The integration of genomics education into nephrology training, secure funding for testing, and counselling along with the identification of genomics champions should be pursued by health services more broadly.

Genetic Kidney Diseases (GKDs) Modeling Using Genome Editing Technologies

Genetic kidney diseases (GKDs) are a group of rare diseases, affecting approximately about 60 to 80 per 100,000 individuals, for which there is currently no treatment that can cure them (in many cases). GKDs usually leads to early-onset chronic kidney disease, which results in patients having to undergo dialysis or kidney transplant. Here, we briefly describe genetic causes and phenotypic effects of six GKDs representative of different ranges of prevalence and renal involvement (ciliopathy, glomerulopathy, and tubulopathy). One of the shared characteristics of GKDs is that most of them are monogenic. This characteristic makes it possible to use site-specific nuclease systems to edit the genes that cause GKDs and generate in vitro and in vivo models that reflect the genetic abnormalities of GKDs. We describe and compare these site-specific nuclease systems (zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effect nucleases (TALENs) and regularly clustered short palindromic repeat-associated protein (CRISPR-Cas9)) and review how these systems have allowed the generation of cellular and animal GKDs models and how they have contributed to shed light on many still unknown fields in GKDs. We also indicate the main obstacles limiting the application of these systems in a more efficient way. The information provided here will be useful to gain an accurate understanding of the technological advances in the field of genome editing for GKDs, as well as to serve as a guide for the selection of both the genome editing tool and the gene delivery method most suitable for the successful development of GKDs models.

The evolving role of diagnostic genomics in kidney transplantation

Monogenic forms of heritable kidney disease account for a significant proportion of chronic kidney disease (CKD) across both pediatric and adult patient populations and up to 11% of patients under 40 years reaching end-stage kidney failure (KF) and awaiting kidney transplant. Diagnostic genomics in the field of nephrology is ever evolving and now plays an important role in assessment and management of kidney transplant recipients and their related donor pairs. Genomic testing can help identify the cause of KF in kidney transplant recipients and assist in prognostication around graft survival and rate of recurrence of primary kidney disease. If a gene variant has been identified in the recipient, at-risk related donors can be assessed for the same and excluded if affected. This paper aims to address the indications for genomic testing in the context for kidney transplantation, the technologies available for testing, the conditions and groups in which testing should be most often considered, and the role for the renal genetics multidisciplinary team in this process.