Andrew L Lundquist1, Renee C Pelletier2, Courtney E Leonard2, Winfred W Williams1, Katrina A Armstrong3, Heidi L Rehm2,4,5, Eugene P Rhee1. 1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Harvard, University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Background: Genetic testing in nephrology is increasingly described in the literature and several groups have suggested significant clinical benefit. However, studies to date have described experience from established genetic testing centers or from externally funded research programs. Methods: We established a de novo kidney genetics clinic within an academic adult general nephrology practice. Key features of this effort included a pipeline for internal referrals, flexible scheduling, close coordination between the nephrologist and a genetic counselor, and utilization of commercial panel-based testing. Over the first year, we examined the outcomes of genetic testing, the time to return of genetic testing, and out-of-pocket cost to patients. Results: Thirty patients were referred and 23 were evaluated over the course of five clinic sessions. Nineteen patients underwent genetic testing with new diagnoses in nine patients (47%), inconclusive results in three patients (16%), and clearance for kidney donation in two patients (11%). On average, return of genetic results occurred 55 days (range 9-174 days) from the day of sample submission and the average out-of-pocket cost to patients was $155 (range $0-$1623). Conclusions: We established a kidney genetics clinic, without a pre-existing genetics infrastructure or dedicated research funding, that identified a new diagnosis in approximately 50% of patients tested. This study provides a clinical practice model for successfully incorporating genetic testing into ambulatory nephrology care with minimal capital investment and limited financial effect on patients.
Background: Genetic testing in nephrology is increasingly described in the literature and several groups have suggested significant clinical benefit. However, studies to date have described experience from established genetic testing centers or from externally funded research programs. Methods: We established a de novo kidney genetics clinic within an academic adult general nephrology practice. Key features of this effort included a pipeline for internal referrals, flexible scheduling, close coordination between the nephrologist and a genetic counselor, and utilization of commercial panel-based testing. Over the first year, we examined the outcomes of genetic testing, the time to return of genetic testing, and out-of-pocket cost to patients. Results: Thirty patients were referred and 23 were evaluated over the course of five clinic sessions. Nineteen patients underwent genetic testing with new diagnoses in nine patients (47%), inconclusive results in three patients (16%), and clearance for kidney donation in two patients (11%). On average, return of genetic results occurred 55 days (range 9-174 days) from the day of sample submission and the average out-of-pocket cost to patients was $155 (range $0-$1623). Conclusions: We established a kidney genetics clinic, without a pre-existing genetics infrastructure or dedicated research funding, that identified a new diagnosis in approximately 50% of patients tested. This study provides a clinical practice model for successfully incorporating genetic testing into ambulatory nephrology care with minimal capital investment and limited financial effect on patients.
Authors: Nina Mann; Daniela A Braun; Kassaundra Amann; Weizhen Tan; Shirlee Shril; Dervla M Connaughton; Makiko Nakayama; Ronen Schneider; Thomas M Kitzler; Amelie T van der Ven; Jing Chen; Hadas Ityel; Asaf Vivante; Amar J Majmundar; Ankana Daga; Jillian K Warejko; Svjetlana Lovric; Shazia Ashraf; Tilman Jobst-Schwan; Eugen Widmeier; Hannah Hugo; Shrikant M Mane; Leslie Spaneas; Michael J G Somers; Michael A Ferguson; Avram Z Traum; Deborah R Stein; Michelle A Baum; Ghaleb H Daouk; Richard P Lifton; Shannon Manzi; Khashayar Vakili; Heung Bae Kim; Nancy M Rodig; Friedhelm Hildebrandt Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: A Molin; R Baudoin; M Kaufmann; J C Souberbielle; A Ryckewaert; M C Vantyghem; P Eckart; J Bacchetta; G Deschenes; G Kesler-Roussey; N Coudray; N Richard; M Wraich; Q Bonafiglia; A Tiulpakov; G Jones; M-L Kottler Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Dustin Baldridge; Jennifer Heeley; Marisa Vineyard; Linda Manwaring; Tomi L Toler; Emily Fassi; Elise Fiala; Sarah Brown; Charles W Goss; Marcia Willing; Dorothy K Grange; Beth A Kozel; Marwan Shinawi Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Amel Karaa; Richard Haas; Amy Goldstein; Jerry Vockley; W Douglas Weaver; Bruce H Cohen Journal: Neurology Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Rhian L Clissold; Charles Shaw-Smith; Peter Turnpenny; Benjamin Bunce; Detlef Bockenhauer; Larissa Kerecuk; Simon Waller; Pamela Bowman; Tamsin Ford; Sian Ellard; Andrew T Hattersley; Coralie Bingham Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Dacre R T Knight; Sunnie M Confiado; Katelyn A Bruno; DeLisa Fairweather; Andrea M Seymour-Sonnier; Angita Jain; Jessica M Gehin; Emily R Whelan; Joshua H Culberson; Bala Munipalli; Nancy L Dawson; Todd D Rozen; Joseph J Wick; Archana Kotha Journal: SN Compr Clin Med Date: 2022-07-05