Pilot Study of Return of Genetic Results to Patients in Adult Nephrology
2020; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 15; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2215/cjn.12481019
ISSN1555-905X
AutoresJordan G. Nestor, Maddalena Marasà, Hila Milo Rasouly, Emily Groopman, S. Ali Husain, Sumit Mohan, Hilda Fernández, Vimla S. Aggarwal, Dina Ahram, Natalie Vena, Kelsie Bogyo, Andrew S. Bomback, Jai Radhakrishnan, Gerald B. Appel, Wooin Ahn, David Cohen, Pietro A. Canetta, Geoffrey K. Dube, Maya K. Rao, Heather Morris, Russell J. Crew, Simone Sanna‐Cherchi, Krzysztof Kiryluk, Ali G. Gharavi,
Tópico(s)Renal cell carcinoma treatment
ResumoBackground 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
Referência(s)