Screening of Living Kidney Donors for Genetic Diseases Using a Comprehensive Genetic Testing Strategy

Clinical Implementation of Nephrologist-Led Genomic Testing for Glomerular Diseases in Singapore: Rationale and Protocol

INTRODUCTION

The early diagnosis and appropriate treatment of monogenic glomerular diseases can reduce kidney failure, avoid unnecessary investigations such as kidney biopsies and ineffective treatment with immunosuppressants, guide transplant decisions, and inform the genetic risks of their family members. Yet, genetic testing for kidney disease is underutilized in Singapore. We aimed to implement a nephrologist-led genetic service and evaluate the acceptance, adoption, utility, and cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for monogenic glomerular disease in Singapore.

METHODS

We will perform a prospective, multi-centre, type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation study with a post-design to evaluate both implementation and clinical outcomes of nephrologist-led genetic testing for suspected genetic glomerular kidney diseases. The multi-disciplinary implementation team will train "genetic nephrologists" to provide pre- and post-test counselling, order targeted exome panel sequencing for suspected glomerular kidney diseases (persistent microscopic haematuria and/or albuminuria or proteinuria in the absence of known causes, steroid-resistant primary nephrotic syndrome, apparent familial IgA nephropathy, or chronic kidney disease with no apparent cause), and interpret genetic test results; create workflows for patient referral, evaluation and management, and discuss genetic results at regular genomic board meetings. The outcomes are acceptance, appropriateness and adoption among patients and nephrologists, utility (proportion of patients who received genetic testing and have a confirmed diagnosis of genetic glomerular disease), and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

This study will create and evaluate a nephrologist-led genetic service, develop an efficient variant curation process, and inform future recommendations on the optimal referral and genetic testing strategy for monogenic glomerular disease in Singapore. This will facilitate the future mainstreaming of genetic testing that will enable precision medicine in kidney care.

Increased risk of kidney failure in patients with genetic kidney disorders

BACKGROUNDIt is unknown whether the risk of kidney disease progression and failure differs between patients with and without genetic kidney disorders.METHODSThree cohorts were evaluated: the prospective Cure Glomerulonephropathy Network (CureGN) and 2 retrospective cohorts from Columbia University, including 5,727 adults and children with kidney disease from any etiology who underwent whole-genome or exome sequencing. The effects of monogenic kidney disorders and APOL1 kidney-risk genotypes on the risk of kidney failure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline, and disease remission rates were evaluated along with diagnostic yields and the impact of American College of Medical Genetics secondary findings (ACMG SFs).RESULTSMonogenic kidney disorders were identified in 371 patients (6.5%), high-risk APOL1 genotypes in 318 (5.5%), and ACMG SFs in 100 (5.2%). Family history of kidney disease was the strongest predictor of monogenic disorders. After adjustment for traditional risk factors, monogenic kidney disorders were associated with an increased risk of kidney failure (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.72), higher rate of eGFR decline (-3.06 vs. 0.25 mL/min/1.73 m2/year), and lower risk of complete remission (odds ratioNot achieving CR = 5.25). High-risk APOL1 genotypes were associated with an increased risk of kidney failure (HR = 1.67) and faster eGFR decline (-2.28 vs. 0.25 mL/min/1.73 m2), replicating prior findings. ACMG SFs were not associated with personal or family history of associated diseases, but were predicted to impact care in 70% of cases.CONCLUSIONSMonogenic kidney disorders were associated with an increased risk of kidney failure, faster eGFR decline, and lower rates of complete remission, suggesting opportunities for early identification and intervention based on molecular diagnosis.TRIAL REGISTRATIONNA.FUNDINGNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grants U24DK100845 (formerly UM1DK100845), U01DK100846 (formerly UM1DK100846), U01DK100876 (formerly UM1DK100876), U01DK100866 (formerly UM1DK100866), U01DK100867 (formerly UM1DK100867), U24DK100845, DK081943, RC2DK116690, 2U01DK100876, 1R01DK136765, 5R01DK082753, and RC2-DK122397; NephCure Kidney International; Department of Defense Research Awards PR201425, W81XWH-16-1-0451, and W81XWH-22-1-0966; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences grant UL1TR001873; National Library of Medicine grant R01LM013061; National Human Genome Research Institute grant 2U01HG008680.

Evaluation and Long-Term Follow-Up of Living Kidney Donors

The evaluation of living kidney donor candidates is a complex and lengthy process. Donor candidates face geographic and socioeconomic barriers to completing donor evaluation. Inequities in access to living donations persist. With a growing demand for kidney transplants and a shortage of living donors, transplant centers are more permissive of accepting less-than-ideal donor candidates. Donors have an increased lifetime risk of kidney failure, but the absolute risk increase is small. Efforts are needed to support donor candidates to complete donor nephrectomy safely and efficiently and receive optimal follow-up care to prevent risk factors for kidney disease and detect complications early. In this article, the authors address key elements of donor kidney evaluation, including current living donation policy requirements and transplant center practices. The authors present a simplified comprehensive practical approach to help guide providers in completing donor evaluation and follow-up care with best outcomes possible.

WT1-related disorders: more than Denys-Drash syndrome

Historically, specific mutations in WT1 gene have been associated with distinct syndromes based on phenotypic characteristics, including Denys-Drash syndrome (DDS), Frasier syndrome (FS), Meacham syndrome, and WAGR syndrome. DDS is classically defined by the triad of steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS) onset in the first year of life, disorders of sex development (DSD), and a predisposition to Wilms tumor (WT). Currently, a paradigm shift acknowledges a diverse spectrum of presentations beyond traditional syndromic definitions. Consequently, the concept of WT1-related disorders becomes more precise. A genotype-phenotype correlation has been established, emphasizing that the location and type of WT1 mutations significantly influence the clinical presentation, the condition severity, and the chronology of patient manifestations. Individuals presenting with persistent proteinuria, with or without nephrotic syndrome, and varying degrees of kidney dysfunction accompanied by genital malformations should prompt suspicion of WT1 mutations. Recent genetic advances enable a more accurate estimation of malignancy risk in these patients, facilitating a conservative nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) approach in select cases, with a focus on preserving residual kidney function and delaying nephrectomies. Other key management strategies include kidney transplantation and addressing DSD and gonadoblastoma. In summary, recent genetic insights underscore the imperative to implement individualized, integrated, and multidisciplinary management strategies for WT1-related disorders. This approach is pivotal in optimizing patient outcomes and addressing the complexities associated with these diverse clinical manifestations.

A pragmatic approach to selective genetic testing in kidney transplant candidates

Introduction

Advances in the field of genetic testing have spurred its use in transplantation. Potential benefits of genetic testing in transplant nephrology include diagnosis, treatment, risk stratification of recurrent disease, and risk stratification in potential donors. However, it is unclear how to best apply genetic testing in this population to maximize its yield. We describe our transplant center's approach to selective genetic testing as part of kidney transplant candidate and donor evaluation.

Methods

Transplant recipient candidates were tested if they had a history of ESRD at age <50, primary FSGS, complement-mediated or unknown etiology of kidney disease, or had a family history of kidney disease. Donors were tested if age <35, were related to their potential recipients with known genetic susceptibility or had a first-degree relative with a history of kidney disease of unknown etiology. A targeted NGS gene panel of 385 genes was used. Clinical implications and downstream effects were monitored.

Results

Over 30% of recipients tested within the established criteria were positive for a pathogenic variant. The most common pathogenic variants were APOL1 high-risk genotypes as well as collagen 4-alpha-3, -4 and -5. Donor testing done according to our inclusion criteria resulted in about 12% yield. Positive test results in recipients helped with stratification of the risk of recurrent disease. Positive test results in potential donors guided informed decisions on when not to move forward with a donation.

Discussion

Integrating targeted panel genetic testing into a kidney transplant clinic in conjunction with a selective criteria for testing donors and recipients ensured a reasonable diagnostic yield. The results had implications on clinical management, risk stratification and in some cases were instrumental in directing downstream changes including when to stop the evaluation process. Given the impact on management and transplant decisions, we advocate for the widespread use of genetic testing in selected individuals undergoing transplant evaluation and donation who meet pre-defined criteria.

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.

Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation

This Guide for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) has been prepared with the sponsorship of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), the Spanish Transplant Society (SET), and the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). It updates evidence to offer the best chronic renal failure treatment when a potential living donor is available. The core aim of this Guide is to supply clinicians who evaluate living donors and transplant recipients with the best decision-making tools, to optimise their outcomes. Moreover, the role of living donors in the current KT context should recover the level of importance it had until recently. To this end the new forms of incompatible HLA and/or ABO donation, as well as the paired donation which is possible in several hospitals with experience in LDKT, offer additional ways to treat renal patients with an incompatible donor. Good results in terms of patient and graft survival have expanded the range of circumstances under which living renal donors are accepted. Older donors are now accepted, as are others with factors that affect the decision, such as a borderline clinical history or alterations, which when evaluated may lead to an additional number of transplantations. This Guide does not forget that LDKT may lead to risk for the donor. Pre-donation evaluation has to centre on the problems which may arise over the short or long-term, and these have to be described to the potential donor so that they are able take them into account. Experience over recent years has led to progress in risk analysis, to protect donors' health. This aspect always has to be taken into account by LDKT programmes when evaluating potential donors. Finally, this Guide has been designed to aid decision-making, with recommendations and suggestions when uncertainties arise in pre-donation studies. Its overarching aim is to ensure that informed consent is based on high quality studies and information supplied to donors and recipients, offering the strongest possible guarantees.

Incorporation of Genetic Studies in the Kidney Transplant Evaluation Clinic: The Value of a Multidisciplinary Approach

BACKGROUND

Recent studies identified underlying genetic causes in a proportion of patients with various forms of kidney disease. In particular, genetic testing reclassified some focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) cases into collagen type 4 (COL4)-related nephropathy. This knowledge has major implications for counseling prospective transplant recipients about recurrence risk and screening biologically related donors. We describe our experience incorporating genetic testing in our kidney transplant multidisciplinary practice.

METHODS

Patients' DNA was analyzed using whole exome sequencing for a comprehensive kidney gene panel encompassing 344 genes associated with kidney diseases and candidate genes highly expressed in the kidney. Results were correlated with phenotype by a multidisciplinary committee of nephrologists, renal pathologists, geneticists, and genetic counselors. Between October 2018 and July 2020, 30 recipient and 5 donor candidates completed testing.

RESULTS

Among recipient candidates, 24 (80%) carried the diagnosis of FSGS, 2 (6.7%) tubulointerstitial nephritis, and 1 (3.3%) nephrolithiasis, and 3 (10%) had an unknown cause of kidney disease. The yield for pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants was 43.3%, with majority being COL4 variants (53.8%). Among those with FSGS diagnosis, the yield was 10 of 24 (41.6%), with 29% reclassified into a COL4-related nephropathy. Family history of kidney disease was the only clinical characteristic difference between recipients with positive and negative results (76.9 versus 29.4%; P = 0.025). One of 5 donors tested positive for a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant and was excluded from donation.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that thoughtful use of genetic testing can be valuable for kidney donor selection and transplant recipient management.

A Practical Guide to Genetic Testing for Kidney Disorders of Unknown Etiology

Genetic testing is increasingly used in the workup and diagnosis of kidney disease and kidney-related disorders of undetermined cause. Out-of-pocket costs for clinical genetic testing have become affordable, and logistical hurdles overcome. The interest in genetic testing may stem from the need to make or confirm a diagnosis, guide management, or the patient's desire to have a more informed explanation or prognosis. This poses a challenge for providers who do not have formal training in the selection, interpretation, and limitations of genetic tests. In this manuscript, we provide detailed discussion of relevant cases in which clinical genetic testing using a kidney gene panel was applied. The cases demonstrate identification of pathogenic variants for monogenic diseases-contrasting them from genetic risk alleles-and bring up diagnostic limitations and diagnostic utility of these tests in nephrology. This review aims to guide clinicians in formulating pretest conversations with their patients, interpreting genetic variant nomenclature, and considering follow-up investigations. Although providers are gaining experience, there is still risk of testing causing more anxiety than benefit. However, with provider education and support, clinical genetic testing applied to otherwise unexplained kidney-related disorders will increasingly serve as a valuable diagnostic tool with the potential to reshape how we consider and treat many kidney-related diagnoses.

Vignette-Based Reflections to Inform Genetic Testing Policies in Living Kidney Donors

Family history of kidney disease increases risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in donors. Pre-donation genetic testing is recommended in evaluation guidelines and regulatory policy. Collaborating across several institutions, we describe cases to illustrate the utility as well as practical issues in incorporating genetic testing in transplant protocols. Case 1 is from 2009, before pervasive genetic testing. A healthy 27-year-old Caucasian male had an uneventful donor evaluation for his mother, who had early onset ESKD of unclear cause. He participated in paired-exchange kidney donation, but developed progressive kidney disease and gout over the next 10 years. A uromodulin gene mutation (NM_003361.3(UMOD):c.377 G>A p.C126Y) was detected and kidney biopsy showed tubulointerstitial kidney disease. The patient subsequently required kidney transplantation himself. Case 2 was a 36-year-old African American female who had an uneventful kidney donor evaluation. She underwent gene panel-based testing to rule out ApolipoproteinL1 risk variants, for which was negative. Incidentally, a sickle-cell trait (NM_000518.5(HBB):c.20A>T p.Glu7Val) was noted, and she was declined for kidney donation. This led to significant patient anguish. Case 3 was a 26-year-old Caucasian female who underwent panel-based testing because the potential recipient, her cousin, carried a variant of uncertain significance in the hepatocyte nuclear factor-1-β (HNF1B) gene. While the potential donor did not harbor this variant, she was found to have a likely pathogenic variant in complement factor I (NM_000204.4(CFI):c.1311dup:p.Asp438Argfs*8), precluding kidney donation. Our cases emphasize that while genetic testing can be invaluable in donor evaluation, transplant centers should utilize detailed informed consent, develop care pathways for secondary genetic findings, and share experience to develop best practices around genetic testing in donors.

Sequential genetic testing of living-related donors for inherited renal disease to promote informed choice and enhance safety of living donation

Living kidney donors (LKDs) with a family history of renal disease are at risk of kidney disease as compared to LKDs without such history suggesting that some LKDs may be pre-symptomatic for monogenic kidney disease. LKDs with related transplant candidates whose kidney disease was considered genetic in origin were selected for genetic testing. In each case, the transplant candidate was first tested to verify the genetic diagnosis. A genetic diagnosis was confirmed in 12 of 24 transplant candidates (ADPKD-PKD1: 6, ALPORT-COL4A3: 2, ALPORT-COL4A5: 1: nephronophthisis-SDCCAG8: 1; CAKUT-HNF1B and ADTKD-MUC1: 1 each) and 2 had variants of unknown significance (VUS) in phenotype-relevant genes. Focused genetic testing was then done in 20 of 34 LKDs. 12 LKDs screened negative for the familial variant and were permitted to donate; seven screened positive and were counseled against donation. One, the heterozygous carrier of a recessive disorder was also cleared. Six of seven LKDs with a family history of ADPKD were under 30 years and in 5, by excluding ADPKD, allowed donation to safely proceed. The inclusion of genetic testing clarified the diagnosis in recipient candidates, improving safety or informed decision-making in LKDs.

Practice Patterns in the Acceptance of Medically Complex Living Kidney Donors with Obesity, Hypertension, Family History of Kidney Disease, or Donor-Recipient Age Discrepancy

Background  To assess the practice patterns of the acceptance of medically complex living kidney donors (MCLKDs). Methods  We distributed a survey to nephrologists and transplant surgeons (TS) across the world through major international transplant societies. The survey contained questions regarding obesity, abnormal blood glucose profile, mild hypertension, donor-recipient age discrepancy, or family history of kidney disease of unknown etiology. Results  In total, 239 respondents from 29 countries (42% were nephrologists and 58% were TS). Most respondents would allow donations from obese donors, especially if they intended to lose weight but would be cautious if these donors had abnormal blood glucose or family history of diabetes mellitus. In hypertensive donors, future pregnancy plans mattered in decisions regarding the acceptance of female donors. Most respondents would allow young donors but would be more cautious if they had a future risk of hypertension or a family history of kidney disease of unknown etiology. They would also allow donations from an older person if prolonged waiting time was anticipated. We found multiple areas of consensus of practice among the diverse members of international transplant societies, with some interesting variations among nephrologists and TS. Conclusions  This survey highlights the practice patterns of the acceptance of MCLKDs among the international community. In the absence of clear guidelines, this survey provides additional information to counsel kidney donors with these conditions.

Targeted broad-based genetic testing by next-generation sequencing informs diagnosis and facilitates management in patients with kidney diseases

Background

The clinical diagnosis of genetic renal diseases may be limited by the overlapping spectrum of manifestations between diseases or by the advancement of disease where clues to the original process are absent. The objective of this study was to determine whether genetic testing informs diagnosis and facilitates management of kidney disease patients.

Methods

We developed a comprehensive genetic testing panel (KidneySeq) to evaluate patients with various phenotypes including cystic diseases, congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract (CAKUT), tubulointerstitial diseases, transport disorders and glomerular diseases. We evaluated this panel in 127 consecutive patients ranging in age from newborns to 81 years who had samples sent in for genetic testing.

Results

The performance of the sequencing pipeline for single-nucleotide variants was validated using CEPH (Centre de’Etude du Polymorphism) controls and for indels using Genome-in-a-Bottle. To test the reliability of the copy number variant (CNV) analysis, positive samples were re-sequenced and analyzed. For patient samples, a multidisciplinary review board interpreted genetic results in the context of clinical data. A genetic diagnosis was made in 54 (43%) patients and ranged from 54% for CAKUT, 53% for ciliopathies/tubulointerstitial diseases, 45% for transport disorders to 33% for glomerulopathies. Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants included 46% missense, 11% nonsense, 6% splice site variants, 23% insertion–deletions and 14% CNVs. In 13 cases, the genetic result changed the clinical diagnosis.

Conclusion

Broad genetic testing should be considered in the evaluation of renal patients as it complements other tests and provides insight into the underlying disease and its management.

Clinical Applications of Genetic Discoveries in Kidney Transplantation: a Review

Growth in knowledge of the genetics of kidney disease has revealed that significant percentages of patients with diverse types of nephropathy have causative mutations. Genetic testing is poised to play an increasing role in the care of patients with kidney disease. The role of genetic testing in kidney transplantation is not well established. This review will explore the ways in which genetic testing may be applied to improve the care of kidney transplant recipients and donors.

Initial experience from a renal genetics clinic demonstrates a distinct role in patient management

Purpose

A Renal Genetics Clinic (RGC) was established to optimize diagnostic testing, facilitate genetic counseling, and direct clinical management.

Methods

Retrospective review of patients seen over a two-year period in the RGC.

Results

One hundred eleven patients (mean age: 39.9 years) were referred to the RGC: 65 for genetic evaluation, 19 for management of a known genetic disease, and 18 healthy living kidney donors (LKDs) and their 9 related transplant candidates for screening. Forty-three patients underwent genetic testing with a diagnosis in 60% of patients including 9 with Alport syndrome, 7 with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), 2 with genetic focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), 2 with PAX2-mediated CAKUT, and 1 each with autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease (ARPKD), Dent, Frasier, Gordon, Gitelman, and Zellweger syndromes. Four of 18 LKDs were referred only for APOL1 screening. For the remaining 14 LKDs, their transplant candidates were first tested to establish a genetic diagnosis. Five LKDs tested negative for the familial genetic variant, four were positive for their familial variant. In five transplant candidates, a genetic variant could not be identified.

Conclusion

An RGC that includes genetic counseling enhances care of renal patients by improving diagnosis, directing management, affording presymptomatic family focused genetic counseling, and assisting patients and LKDs to make informed decisions.

Diagnosis of monogenic chronic kidney diseases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to emphasize that single gene disorders are an important and sometimes unrecognized cause of progressive chronic kidney disease. We provide an overview of the benefits of making a genetic diagnosis, the currently available genetic testing methods and examples of diseases illustrating the impact of a genetic diagnosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although there are now a number of monogenic renal diseases, only a few, such as autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), are generally diagnosable without genetic testing. Complicating clinical diagnosis is that many diseases that classically have characteristic renal or extrarenal findings, often present with an incomplete or overlapping phenotype that requires additional testing to be uncovered. Advances in sequencing technology and bioinformatic processing now give us the ability to screen the entire human genome or exome or an organ-limited subset of genes quickly and inexpensively permitting the unbiased interrogation of hundreds of genes, thus removing the need for precision in clinical diagnosis prior to testing.

SUMMARY

We provide an overview of the principal phenotypes seen in chronic kidney disease with a focus on the cystic diseases and ciliopathies, the glomerular diseases, disorders of renal development and the tubulointerstitial diseases. In each of these phenotypes, we provide a listing of some of the important genes that have been identified to date, a brief discussion of the clinical diagnosis, the role of genetic testing and the differentiation of distinct genetic disorders from acquired and genetic phenocopies.

Practical Considerations for APOL1 Genotyping in the Living Kidney Donor Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Association between the apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) and nephropathy has altered the epidemiology of chronic kidney disease. In addition, donor APOL1 genotypes play important roles in the time to allograft failure in kidneys transplanted from deceased donors and the safety of living kidney donation.

METHODS

This article reviews genetic testing for inherited kidney disease in living kidney donors to improve donor safety. APOL1 genotyping in donors with recent African ancestry is considered.

RESULTS

Based on current data, transplant physicians should discuss APOL1 genotyping with potential living kidney donors self-reporting recent African ancestry. Until results from APOL1 Long-term Kidney Transplant Outcomes Network ancillary studies are available, we present practical approaches from our experience for considering APOL1 genotyping in the living donor evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant physicians should inform potential living kidney donors at risk for APOL1-associated nephropathy about the gene and possibility of genetic testing early in the donor evaluation, well before scheduling the donor nephrectomy. Transplant programs must weigh risks of performing a donor nephrectomy in those with 2 APOL1 renal risk variants (high-risk genotypes), particularly younger individuals. Our program counsels kidney donors with APOL1 high-risk genotypes in the same fashion as with risk genotypes in other nephropathy genes. Because most African American kidney donor candidates lacking hypertension, proteinuria and reduced kidney function after workup will not possess APOL1 high-risk genotypes, genetic testing is unlikely to markedly increase donor declines and may reassure donors with regard to their long-term kidney outcomes, potentially increasing the number of African American donors.

Donor-Recipient Relationship and Risk of ESKD in Live Kidney Donors of Varied Racial Groups

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Risk factors for kidney failure are the basis of live kidney donor candidate evaluation. We quantified risk for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) by the biological relationship of the donor to the recipient, a risk factor that is not addressed by current clinical practice guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

A cohort of 143,750 US kidney donors between 1987 and 2017.

EXPOSURE

Biological relationship of donor and recipient.

OUTCOME

ESKD. Donors' records were linked to national dialysis and transplantation registries to ascertain development of the outcome.

ANALYTIC APPROACH

Donors were observed over a median of 12 (interquartile range, 6-18; maximum, 30) years. Survival analysis methods that account for the competing risk for death were used.

RESULTS

Risk for ESKD varied by orders of magnitude across donor-recipient relationship categories. For Asian donors, risks compared with unrelated donors were 259.4-fold greater for identical twins (95% CI, 19.5-3445.6), 4.7-fold greater for full siblings (95% CI, 0.5-41.0), 3.5-fold greater for offspring (95% CI, 0.6-39.5), 1.0 for parents, and 1.0 for half-sibling or other biological relatives. For black donors, risks were 22.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 4.7-107.0), 4.1-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 2.1-7.8), 2.7-fold for offspring (95% CI, 1.4-5.4), 3.1-fold for parents (95% CI, 1.4-6.8), and 1.3-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.5-3.3). For white donors, risks were 3.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 0.5-25.3), 2.0-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 1.4-2.8), 1.4-fold for offspring (95% CI, 0.9-2.3), 2.9-fold for parents (95% CI, 2.0-4.1), and 0.8-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.3-1.6).

LIMITATIONS

Insufficient sample size in some race and relationship groups. Absence of data for family history of kidney disease for donors biologically unrelated to their recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Marked differences in risk for ESKD across types of donor-recipient relationship were observed for Asian, black, and white donors. These findings warrant further validation with more robust data to better inform clinical practice guidelines.

Cases in Precision Medicine: APOL1 and Genetic Testing in the Evaluation of Chronic Kidney Disease and Potential Transplant

This article discusses potential indications for genetic testing in an African American patient with chronic kidney disease who is being evaluated for a kidney transplant. Two known risk variants in the APOL1 (apolipoprotein L1) gene predispose to kidney disease and are found almost exclusively in persons of African ancestry. APOL1 risk variants are considered, including whether clinicians should incorporate genetic testing in the screening process for living kidney donors. In addition to APOL1 testing, the role of diagnostic exome sequencing in evaluating potential transplant recipients and donors with a positive family history of kidney disease is discussed.

A National Survey of Transplant Surgeons and Nephrologists on Implementing Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) Genetic Testing Into Clinical Practice

INTRODUCTION

There is debate over whether Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) gene risk variants contribute to African American (AA) live donors' (LD) increased risk of kidney failure. Little is known about factors influencing physicians' integration of APOL1 genetic testing of AA LDs into donor evaluation.

DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional survey, informed by Roger's Diffusion of Innovations theory, among nephrology and surgeon members of the American Society of Nephrology, American Society of Transplantation, and American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their practices of and attitudes about APOL1 genetic testing of AA potential LDs. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of 383 completed surveys, most physicians believed that APOL1 testing can help AA LDs make more informed donation decisions (87%), and the addition of APOL1 testing offers better clinical information about AA LD's eligibility for donation than existing evaluation approaches (74%). Among respondents who evaluate LDs (n = 345), 63% would definitely or probably begin or continue using APOL1 testing in the next year, however, few use APOL1 testing routinely (4%) or on a case-by-case basis (14%). Most did not know the right clinical scenario to order APOL1 testing (59%), but would use educational materials to counsel AA LDs about APOL1 testing (97%).

DISCUSSION

Although physicians were highly supportive of APOL1 genetic testing for AA LDs, few physicians use APOL1 testing. As more physicians intend to use APOL1 testing, an ethical framework and clinical decision support are needed presently to assist clinicians in clarifying the proper indication of APOL1 genetic testing.

Summary of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) engaged an evidence review team and convened a work group to produce a guideline to evaluate and manage candidates for living kidney donation. The evidence for most guideline recommendations is sparse and many "ungraded" expert consensus recommendations were made to guide the donor candidate evaluation and care before, during, and after donation. The guideline advocates for replacing decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation with a comprehensive approach to risk assessment using the best available evidence. The approach to simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics advances a new framework for assessing donor candidate risk and for defensible shared decision making.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Screening of Living Kidney Donors for Genetic Diseases Using a Comprehensive Genetic Testing Strategy

Related living kidney donors (LKDs) are at higher risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) compared with unrelated LKDs. A genetic panel was developed to screen 115 genes associated with renal diseases. We used this panel to screen six negative controls, four transplant candidates with presumed genetic renal disease and six related LKDs. After removing common variants, pathogenicity was predicted using six algorithms to score genetic variants based on conservation and function. All variants were evaluated in the context of patient phenotype and clinical data. We identified causal variants in three of the four transplant candidates. Two patients with a family history of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease segregated variants in PKD1. These findings excluded genetic risk in three of four relatives accepted as potential LKDs. A third patient with an atypical history for Alport syndrome had a splice site mutation in COL4A5. This pathogenic variant was excluded in a sibling accepted as an LKD. In another patient with a strong family history of ESRD, a negative genetic screen combined with negative comparative genomic hybridization in the recipient facilitated counseling of the related donor. This genetic renal disease panel will allow rapid, efficient and cost-effective evaluation of related LKDs.