The ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has a drastic impact on national health care systems. Given the overwhelming demand on facility capacity, the impact on all health care sectors has to be addressed.Solid organ transplantation represents a field with a high demand on staff, intensive care units, and follow-up facilities. The great therapeutic value of organ transplantation has to be weighed against mandatory constraints of health care capacities. In addition, the management of immunosuppressed recipients has to be reassessed during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In addressing these crucial questions, transplant physicians are facing a total lack of scientific evidence.Therefore, the aim of this study was to offer an approach of consensus-based guidance, derived from individual information of 22 transplant societies. Key recommendations were extracted and the degree of consensus among different organizations was calculated. A high degree of consensus was found for temporarily suspending nonurgent transplant procedures and living donation programs. Systematic polymerase chain reaction-based testing of donors and recipients was broadly recommended.Additionally, more specific aspects (eg, screening of surgical explant teams and restricted use of marginal donor organs) were included in our analysis. This study offers a novel approach to informed guidance for health care management when a priori no scientific evidence is available.

BackgroundFew studies have thoroughly investigated the causes of kidney graft loss (GL), despite its importance.MethodsA novel approach assigns each persistent and relevant decline in renal function over the lifetime of a renal allograft to a standardized category, hypothesizing that singular or multiple events finally lead to GL. An adjudication committee of three physicians retrospectively evaluated indication biopsies, laboratory testing, and medical history of all 303 GLs among all 1642 recipients of transplants between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2017 at a large university hospital to assign primary and/or secondary causes of GL.ResultsIn 51.2% of the patients, more than one cause contributed to GL. The most frequent primary or secondary causes leading to graft failure were intercurrent medical events in 36.3% of graft failures followed by T cell–mediated rejection (TCMR) in 34% and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) in 30.7%. In 77.9%, a primary cause could be attributed to GL, of which ABMR was most frequent (21.5%). Many causes for GL were identified, and predominant causes for GL varied over time.ConclusionsGL is often multifactorial and more complex than previously thought.

BACKGROUND We compared urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMPRSS2):v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (avian) (ERG) gene fusion (T2:ERG), and the serum [−2]proprostate-specific antigen ([−2]proPSA)-based prostate health index (Phi) for predicting biopsy outcome. METHODS Serum samples and first-catch urine samples were collected after digital rectal examination (DRE) from consented outpatients with PSA 0.5–20 μg/L who were scheduled for prostate biopsy. The PCA3 score (PROGENSA PCA3, Hologic Gen-Probe) and T2:ERG score (Hologic Gen-Probe) were determined. Measurements of serum PSA, free PSA, and [−2]proPSA (Beckman Coulter) were performed, and the percentages of free PSA (%fPSA) and Phi ([−2]proPSA/fPSA × √PSA) were determined. RESULTS Of 246 enrolled men, prostate cancer (PCa) was diagnosed in 110 (45%) and there was no evidence of malignancy (NEM) in 136 (55%). A first set of biopsies was performed in 136 (55%) of all men, and 110 (45%) had ≥1 repeat biopsies. PCA3, Phi, and T2:ERG differed significantly between men with PCa and NEM, and these markers showed the largest areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) (0.74, 0.68, and 0.63, respectively). PCA3 had the largest AUC of all parameters, albeit not statistically different from Phi. Phi showed somewhat lower specificities than PCA3 at 90% sensitivity. Combination of both markers enhanced diagnostic power with modest AUC gains of 0.01–0.04. Although PCA3 had the highest AUC in the repeat-biopsy cohort, the highest AUC for Phi was observed in DRE-negative patients with PSA in the 2–10 μg/L range. CONCLUSIONS PCA3 and Phi were superior to the other evaluated parameters but their combination gave only moderate enhancements in diagnostic accuracy for PCa at first or repeat prostate biopsy.