Impact of education on APOL1 testing attitudes among prospective living kidney donors

Evaluating ApoL1 Genetic Testing Policy Options for Transplant Centers: A Delphi Consensus Panel Project with Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) variants G1 and G2 are associated with a higher risk of kidney disease. ApoL1 risk variants are predominantly seen in individuals with sub-Saharan African ancestry. In most transplant centers, potential organ donors are being selectively genetically tested for ApoL1 risk variants. Transplant programs have highly variable ApoL1 testing practices and need guidance on essential ApoL1 clinical policy questions.

METHODS

We conducted a Delphi consensus panel focused on ApoL1 clinical policy questions, including who gets tested, who decides whether testing occurs, how test results are shared, who receives test results, and how test results are used. A total of 27 panelists across seven stakeholder groups participated: living kidney donors ( n =4), deceased donor family members ( n =3), recipients of a deceased donor kidney ( n =4), recipients of a living donor kidney ( n =4), nephrologists ( n =4), transplant surgeons ( n =4), and genetic counselors ( n =4). Nineteen panelists (70%) identified as Black. The Delphi panel process involved two rounds of educational webinars and three rounds of surveys administered to panelists, who were asked to indicate whether they support, could live with, or oppose each policy option.

RESULTS

The panel reached consensus on one or more acceptable policy options for each clinical policy question; panelists supported 18 policy options and opposed 15. Key elements of consensus include the following: ask potential donors about African ancestry rather than race; make testing decisions only after discussion with donors; encourage disclosure of test results to blood relatives and organ recipients but do not require it; use test results to inform decision making, but never for unilateral decisions by transplant programs.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel generally supported policy options involving discussion and shared decision making among patients, donors, and family stakeholders. There was general opposition to unilateral decision making and prohibiting donation altogether.

Implementation of a culturally competent APOL1 genetic testing programme into living donor evaluation: A two-site, non-randomised, pre-post trial design

INTRODUCTION

While living donor (LD) kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients with kidney failure, LDs assume a higher risk of future kidney failure themselves. LDs of African ancestry have an even greater risk of kidney failure post-donation than White LDs. Because evidence suggests that Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) risk variants contribute to this greater risk, transplant nephrologists are increasingly using APOL1 genetic testing to evaluate LD candidates of African ancestry. However, nephrologists do not consistently perform genetic counselling with LD candidates about APOL1 due to a lack of knowledge and skill in counselling. Without proper counselling, APOL1 testing will magnify LD candidates' decisional conflict about donating, jeopardising their informed consent. Given cultural concerns about genetic testing among people of African ancestry, protecting LD candidates' safety is essential to improve informed decisions about donating. Clinical 'chatbots', mobile apps that provide genetic information to patients, can improve informed treatment decisions. No chatbot on APOL1 is available and no nephrologist training programmes are available to provide culturally competent counselling to LDs about APOL1. Given the shortage of genetic counsellors, increasing nephrologists' genetic literacy is critical to integrating genetic testing into practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Using a non-randomised, pre-post trial design in two transplant centres (Chicago, IL, and Washington, DC), we will evaluate the effectiveness of culturally competent APOL1 testing, chatbot and counselling on LD candidates' decisional conflict about donating, preparedness for decision-making, willingness to donate and satisfaction with informed consent and longitudinally evaluate the implementation of this intervention into clinical practice using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will create a model for APOL1 testing of LDs of African ancestry, which can be implemented nationally via implementation science approaches. APOL1 will serve as a model for integrating culturally competent genetic testing into transplant and other practices to improve informed consent. This study involves human participants and was approved by Northwestern University IRB (STU00214038). Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04910867. Registered 8 May 2021, https://register.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AWZ6&selectaction=Edit&uid=U0001PPF&ts=7&cx=-8jv7m2 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04999436. Registered 5 November 2021, https://register.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AYWW&selectaction=Edit&uid=U0001PPF&ts=11&cx=9tny7v.

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.