Raj, Dominic S.

Significance Statement Accurate diagnosis of a patient's underlying cause of CKD can influence management and ultimately overall health. The single-arm, interventional, prospective Renasight Clinical Application, Review, and Evaluation study assessed the utility of genetic testing with a 385 gene kidney disease panel on the diagnosis and management of 1623 patients with CKD. Among 20.8% of patients who had positive genetic findings, half resulted in a new or reclassified diagnosis. In addition, a change in management because of genetic testing was reported for 90.7% of patients with positive findings, including treatment changes in 32.9%. These findings demonstrate that genetic testing has a significant effect on both CKD diagnosis and management. Background Genetic testing in CKD has recently been shown to have diagnostic utility with many predicted implications for clinical management, but its effect on management has not been prospectively evaluated. Methods Renasight Clinical Application, Review, and Evaluation RenaCARE (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05846113) is a single-arm, interventional, prospective, multicenter study that evaluated the utility of genetic testing with a broad, 385 gene panel (the Renasight TM test) on the diagnosis and management of adult patients with CKD recruited from 31 US-based community and academic medical centers. Patient medical history and clinical CKD diagnosis were collected at enrollment. Physician responses to questionnaires regarding patient disease categorization and management were collected before genetic testing and 1 month after the return of test results. Changes in CKD diagnosis and management after genetic testing were assessed. Results Of 1623 patients with CKD in 13 predefined clinical disease categories (ages, 18–96; median, 55 years), 20.8% ( n =338) had positive genetic findings spanning 54 genes. Positive genetic findings provided a new diagnosis or reclassified a prior diagnosis in 48.8% of those patients. Physicians reported that genetic results altered the management of 90.7% of patients with a positive genetic finding, including changes in treatment plan, which were reported in 32.9% of these patients. Conclusions Genetic testing with a CKD-focused 385 gene panel substantially refined clinical diagnoses and had widespread implications for clinical management, including appropriate treatment strategies. These data support the utility of broader integration of panels of genetic tests into the clinical care paradigm for patients with CKD. Clinical Trial registry name and registration number ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05846113.

Key Points Identifying ways to prevent AKI may reduce mortality further in the setting of intensive BP control. Creatinine-based ascertainment of AKI, enabled by electronic health record data, may be more sensitive and less biased than traditional serious adverse event adjudication. Background Adjudication of inpatient AKI in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) was based on billing codes and admission and discharge notes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of intensive versus standard BP control on creatinine-based inpatient and outpatient AKI, and whether AKI was associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality. Methods We linked electronic health record (EHR) data from 47 clinic sites with trial data to enable creatinine-based adjudication of AKI. Cox regression was used to evaluate the effect of intensive BP control on the incidence of AKI, and the relationship between incident AKI and CVD and all-cause mortality. Results A total of 3644 participants had linked EHR data. A greater number of inpatient AKI events were identified using EHR data (187 on intensive versus 155 on standard treatment) as compared with serious adverse event (SAE) adjudication in the trial (95 on intensive versus 61 on standard treatment). Intensive treatment increased risk for SPRINT-adjudicated inpatient AKI (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.09 to 2.08) and for creatinine-based outpatient AKI (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.70), but not for creatinine-based inpatient AKI (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.48). Irrespective of the definition (SAE or creatinine based), AKI was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality, but only creatinine-based inpatient AKI was associated with increased risk for CVD. Conclusions Creatinine-based ascertainment of AKI, enabled by EHR data, may be more sensitive and less biased than traditional SAE adjudication. Identifying ways to prevent AKI may reduce mortality further in the setting of intensive BP control.

In observational studies, left ventricular mass (LVM) and structure are strong predictors of mortality and cardiovascular events. However, the effect of hypertension treatment on LVM reduction and its relation to subsequent outcomes is unclear, particularly at lower blood pressure (BP) targets. In an ancillary study of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), where participants were randomly assigned to intensive BP control (target systolic BP target <120 mm Hg) versus standard BP control (<140 mm Hg), cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed at baseline and 18-month follow-up to measure: LVM, volumes, ejection fraction, and native T1 mapping for myocardial fibrosis. At baseline, 337 participants were examined (age: 64±9 years, 45% women); 300 completed the 18-month exam (153 intensive control and 147 standard control). In the intensive versus standard BP control group at 18 months, there was no difference in change in LVM (mean±SE =−2.7±0.5 g versus −2.3±0.7 g; P =0.368), ejection fraction, or native T1 ( P =0.79), but there was a larger decrease in LVM/end-diastolic volume ratio (−0.04±0.01 versus −0.01±0.01; P =0.002) a measure of concentric LV remodeling. There were fewer cardiovascular events in the intensive control group, but no significant association between the reduced events and change in LVM or any other cardiac magnetic resonance imaging measure. In SPRINT-HEART, contrary to our hypothesis, there were no significant between-group differences in LVM, function, or myocardial T1 at 18-month follow-up. These results suggests that mediators other than these LV measures contribute to the improved cardiovascular outcomes with intensive BP control.