4.6 Article

The underestimated burden of monogenic kidney disease in adults waitlisted for kidney transplantation

Journal

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 23, Issue 7, Pages 1219-1224

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01127-8

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Projekt DEAL

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study demonstrates the diagnostic value of comprehensive genetic testing among patients with undetermined CKD. A considerable proportion of patients with CKD were found to have a known genetic cause, highlighting the importance of genetic testing in this population.
Purpose Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major health-care burden. Increasing evidence suggests that a considerable proportion of patients are affected by a monogenic kidney disorder. Methods In this study, the kidney transplantation waiting list at the Charite was screened for patients with undetermined cause of CKD. By next-generation sequencing (NGS) we targeted all 600 genes described and associated with kidney disease or allied disorders. Results In total, 635 patients were investigated. Of these, 245 individuals had a known cause of CKD (38.5%) of which 119 had a proven genetic disease (e.g., ADPKD, Alport). The other 340 patients (53.5%) were classified as undetermined diagnosis, of whom 87 had kidney failure (KF) onset <40 years. To this latter group genetic testing was offered as well as to those patients (n = 29) with focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) and all individuals (n = 21) suspicious for thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) in kidney biopsy. We detected diagnostic variants in 26 of 126 patients (20.6%) of which 14 of 126 (11.1%) were pathogenic or likely pathogenic. In another 12 of 126 (9.5%) patients, variants of unknown significance (VUS) were detected. Conclusion Our study demonstrates the diagnostic value of comprehensive genetic testing among patients with undetermined CKD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available