Black Patients Equally Benefit From Renal Genetics Evaluation but Substantial Barriers in Access Exist.

Introduction: Genetic testing is increasingly accessible to patients with kidney diseases. Racial disparities in renal genetics evaluations have not been investigated. Methods: A cohort of patients evaluated by the Cleveland Clinic Renal Genetics Clinic (RGC) from January 2019 to March 2022 was analyzed. Results: Forty-eight Black patients, including 27 (56.3%) males, median age 34 (22-49) years and 232 White patients, including 76 (32.8%) males, median age 35 (21-53) years, were evaluated. Black patients were more likely to have end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) at the time of referral compared with White patients (23% vs. 7.3%, P = 0.004), more likely to be covered by Medicaid (46% vs. 15%, P < 0.001), and less likely to be covered by private insurance (35% vs. 66%, P < 0.001). Black patients were more likely to "no show" to scheduled appointment(s) or not submit specimens for genetic testing compared with White patients (24.1% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.0005). Genetic testing was completed in 35 Black patients. Of these, 37% had a positive result with 9 unique monogenic disorders and 1 chromosomal disorder diagnosed. Sixty-nine percent of Black patients with positive results received a new diagnosis or a change in diagnosis. Of these, 44% received a significant change in disease management. No differences in diagnostic yield and implications of management were noted between Black and White patients. Conclusion: Black patients equally benefit from renal genetics evaluation, but barriers to access exist. Steps must be taken to ensure equitable and early access for all patients. Further studies investigating specific interventions to improve access are needed.

Patients with High Priority for Kidney Transplant Who Are Not Given Expedited Placement on the Transplant Waiting List Represent Lost Opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is associated with the best outcomes for most patients with ESKD. The national Kidney Allocation System prioritizes patients with Estimated Post-Transplant Survival (EPTS) scores in the top 20% for expedited access to optimal deceased donor kidneys. METHODS: We studied adults aged ≥18 years in the United States Renal Data System with top 20% EPTS scores who had been preemptively waitlisted or initiated dialysis in 2015-2017. We evaluated time to waitlist placement, transplantation, and mortality with unadjusted and multivariable survival models. RESULTS: Of 42,445 patients with top 20% EPTS scores (mean age, 38.0 years; 57% male; 59% White patients, and 31% Black patients), 7922 were preemptively waitlisted. Among 34,523 patients initiating dialysis, the 3-year cumulative waitlist placement incidence was 37%. Numerous factors independently associated with waitlisting included race, income, and having noncommercial insurance. For example, waitlisting was less likely for Black versus White patients, and for patients in the lowest-income neighborhoods versus those in the highest-income neighborhoods. Among patients initiating dialysis, 61% lost their top 20% EPTS status within 30 months versus 18% of patients who were preemptively listed. The 3-year incidence of deceased and living donor transplantation was 5% and 6%, respectively, for patients who initiated dialysis and 26% and 44%, respectively, for patients who were preemptively listed. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with ESKDqualifying with top 20% EPTS status are not placed on the transplant waiting list in a timely manner, with significant variation on the basis of demographic and social factors. Patients who are preemptively listed are more likely to receive benefits of top 20% EPTS status. Efforts to expedite care for qualifying candidates are needed, and automated transplant referral for patients with the best prognoses should be considered. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast athttps://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/JASN/2021_07_30_JASN2020081146.mp3.

"What do you think about nephrology?" A national survey of internal medicine residents.

BACKGROUND: Interest in nephrology has been declining among internal medicine residents but the reasons behind this observation are not well characterized. Our objective was to evaluate factors influencing residents' choice of subspecialty. METHODS: This is a mixed-method QUAL-QUAN design study that used the results of our previously published qualitative analysis on residents' perception of nephrology to create and pilot a questionnaire of 60 questions. The final questionnaire was distributed to 26 programs across the United States and a total of 1992 residents. We calculated response rates and tabulated participant characteristics and percentage of participant responses. We categorized choice of fellowship into 2 medical categories (Highly Sought After vs. Less Sought After) and fitted a logistic regression model of choosing a highly vs. less sought after fellowship. RESULTS: Four hundred fifteen out of 1992 (21%) US residents responded to the survey. Of the 268 residents planning to pursue fellowship training, 67 (25%) selected a less sought after fellowship. Female sex was associated with significantly higher odds of selecting a less sought after fellowship (OR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.47, 4.74). Major factors deterring residents from pursuing nephrology were perception of inadequate financial compensation, broad scope of clinical practice and complexity of patient population. We observed a decline in exposure to nephrology during the clinical years of medical school with only 35.4% of respondents rotating in nephrology versus 76.8% in residency. The quality of nephrology education was rated less positively during clinical medical school years (median of 50 on a 0-100 point scale) compared to the pre-clinical years (median 60) and residency (median 75). CONCLUSION: Our study attempts to explain the declining interest in nephrology. Results suggest potential targets for improvement: diversified trainee exposure, sub-specialization of nephrology, and increased involvement of nephrologists in the education of trainees.

Diagnosis, Education, and Care of Patients with APOL1-Associated Nephropathy: A Delphi Consensus and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: APOL1 variants contribute to the markedly higher incidence of ESKD in Blacks compared with Whites. Genetic testing for these variants in patients with African ancestry who have nephropathy is uncommon, and no specific treatment or management protocol for APOL1-associated nephropathy currently exists. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, racially diverse group of 14 experts and patient advocates participated in a Delphi consensus process to establish practical guidance for clinicians caring for patients who may have APOL1-associated nephropathy. Consensus group members took part in three anonymous voting rounds to develop consensus statements relating to the following: (1) counseling, genotyping, and diagnosis; (2) disease awareness and education; and (3) a vision for management of APOL1-associated nephropathy in a future when treatment is available. A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases was conducted to identify relevant evidence published from January 1, 2009 to July 14, 2020. RESULTS: The consensus group agreed on 55 consensus statements covering such topics as demographic and clinical factors that suggest a patient has APOL1-associated nephropathy, as well as key considerations for counseling, testing, and diagnosis in current clinical practice. They achieved consensus on the need to increase awareness among key stakeholders of racial health disparities in kidney disease and of APOL1-associated nephropathy and on features of a successful education program to raise awareness among the patient community. The group also highlighted the unmet need for a specific treatment and agreed on best practice for management of these patients should a treatment become available. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary group of experts and patient advocates defined consensus-based guidance on the care of patients who may have APOL1-associated nephropathy.

COVID-19 and the kidney.

COVID-19 is primarily considered a respiratory illness, but the kidney may be one of the targets of SARS-CoV-2 infection, since the virus enters cells through the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, which is found in abundance in the kidney. Information on kidney involvement in COVID-19 is limited but is evolving rapidly. This article discusses the pathogenesis of acute kidney injury (AKI) in COVID-19, its optimal management, and the impact of COVID-19 on patients with chronic kidney disease, patients with end-stage kidney disease on dialysis, and kidney transplant recipients.

Dramatic secular changes in prognosis for kidney transplant candidates in the United States.

Over recent decades, numerous clinical advances and policy changes have affected outcomes for candidates of kidney transplantation in the United States. We examined the national Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients for adult (18+) solitary kidney transplant candidates placed on the waiting list for primary listing from 2001 to 2015. We evaluated rates of mortality, transplantation, and waitlist removal. Among 340 115 candidates there were significant declines in mortality (52 deaths/1000 patient years in 2001-04 vs 38 deaths/1000 patient years in 2012-15) and transplant rates (304 transplants/1000 patient years in 2001-04 vs 212 transplants/1000 patient years in 2012-15) and increases in waitlist removals (15 removals/1000 patient years in 2001-04 vs 25/1000 patient years in 2012-15) within the first year after listing. At 5 years an estimated 37% of candidates listed in 2012-15 were alive without transplant as compared to 22% in 2001-04. Declines in mortality over time were significantly more pronounced among African Americans, candidates with longer dialysis duration, and those with diabetes (P < .001). Cumulatively, results indicate dramatic changes in prognoses for adult kidney transplant candidates, likely impacted by selection criteria, donor availability, regulatory oversight, and clinical care. These trends are important considerations for prospective policy development and research, clinical and patient decision-making, and evaluating the impact on access to care.

Glomerular Diseases: Registries and Clinical Trials.

Nephrology has conducted few high-quality clinical trials, and the trials that have been conducted have not resulted in the approval of new treatments for primary or inflammatory glomerular diseases. There are overarching process issues that affect the conduct of all clinical trials, but there are also some specialty-specific issues. Within nephrology, primary glomerular diseases are rare, making adequate recruitment for meaningful trials difficult. Nephrologists need better ways, beyond histopathology, to phenotype patients with glomerular diseases and stratify the risk for progression to ESRD. Rigorous trial design is needed for the testing of new therapies, where most patients with glomerular diseases are offered the opportunity to enroll in a clinical trial if standard therapies have failed or are lacking. Training programs to develop a core group of kidney specialists with expertise in the design and implementation of clinical trials are also needed. Registries of patients with glomerular disease and observational studies can aid in the ability to determine realistic estimates of disease prevalence and inform trial design through a better understanding of the natural history of disease. Some proposed changes to the Common Rule, the federal regulations governing the ethical conduct of research involving humans, and the emerging use of electronic health records may facilitate the efficiency of initiating multicenter clinical trials. Collaborations among academia, government scientific and regulatory agencies, industry, foundations, and patient advocacy groups can accelerate therapeutic development for these complex diseases.

Proteinuria as a surrogate outcome in CKD: report of a scientific workshop sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Changes in proteinuria have been suggested as a surrogate outcome for kidney disease progression to facilitate the conduct of clinical trials. This report summarizes a workshop sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the following goals: (1) to evaluate the strengths and limitations of criteria for assessment of proteinuria as a potential surrogate end point for clinical trials in chronic kidney disease (CKD), (2) to explore the strengths and limitations of available data for proteinuria as a potential surrogate end point, and (3) to delineate what more needs to be done to evaluate proteinuria as a potential surrogate end point. We review the importance of proteinuria in CKD, including the conceptual model for CKD, measurement of proteinuria and albuminuria, and epidemiological characteristics of albuminuria in the United States. We discuss surrogate end points in clinical trials of drug therapy, including criteria for drug approval, the definition of a surrogate end point, and criteria for evaluation of surrogacy based on biological plausibility, epidemiological characteristics, and clinical trials. Next, the report summarizes data for proteinuria as a potential surrogate outcome in 3 broad clinical areas: early diabetic kidney disease, nephrotic syndrome, and diseases with mild to moderate proteinuria. We conclude with a synthesis of data and recommendations for further research. At the present time, there appears to be sufficient evidence to recommend changes in proteinuria as a surrogate for kidney disease progression in only selected circumstances. Further research is needed to define additional contexts in which changes in proteinuria can be expected to predict treatment effect. We recommend collaboration among many groups, including academia, industry, the FDA, and the National Institutes of Health, to share data from past and future studies.