Transplantation: progress and continued shortcomings

 Here's a guest essay from the NYT that focuses on a different set of shortcomings of organ transplantation than organ availability. The author writes about how her long history of immunosuppression, to keep her transplanted organ(s) alive, has left her vulnerable to cancer.

My Transplanted Heart and I Will Die Soon.  By Marine Buffard

"My 35 years living with two different donor hearts (I was 25 at the time of the first transplant) — finishing law school, getting married, becoming a mother and writing two books — has felt like a quest to outlast a limited life expectancy. 

...

"Organ transplantation is mired in stagnant science and antiquated, imprecise medicine that fails patients and organ donors. And I understand the irony of an incredibly successful and fortunate two-time heart transplant recipient making this case, but my longevity also provides me with a unique vantage point. Standing on the edge of death now, I feel compelled to use my experience in the transplant trenches to illuminate and challenge the status quo.

"Over the last almost four decades a toxic triad of immunosuppressive medicines — calcineurin inhibitors, antimetabolites, steroids — has remained essentially the same with limited exceptions. These transplant drugs (which must be taken once or twice daily for life, since rejection is an ongoing risk and the immune system will always regard a donor organ as a foreign invader) cause secondary diseases and dangerous conditions, including diabetes, uncontrollable high blood pressure, kidney damage and failure, serious infections and cancers. The negative impact on recipients is not offset by effectiveness: the current transplant medicine regimen does not work well over time to protect donor organs from immune attack and destruction.

"My first donor heart died of transplant medicines’ inadequate protection of the donor heart from rejection; my second will die most likely from their stymied immune effects that give free rein to cancer.

...

"Without vigorous pushback, hospitals and physicians have been allowed to set an embarrassingly low bar for achievement. Indeed, the prevailing metric for success as codified by the Health Resources and Services Administration is only one year of post-transplant survival, which relieves pressure for improvement."

*************

That one year of measured graft survival is both too short, as the author points out, and too long.  By penalizing transplant centers for transplants that fail to survive a year, the current regulations make transplant centers too risk averse, so that kidney transplants that would have only, say, an 85% chance of working well are often not conducted, leaving patients to remain on dialysis, often til death,  for that 85% chance of life.

Transplantation is, still, a modern miracle. But until we can do without it, we'll have to keep trying to do it better.