BackgroundQuality end-of-life care depends on understanding patients’ end-of-life choices. Individuals and cultures may hold end-of-life priorities at different hierarchy. Forced ranking rather than independent rating, and by-person factor analysis rather than averaging may reveal otherwise masked typologies.MethodsWe explored Saudi males’ forced-ranked, end-of-life priorities and dis-priorities. Respondents (n = 120) rank-ordered 47 opinion statements on end-of-life care following a 9-category symmetrical distribution. Statements’ scores were analyzed by averaging analysis and factor analysis (Q-methodology).ResultsRespondents’ mean age was 32.1 years (range, 18–65); 52 % reported average religiosity, 88 and 83 % ≥ very good health and life-quality, respectively, and 100 % ≥ high school education. Averaging analysis revealed that the extreme five end-of-life priorities were to, be at peace with God, be able to say the statement of faith, maintain dignity, resolve conflicts, and have religious death rituals respected, respectively. The extreme five dis-priorities were to, die in the hospital, not receive intensive care if in coma, die at peak of life, be informed about impending death by family/friends rather than doctor, and keep medical status confidential from family/friends, respectively. Q-methodology classified 67 % of respondents into five highly transcendent opinion types. Type-I (rituals-averse, family-caring, monitoring-coping, life-quality-concerned) and Type-V (rituals-apt, family-centered, neutral-coping, life-quantity-concerned) reported the lowest and highest religiosity, respectively. Type-II (rituals-apt, family-dependent, monitoring-coping, life-quantity-concerned) and Type-III (rituals-silent, self/family-neutral, avoidance-coping, life-quality & quantity-concerned) reported the best and worst life-quality, respectively. Type-I respondents were the oldest with the lowest general health, in contrast to Type-IV (rituals-apt, self-centered, monitoring-coping, life-quality/quantity-neutral). Of the extreme 14 priorities/dis-priorities for the five types, 29, 14, 14, 50, and 36 %, respectively, were not among the extreme 20 priorities/dis-priorities identified by averaging analysis for the entire cohort.Conclusions1) Transcendence was the extreme end-of-life priority, and dying in the hospital was the extreme dis-priority. 2) Quality of life was conceptualized differently with less emphasize on its physiological aspects. 3) Disclosure of terminal illness to family/close friends was preferred as long it is through the patient. 4) Q-methodology identified five types of constellations of end-of-life priorities and dis-priorities that may be related to respondents’ demographics and are partially masked by averaging analysis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12904-015-0064-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe extents of generic-reference and generic-generic average bioequivalence and intra-subject variation of on-market drug products have not been prospectively studied on a large scale.MethodsWe assessed bioequivalence of 42 generic products of 14 immediate-release oral drugs with the highest number of generic products on the Saudi market. We conducted 14 four-sequence, randomized, crossover studies on the reference and three randomly-selected generic products of amlodipine, amoxicillin, atenolol, cephalexin, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, diclofenac, ibuprofen, fluconazole, metformin, metronidazole, paracetamol, omeprazole, and ranitidine. Geometric mean ratios of maximum concentration (Cmax) and area-under-the-concentration-time-curve, to last measured concentration (AUCT), extrapolated to infinity (AUCI), or truncated to Cmax time of reference product (AUCReftmax) were calculated using non-compartmental method and their 90% confidence intervals (CI) were compared to the 80.00%–125.00% bioequivalence range. Percentages of individual ratios falling outside the ±25% range were also determined.ResultsMean (SD) age and body-mass-index of 700 healthy volunteers (28–80/study) were 32.2 (6.2) years and 24.4 (3.2) kg/m2, respectively. In 42 generic-reference comparisons, 100% of AUCT and AUCI CIs showed bioequivalence, 9.5% of Cmax CIs barely failed to show bioequivalence, and 66.7% of AUCReftmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence/showed bioinequivalence. Adjusting for 6 comparisons, 2.4% of AUCT and AUCI CIs and 21.4% of Cmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence. In 42 generic-generic comparisons, 2.4% of AUCT, AUCI, and Cmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence, and 66.7% of AUCReftmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence/showed bioinequivalence. Adjusting for 6 comparisons, 2.4% of AUCT and AUCI CIs and 14.3% of Cmax CIs failed to show bioequivalence. Average geometric mean ratio deviation from 100% was ≤3.2 and ≤5.4 percentage points for AUCI and Cmax, respectively, in both generic-reference and generic-generic comparisons. Individual generic/reference and generic/generic ratios, respectively, were within the ±25% range in >75% of individuals in 79% and 71% of the 14 drugs for AUCT and 36% and 29% for Cmax.ConclusionsOn-market generic drug products continue to be reference-bioequivalent and are bioequivalent to each other based on AUCT, AUCI, and Cmax but not AUCReftmax. Average deviation of geometric mean ratios and intra-subject variations are similar between reference-generic and generic-generic comparisons.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01344070 (registered April 3, 2011).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40360-017-0182-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundConsenting for retrospective medical records-based research (MR) and leftover tissue-based research (TR) continues to be controversial. Our objective was to survey Saudis attending outpatient clinics at a tertiary care hospital on their personal preference and perceptions of norm and current practice in relation to consenting for MR and TR.MethodsWe surveyed 528 Saudis attending clinics at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia to explore their preferences and perceptions of norm and current practice. The respondents selected one of 7 options from each of 6 questionnaires.ResultsRespondents' mean (SD) age was 33 (11) years, 42% were males, 56% were patients, 84% had ≥ secondary school education, and 10% had previously volunteered for research. Respectively, 40% and 49% perceived that the norm is to conduct MR and TR without consent and 38% and 37% with general or proposal-specific consent; the rest objected to such research. There was significant difference in the distribution of choices according to health status (patients vs. companions) for MR (adjusted Kruskal-Wallis test P = 0.03) but not to age group, gender, education level, or previous participation in research (unadjusted P = 0.02 - 0.59). The distributions of perceptions of current practice and norm were similar (unadjusted Marginal Homogeneity test P = 0.44 for MR and P = 0.89 for TR), whereas the distributions of preferences and perceptions of norm were different (adjusted P = 0.09 for MR and P = 0.02 for TR). The distributions of perceptions of norm, preferences, and perceptions of current practice for MR were significantly different from those of TR (adjusted P < 0.009 for all).ConclusionsWe conclude that: 1) there is a considerable diversity among Saudi views regarding consenting for retrospective research which may be related to health status, 2) the distribution of perceptions of norm was similar to the distribution of perceptions of current practice but different from that of preferences, and 3) MR and TR are perceived differently in regard to consenting.

A randomized, single-dose, crossover study was conducted to assess the bioavailability of two domperidone (CAS 57808-66-9) tablet formulations, Domperidone (test) and a commercially available original preparation (reference) under fasting conditions. A 10 mg dose of each formulation was administered to 36 healthy male volunteers with a one-week washout period, 17 blood samples were collected over 48 h, plasma concentrations of domperidone were analyzed by a locally validated LC-MS-MS assay, and the pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by the standard non-compartmental method. Mean +/- SD maximum concentration (C(max)), time to reach maximum concentration (T(max)), areas under the curve (AUC(0 --> t and AUC(0 --> infininty)), and elimination constant (K(el)) were 17.13 +/- 9.62 and 17.67 +/- 7.97 ng/ml, 0.87 +/- 0.58, and 0.89 +/- 0.33 h, 73.12 +/- 43.37 and 71.45 +/- 35.41 ng x h/ml, 90.32 +/- 48.55 and 87.08 +/- 40.29 ng x h/ml, and 0.069 +/- 0.046 and 0.068 +/- 0.048 h(-1) for the test and reference formulation, respectively. The parametric 90% confidence intervals on the mean difference between log-transformed values of the two formulations were within the acceptable bioequivalence range for AUC(0 --> t) (87.84% to 109.60%), AUC(0 --> infinity) (89.05% to 111.67%) and C(max) (83.28% to 107.50%). ANOVA revealed significant subject's effect for AU4C(0 --> t), AUC((0 -->infinity), C(max), and t1/2 with a ratio of the inter-subject to intra-subject coefficient of variation of 2.10, 1.55, 1.10, and 1.02, respectively. The results indicate that the two formulations are equivalent in relation to the extent and rate of absorption and confirm the previously reported marked intra-individual variations in the pharmacokinetics of domperidone.

No abstract