The American Venous Forum, American Vein and Lymphatic Society and the Society for Vascular Medicine expert opinion consensus on lymphedema diagnosis and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Lymphedema imposes a significant economic and social burden in modern societies. Controversies about its risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment permeate the literature. The goal of this study was to assess experts' opinions on the available literature on lymphedema while following the Delphi methodology. METHODS: In December of 2019, the American Venous Forum created a working group tasked to develop a consensus statement regarding current practices for the diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema. A panel of experts was identified by the working group. The working group then compiled a list of clinical questions, risk factors, diagnosis and evaluation, and treatment of lymphedema. Fifteen questions that met the criteria for consensus were included in the list. Using a modified Delphi methodology, six questions that received between 60% and 80% of the votes were included in the list for the second round of analysis. Consensus was reached whenever >70% agreement was achieved. RESULTS: The panel of experts reached consensus that cancer, infection, chronic venous disease, and surgery are risk factors for secondary lymphedema. Consensus was also reached that clinical examination is adequate for diagnosing lymphedema and that all patients with chronic venous insufficiency (C3-C6) should be treated as lymphedema patients. No consensus was reached regarding routine clinical practice use of radionuclide lymphoscintigraphy as a mandatory diagnostic tool. However, the panel came to consensus regarding the importance of quantifying edema in all patients (93.6% in favor). In terms of treatment, consensus was reached favoring the regular use of compression garments to reduce lymphedema progression (89.4% in favor, 10.6% against; mean score of 79), but the use of Velcro devices as the first line of compression therapy did not reach consensus (59.6% in favor vs 40.4% against; total score of 15). There was agreement that sequential pneumatic compression should be considered as adjuvant therapy in the maintenance phase of treatment (91.5% in favor vs. 8.5% against; mean score of 85), but less so in its initial phases (61.7% in favor vs. 38.3% against; mean score of 27). Most of the panel agreed that manual lymphatic drainage should be a mandatory treatment modality (70.2% in favor), but the panel was split in half regarding the proposal that reductive surgery should be considered for patients with failed conservative treatment. CONCLUSION: This consensus process demonstrated that lymphedema experts agree on the majority of the statements related to risk factors for lymphedema, and the diagnostic workup for lymphedema patients. Less agreement was demonstrated on statements related to treatment of lymphedema. This consensus suggests that variability in lymphedema care is high even among the experts. Developers of future practice guidelines for lymphedema should consider this information, especially in cases of low-level evidence that supports practice patterns with which the majority of experts disagree.

Vitamin D supplementation and endothelial function in vitamin D deficient HIV-infected patients: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that vitamin D deficiency is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Vitamin D deficiency is prevalent in HIV patients but the effect of vitamin D supplementation on cardiovascular risk in this population is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial among 45 HIV-infected adults in Cleveland (OH, USA) on stable antiretroviral therapy with durable virological suppression and a baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of ≤20 ng/ml. Participants were randomized 2:1 to vitamin D3 4,000 IU daily or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in flow-mediated brachial artery dilation (FMD). RESULTS: Baseline demographics were similar except for age (vitamin D versus placebo, mean ±sd 47 ±8 versus 40 ±10 years; P=0.009). Both groups had reduced FMD at baseline (median values 2.9% [IQR 1.6-4.8] for vitamin D versus 2.5% [IQR 1.7-6.4] for placebo; P=0.819). Despite an increase in the concentration of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D from baseline to 12 weeks (5.0 ng/ml [IQR -0.9-7.4] versus -1.9 ng/ml [IQR -4.0-0.1] for vitamin D versus placebo, respectively; P=0.003), there was no difference in FMD change (0.55% [IQR -1.05-2.13] versus 0.29% [IQR -1.61-1.77]; P=0.748). Vitamin D supplementation was associated with a decrease in total and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and an increase in indices of insulin resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Among HIV-infected individuals with vitamin D deficiency, supplementation with 4,000 IU vitamin D3 daily for 12 weeks modestly improved vitamin D status and cholesterol but worsened insulin resistance without change in endothelial function. The mechanisms of resistance to standard doses of vitamin D and the complex role of vitamin D in glucose metabolism in this population require further investigation.

Omega-3 fatty acids do not improve endothelial function in virologically suppressed HIV-infected men: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Omega-3 fatty acids decrease cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality possibly due to antiinflammatory effect. Inflammation and endothelial dysfunction likely play a role in the heightened CVD risk in HIV. Our goal was to evaluate the effect of omega-3 fatty acids primarily on endothelial function and inflammation in HIV-infected adults with moderate CVD risk on stable antiretroviral therapy. We conducted a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the effect of omega-3-acid ethyl esters 1 g twice a day. Flow-mediated dilation (FMD) of the brachial artery, lipoproteins and markers of inflammation, endothelial activation, coagulation, and insulin resistance were measured at entry and week 24. There were no within- or between-group differences in change in FMD over 24 weeks (mean change in FMD -0.13% vs. 1.5% for treatment vs. placebo; p=0.21). There were no between-group differences in changes in lipoprotein levels or biomarkers tested, except soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor-I, which favored omega-3-acid ethyl esters. Omega-3 fatty acids did not improve endothelial function or activation, coagulation, or insulin resistance in virologically suppressed, HIV-infected men with moderate CVD risk; however, inflammation tended to improve. This suggests that omega-3 fatty acids may not be potent enough to counteract the enhanced inflammation and endothelial dysfunction due to HIV and antiretrovirals.