Society of Gynecologic Oncology recommendations for fellowship education during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: Innovating programs to optimize trainee success.

In approximately ten months' time, the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has infected over 34 million people and caused over one million deaths worldwide. The impact of this virus on our health, relationships, and careers is difficult to overstate. As the economic realities for academic medical centers come into focus, we must recommit to our core missions of patient care, education, and research. Fellowship education programs in gynecologic oncology have quickly adapted to the "new normal" of social distancing using video conferencing platforms to continue clinical and didactic teaching. United in a time of crisis, we have embraced systemic change by developing and delivering collaborative educational content, overcoming the limitations imposed by institutional silos. Additional innovations are needed in order to overcome the losses in program surgical volume and research opportunities. With the end of the viral pandemic nowhere in sight, program directors can rethink how education is best delivered and potentially overhaul aspects of fellowship curriculum and content. Similarly, restrictions on travel and the need for social distancing has transformed the 2020 fellowship interview season from an in-person to a virtual experience. During this time of unprecedented and rapid change, program directors should be particularly mindful of the needs and health of their trainees and consider tailoring their educational experiences accordingly.

Evaluation of intravenous immunoglobulin as an agent to lower allosensitization and improve transplantation in highly sensitized adult patients with end-stage renal disease: report of the NIH IG02 trial.

Reported are the reduction of anti-HLA antibody levels and improvement of transplant rates by intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Between 1997 and 2000, a total of 101 adult patients with ESRD who were highly sensitized to HLA antigens (panel reactive antibody [PRA] > or =50% monthly for 3 mo) enrolled onto an NIH-sponsored trial (IG02). Patients received IVIG or placebo. Subjects received IVIG 2 g/kg monthly for 4 mo or an equivalent volume of placebo with additional infusions at 12 and 24 mo after entry if not transplanted. If transplanted, additional infusions were given monthly for 4 mo. Baseline PRA levels were similar in both groups. However, IVIG significantly reduced PRA levels in study subjects compared with placebo. Sixteen IVIG patients (35%) and eight placebo patients (17%) were transplanted. Rejection episodes occurred in 9 of 17 IVIG and 1 of 10 placebo subjects. Seven graft failures occurred (four IVIG, three placebo) among adherent patients with similar 2-yr graft survival rates (80% IVIG, 75% placebo). With a median follow-up of 2 yr after transplant, the viable transplants functioned normally with a mean +/- SEM serum creatinine of 1.68 +/- 0.28 for IVIG versus 1.28 +/- 0.13 mg/dl for placebo. Adverse events rates were similar in both groups. We conclude that IVIG is better than placebo in reducing anti-HLA antibody levels and improving transplantation rates in highly sensitized patients with ESRD. Transplant rates for highly sensitized patients with ESRD awaiting kidney transplants are improved with IVIG therapy.