Search

Background: Genetic testing is at the forefront of medical diagnosis, management, and preventative care particularly within the field of nephrology, but such testing can be prohibitively expensive for patients from disadvantaged backgrounds. This study is aimed at exploring how use of a low-cost, comprehensive commercial panel could increase availability of genetic testing to patients served by an inner-city American hospital and overcome many of the obstacles faced by these patients, including lack of availability of pediatric geneticist and genetic counselors, leading to delay in care and management, cost of genetic testing, and inaccessibility of genetic testing to underserved populations. Methods: Single-center retrospective analysis patients who underwent genetic testing with NATERA Renasight Kidney Gene Panels run between November 2020 and October 2021. Results: Genetic testing was offered to 208 patients, with 193 tests performed, 10 pending, and 4 deferred. Seventy-six patients were found to have results of clinical significance; 117 patients were found to have a negative result, of which 79 were found to have a variant of unknown significance (VUS); and 8 of these 79 VUS were later determined to be clinically significant leading to a change in management. Patient payment data breakdown showed that of 173, 68% used public insurance coverage, 27% used commercial or private insurance, and 5% were unknown. Conclusions: Genetic testing with the NATERA Renasight Panel provided a high positivity rate for genetic testing using next generation sequencing. It also allowed us to provide access to genetic testing to a larger population, specifically underserved and underrepresented patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diagnosing genetic kidney disease has become more accessible with low-cost, rapid genetic testing. The study objectives were to determine genetic testing diagnostic yield and examine predictors of genetic diagnosis in children with nephrolithiasis/nephrocalcinosis (NL/NC). Methods: This retrospective multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted on children ≤ 21 years old with NL/NC from pediatric nephrology/urology centers that underwent the Invitae Nephrolithiasis Panel 1/1/2019–9/30/2021. The diagnostic yield of the genetic panel was calculated. Bivariate and multiple logistic regression were performed to assess for predictors of positive genetic testing. Results: One hundred and thirteen children (83 NL, 30 NC) from 7 centers were included. Genetic testing was positive in 32% overall (29% NL, 40% NC) with definite diagnoses (had pathogenic variants alone) made in 11.5%, probable diagnoses (carried a combination of pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in the same gene) made in 5.4%, and possible diagnoses (had VUS alone) made in 15.0%. Variants were found in 28 genes (most commonly HOGA1 in NL, SLC34A3 in NC) and 20 different conditions were identified. Compared to NL, those with NC were younger and had a higher proportion with developmental delay, hypercalcemia, low serum bicarbonate, hypophosphatemia, and chronic kidney disease. In multivariate analysis, low serum bicarbonate was associated with increased odds of genetic diagnosis (β 2.2, OR 8.7, 95% CI 1.4–54.7, p = 0.02). Conclusions: Genetic testing was high-yield with definite, probable, or possible explanatory variants found in up to one-third of children with NL/NC and shows promise to improve clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is a standard screening tool for the diagnosis of hypertension in children, adolescents, and adults. However, there is confusion and misunderstanding about which guidelines can provide the most accurate diagnostic values. Local problem: At a large, free-standing pediatric hospital, ABPM testing was historically being conducted by both nephrology and cardiology departments. The nephrology service was using the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines, published in 2014 for interpretation of results and for diagnosis of hypertension, whereas the cardiology service depended on the 2004 National High Blood Pressure Education Program (NHBEP) fourth report, which led to discrepancies in diagnosis of hypertension in this patient population. Methods: A nurse practitioner–led quality improvement project was designed and implemented to determine the best method of ABPM monitoring and test interpretation based on comparing results of patients using height, gender, and application of either the 2004 NHBEP fourth report or 2014 AHA guidelines. Interventions: Using a retrospective chart review, ABPM monitoring results from both cardiology and nephrology services were reviewed and compared to identify the most accurate methods and to recommend changes to practice. Results: Accuracy of interpretation for ABPM is best accomplished using the 2014 AHA guidelines. Conclusions: Using a single method of interpretation provides consistent diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in children. Nurse practitioners can apply this knowledge in other settings to manage hypertension and provide similar services in different settings, including primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Children who were born prematurely, those with a very low birthweight, or who have survived the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are at risk for the development of hypertension and chronic kidney disease (CKD), and thus require blood pressure screening less than 3 years of age, per American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2004 and 2017 guidelines.Methods: We reviewed the practice patterns of a large pediatric health care system and assessed adherence to the AAP clinical practice guidelines on blood pressure measurements in children less than 3 years of age for hypertension and CKD with the following risk factors: prematurity, very low birthweight, and a neonatal intensive care setting encounter. This retrospective chart review included a total of 9965 patients with a median gestational age of 34 weeks.Results: Overall, 38% of patients had at least one blood pressure measured less than 3 years of age. Primary care accounted for 41% of all outpatient encounters and 4% of all blood pressure measurements. Surgical specialties (i.e., ophthalmology, otolaryngology, and orthopedics) accounted for many non-primary care visits and were less likely than medical specialties (i.e., cardiology and nephrology) to obtain a blood pressure measurement (p < 0.0001).Conclusions: This study of a large healthcare system's practice revealed a lack of basic screening for hypertension in a population known to be at risk for hypertension and CKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]