The VASCERN PPL working group patient pathway for primary and paediatric lymphoedema.

Lymphoedema is caused by an imbalance between fluid production and transport by the lymphatic system. This imbalance can be either caused by reduced transport capacity of the lymphatic system or too much fluid production and leads to swelling associated with tissue changes (skin thickening, fat deposition). Its main common complication is the increased risk of developing cellulitis/erysipelas in the affected area, which can worsen the lymphatic function and can be the cause of raised morbidity of the patient if not treated correctly/urgently. The term primary lymphoedema covers a group of rare conditions caused by abnormal functioning and/or development of the lymphatic system. It covers a highly heterogeneous group of conditions. An accurate diagnosis of primary lymphoedema is crucial for the implementation of an optimal treatment plan and management, as well as to reduce the risk of worsening. Patient care is diverse across Europe, and national specialised centres and networks are not available everywhere. The European Reference Network on Rare Multisystemic Vascular Diseases (VASCERN) gathers the best expertise in Europe and provide accessible cross-border healthcare to patients with rare vascular diseases. There are six different working groups in VASCERN, which focus on arterial diseases, hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia, neurovascular diseases, lymphoedema and vascular anomalies. The working group Paediatric and Primary Lymphedema (PPL WG) gathers and shares knowledge and expertise in the diagnosis and management of adults and children with primary and paediatric lymphoedema. The members of PPL WG have worked together to produce this opinion statement reflecting strategies on how to approach patients with primary and paediatric lymphoedema. The objective of this patient pathway is to improve patient care by reducing the time to diagnosis, define the best management and follow-up strategies and avoid overuse of resources. Therefore, the patient pathway describes the clinical evaluation and investigations that lead to a clinical diagnosis, the genetic testing, differential diagnosis, the management and treatment options and the patient follow up at expert and local centres. Also, the importance of the patient group participation in the PPL WG is discussed.

Paediatric lymphoedema: An audit of patients seen by the paediatric and primary lymphoedema group of vascular European Reference Network (VASCERN).

Little is known about the overall prevalence of lymphoedema in children and the types of paediatric lymphoedema seen by specialist centres. Therefore, this study was aimed to provide a profile of children with primary or secondary lymphoedema seen by the expert centres of the paediatric and primary lymphoedema working group (PPL-WG) of VASCERN and to compare the profile between the different countries. A retrospective review of all children (aged up to 18 years) seen for the first time by the expert centres over one year (2019) was carried out. Lymphoedema-, patient- and genetics-related data was collected and described for the whole group and compared between the different European countries/UK. In 2019, a total of 181 new children were seen by eight expert centres. For primary lymphoedema, the phenotype was based on the St George's classification of lymphatic anomalies. The percentages diagnosed according to each category were: 7.2% for syndromic lymphoedema, 2.8% for systemic/visceral involvement, 30.4% for congenital, 35.9% for late-onset lymphoedema and 19.3% for vascular/lymphatic malformations. 4.4% had secondary lymphoedema. Nearly 10% of all children had had at least one episode of cellulitis. The median delay from onset of symptoms to being seen by an expert centre was 2.4 years. In 44.4% of the children with primary lymphoedema a genetic test was performed, of which 35.8% resulted in a molecular diagnosis. Across the different centres, there was a wide variety in distribution of the different categories of paediatric lymphoedema diagnosed and the frequency of genetic testing. In conclusion, this paper has demonstrated that there is a large delay between the onset of paediatric lymphoedema and the first visit in the expert centres and that an episode of cellulitis is a relatively common complication. Diagnostic variation across the centres may reflect different referral criteria. Access to genetic testing was limited in some centres. It is recommended that these issues are addressed in the future work of the PPL-WG to improve the referral to the expert centres and the consistency in service provision for paediatric lymphoedema in Europe.

[Diagnosis and treatment of primary and secondary lymphedema]. / Diagnostiek en behandeling van primair en secundair lymfoedeem.

Chronic edema is caused by lymphatic impairment due to either overload of interstitial fluid or anatomic/functional lymphatic failure in any part of the body. Lymphatics play a crucial role in interstitial homeostasis, immune surveillance and fat absorption in the gut. Lymphedema is a clinical sign with swelling and not a diagnosis. In the latter stages inflammatory processes lead to fat formation and fibrosis. Untreated lymphedema has an increased risk for erysipelas, physical dysfunction and tends to worsen. Obesity and reduced physical activity are the main influenceable risk factors after oncological treatments in patients with impaired lymphatics. Prior to a multidisciplinary treatment program, a proper diagnosis with health profile is made. Treatment exists of two phases: an initial treatment phase and a maintenance phase in which the focus is on compression, self-management, exercise, minimizing risk factors and creating a healthy lifestyle. Clinimetrics are important for monitoring in both phases.

Shaving Technique and Compression Therapy for Elephantiasis Nostras Verrucosa (Lymphostatic Verrucosis) of Forefeet and Toes in End-Stage Primary Lymphedema: A 5 Year Follow-Up Study in 28 Patients and a Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Longstanding lymphedema can lead, especially when there is recurrence of erysipelas, to irreversible elephantiasis nostras verrucosa (ENV). This predisposes to new episodes of erysipelas, leading to further damage of the lymphatics and deterioration of the lymphedema as a whole. We report the results of 28 patients with primary lymphedema and surgical removal ENV of the forefoot and toes treated between 2006 and 2014. METHOD: Retrospective descriptive 5 year follow-up study of 28 patients with various diagnosis of primary lymphedema. Wound healing time, number of erysipelas, body mass index (BMI), recurrence of EVN and types of compression were documented during follow-up. RESULTS: After preoperative multidisciplinary work up, operation of the toes with shaving and excision was performed within a conservative treatment program. During the follow up, the number of erysipelas attacks decreased dramatically (mean 17.6 vs. 0.6). Before treatment, no toecaps were used; and in follow up, it was a part of treatment. Recurrence of ENV was not observed. Compared to the literature with often BMI > 35, the mean BMI in our group was 30.0 (overweight). In 12 patients, we concurrently performed circumferential suction-assisted lipectomy for end-stage lymphedema of the leg. CONCLUSION: Although lymphedema patients are treated with garments during the maintenance phase, compression of the toes is often too challenging. Surgical removal of the verrucosis of toes is an effective therapeutic modality as part of an integrated lymphedema treatment program to restore the shape of the toes and enable the wearing of toecaps. This technique can also be effective for ENV of origins other than primary lymphedema. Although ENV is a generally accepted term, it can have undesirable connotations. We suggest using a more inclusive name such as lymphostatic verrucosis, because long-lasting lymphatic impairment is involved in all ENV and the term verrucosis is above discussion.

Interventions for hand eczema.

BACKGROUND: Hand eczema is an inflammation of the skin of the hands that tends to run a chronic, relapsing course. This common condition is often associated with itch, social stigma, and impairment in employment. Many different interventions of unknown effectiveness are used to treat hand eczema. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of topical and systemic interventions for hand eczema in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following up to April 2018: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, LILACS, GREAT, and four trials registries. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared interventions for hand eczema, regardless of hand eczema type and other affected sites, versus no treatment, placebo, vehicle, or active treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were participant- and investigator-rated good/excellent control of symptoms, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 RCTs, conducted in secondary care (5469 participants with mild to severe chronic hand eczema). Most participants were over 18 years old. The duration of treatment was short, generally up to four months. Only 24 studies included a follow-up period. Clinical heterogeneity in treatments and outcome measures was evident. Few studies performed head-to-head comparisons of different interventions. Risk of bias varied considerably, with only five studies at low risk in all domains. Twenty-two studies were industry-funded.Eighteen trials studied topical corticosteroids or calcineurin inhibitors; 10 studies, phototherapy; three studies, systemic immunosuppressives; and five studies, oral retinoids. Most studies compared an active intervention against no treatment, variants of the same medication, or placebo (or vehicle). Below, we present results from the main comparisons.Corticosteroid creams/ointments: when assessed 15 days after the start of treatment, clobetasol propionate 0.05% foam probably improves participant-rated control of symptoms compared to vehicle (risk ratio (RR) 2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38 to 3.91; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 8; 1 study, 125 participants); the effect of clobetasol compared to vehicle for investigator-rated improvement is less clear (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.40). More participants had at least one adverse event with clobetasol (11/62 versus 5/63; RR 2.24, 95% CI 0.82 to 6.06), including application site burning/pruritus. This evidence was rated as moderate certainty.When assessed 36 weeks after the start of treatment, mometasone furoate cream used thrice weekly may slightly improve investigator-rated symptom control compared to twice weekly (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.61; 1 study, 72 participants) after remission is reached. Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Some mild atrophy was reported in both groups (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.83; 5/35 versus 3/37). This evidence was rated as low certainty.Irradiation with ultraviolet (UV) light: local combination ultraviolet light therapy (PUVA) may lead to improvement in investigator-rated symptom control when compared to local narrow-band UVB after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.16; 1 study, 60 participants). However, the 95% CI indicates that PUVA might make little or no difference. Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Adverse events (mainly erythema) were reported by 9/30 participants in the narrow-band UVB group versus none in the PUVA group. This evidence was rated as moderate certainty.Topical calcineurin inhibitors: tacrolimus 0.1% over two weeks probably improves investigator-rated symptom control measured after three weeks compared to vehicle (14/14 tacrolimus versus 0/14 vehicle; 1 study). Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Four of 14 people in the tacrolimus group versus zero in the vehicle group had well-tolerated application site burning/itching.A within-participant study in 16 participants compared 0.1% tacrolimus to 0.1% mometasone furoate but did not measure investigator- or participant-rated symptoms. Both treatments were well tolerated when assessed at two weeks during four weeks of treatment.Evidence from these studies was rated as moderate certainty.Oral interventions: oral cyclosporin 3 mg/kg/d probably slightly improves investigator-rated (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.88 to 3.99; 1 study, 34 participants) or participant-rated (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.27) control of symptoms compared to topical betamethasone dipropionate 0.05% after six weeks of treatment. The risk of adverse events such as dizziness was similar between groups (up to 36 weeks; RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.86, n = 55; 15/27 betamethasone versus 19/28 cyclosporin). The evidence was rated as moderate certainty.Alitretinoin 10 mg improves investigator-rated symptom control compared with placebo (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.07; NNTB 11, 95% CI 6.3 to 26.5; 2 studies, n = 781) and alitretinoin 30 mg also improves this outcome compared with placebo (RR 2.75, 95% CI 2.20 to 3.43; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; 2 studies, n = 1210). Similar results were found for participant-rated symptom control: alitretinoin 10 mg RR 1.73 (95% CI 1.25 to 2.40) and 30 mg RR 2.75 (95% CI 2.18 to 3.48). Evidence was rated as high certainty. The number of adverse events (including headache) probably did not differ between alitretinoin 10 mg and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; 1 study, n = 158; moderate-certainty evidence), but the risk of headache increased with alitretinoin 30 mg (RR 3.43, 95% CI 2.45 to 4.81; 2 studies, n = 1210; high-certainty evidence). Outcomes were assessed between 48 and 72 weeks. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most findings were from single studies with low precision, so they should be interpreted with caution. Topical corticosteroids and UV phototherapy were two of the major standard treatments, but evidence is insufficient to support one specific treatment over another. The effect of topical calcineurin inhibitors is not certain. Alitretinoin is more effective than placebo in controlling symptoms, but advantages over other treatments need evaluating.Well-designed and well-reported, long-term (more than three months), head-to-head studies comparing different treatments are needed. Consensus is required regarding the definition of hand eczema and its subtypes, and a standard severity scale should be established.The main limitation was heterogeneity between studies. Small sample size impacted our ability to detect differences between treatments.