ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Transpl. Int.
Novel allocation strategies can boost kidney exchange programs: a Monte Carlo simulation
Mattheüs F. Klaassen 1
Marry de Klerk 1
Marije C. Baas 2
Hanneke Bouwsma 3
Laura B. Bungener 4
Maarten H.L. Christiaans 5
Twan Dollevoet 6
Kristiaan Glorie 7
Sebastiaan Heidt 1
Aline C. Hemke 8
Margriet F.C. de Jong 4
Judith A. Kal-van Gestel 1
Marcia M.L. Kho 1
Jeroen D. Langereis 2
Karlijn A.M.I. van der Pant 9
Claudia M. Ranzijn 9
Dave L. Roelen 3
Eric Spierings 10
Christina E.M. Voorter 5
Jacqueline van de Wetering 1
Arjan D. van Zuilen 10
Joke I. Roodnat 1
Annelies E. de Weerd 1
1. Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
2. Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
3. Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
4. University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
5. Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands
6. Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
7. Erasmus Q-Intelligence, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
8. Dutch Transplant Foundation, Leiden, Netherlands
9. Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands
10. University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
Article metrics
34
Views
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Abstract
Kidney exchange programs (KEPs) enhance access to living donor kidney transplantation. Nonetheless, transplant rates in KEP remain low for highly immunized and blood type O patients. In the Netherlands, a novel allocation algorithm is being implemented, allowing ABO-incompatible matching for long waiting patients, next to prioritization and 'low-level' HLA-incompatible matching for selected highly immunized patients. We simulated this novel algorithm along with additional scenarios, by using a retrospective, six-year cohort of Dutch KEP. For each scenario, 30 simulations were repeated with Monte Carlo technique. The novel algorithm increased median KEP transplant rate for incompatible pairs (53% versus 44%, p<0.001) and for difficult-to-match subgroups. HLA-incompatible matching increased transplant rate for selected highly immunized patients significantly, while participation with multiple donors per recipient did not. In additional simulations, including all non-KEP unspecified donors (n=150) for local KEP participation increased transplant rate for incompatible pairs up to 64% (p<0.001). Simulating additional KEP participation by compatible pairs (n=149), on the condition a KEP match should have fewer HLA-mismatches, resulted in 58% being matched in KEP. In conclusion, differential matching algorithms can boost KEP transplant rates, allowing incompatible matching for difficult-to-match subgroups, facilitating participation of unspecified donors, and optimizing the HLA-matching of compatible pairs.
Summary
Keywords
Allocation, Kidney Paired Donation, kidney transplantation, living donor, simulation
Received
13 August 2025
Accepted
22 January 2026
Copyright
Ā© 2026 Klaassen, de Klerk, Baas, Bouwsma, Bungener, Christiaans, Dollevoet, Glorie, Heidt, Hemke, de Jong, Kal-van Gestel, Kho, Langereis, van der Pant, Ranzijn, Roelen, Spierings, Voorter, van de Wetering, van Zuilen, Roodnat and de Weerd. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Mattheüs F. Klaassen
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.