Pathophysiology and management of sensitive skin: position paper from the special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI)

The special interest group on sensitive skin of the International Forum for the Study of Itch previously defined sensitive skin as a syndrome defined by the occurrence of unpleasant sensations (stinging, burning, pain, pruritus and tingling sensations) in response to stimuli that normally should not provoke such sensations. This additional paper focuses on the pathophysiology and the management of sensitive skin. Sensitive skin is not an immunological disorder but is related to alterations of the skin nervous system. Skin barrier abnormalities are frequently associated, but there is no cause and direct relationship. Further studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology of sensitive skin – as well as the inducing factors. Avoidance of possible triggering factors and the use of well-tolerated cosmetics, especially those containing inhibitors of unpleasant sensations, might be suggested for patients with sensitive skin. The role of psychosocial factors, such as stress or negative expectations, might be relevant for subgroups of patients. To date, there is no clinical trial supporting the use of topical or systemic drugs in sensitive skin. The published data are not sufficient to reach a consensus on sensitive skin management. In general, patients with sensitive skin require a personalized approach, taking into account various biomedical, neural and psychosocial factors affecting sensitive skin.     

Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Can We Afford the Cost of Cardioverter-Defibrillators? Data from the Search-MI Registry-Italian Sub-study

Background: Large randomized trials show that in appropriately selected patients with left ventricular dysfunction, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) can improve overall survival at 2–5 years. Since direct implementation of the criteria used in the MADIT II and SCD-HeFT will lead to a marked rise in ICD implants, there is a growing fear that increased use of ICDs may cause a dramatic burden to health care systems. The ICD has traditionally been seen as an expensive form of treatment, which is difficult to accept at the first look. This is mainly due to the nonlinear character of the ICD investment, characterized by high initial expenditure, followed by a deferred pay-off in terms of clinical benefits. Cost-effectiveness analysis may help provide a different perspective on the problem of ICD cost, as may estimation of the daily cost of ICD treatment, assuming a time horizon of 5–7 years—a particularly interesting subject for further registry studies.
Methods and Results: Based on real expenditure data from 2002 to 2005, as recorded in the Search-MI Registry-Italian Sub-study of patients implanted on MADIT II indications, we estimated the daily costs associated with the device and leads. Over a 5–7 year time horizon, the average daily cost was estimated to be €4.60–€6.70. Translation of these figures into U.S. market conditions suggests a daily cost of around $7.90–$11.40.
Conclusions: These findings appear useful to help evaluate the affordability of ICD in comparison with other therapeutic options in a context of limited available economic resources.