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.

There is increasing evidence that a low vitamin D status may be an important and hitherto neglected factor of cardiovascular disease. This review is an overview of the current body of literature, and presents evidence of the mechanisms through which vitamin D deficiency affects the cardiovascular system in general and the heart in particular. Available data indicate that the majority of congestive heart failure patients have 25-hydroxyvitamin D deficiency. Furthermore, the low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level has a higher impact on hypertension, coronary artery disease an on the occurrence of relevant cardiac events. A serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level below 75 nmol/l (30 ng/l) is generally regarded as vitamin D insufficiency in both adults and children, while a level below 50 nmol/l (20 ng/l) is considered deficiency. Levels below 50 nmol/l (20 ng/l) are linked independently to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

No abstract

BackgroundVitamin-D2 (D2) treatment has been associated with a decrease in 25-hydroxy (25(OH)) vitamin-D3 (D3) level, suggesting that D3 treatment would be preferred to raise total 25(OH) vitamin-D (D) level. We postulated that D2 treatment-associated decrease in 25(OH)D3 level is related to the increase in 25(OH)D level rather than being D2-specific, and thus there would be a similar D3 treatment-associated decrease in 25(OH)D2 level.MethodsFifty volunteers were block-randomized to 50,000 IU D2 or placebo orally once (study-1) and fifty volunteers received 50,000 IU D2 orally once and 4 days later block-randomized to 50,000 IU D3 or placebo orally once (study-2). Interventions were concealed from volunteers and research coordinators and blindly-administered. Serum 25(OH)D2 and 25(OH)D3 levels were blindly-determined at baseline and days 14, 28, 42, and 56, post-randomization by high performance liquid chromatography assay. Results of 97 participants were analyzed. Primary outcome measure was day-28 D2-associated change in 25(OH)D3 level in study-1 and D3-associated change in 25(OH)D2 level in study-2, adjusted for baseline levels.ResultsMean (95% confidence interval) difference between the active and placebo arms in the decrease in day-28 25(OH)D3 (study-1) and 25(OH)D2 (study-2) levels was 13.2 (9.7 to 16.6) and 9.8 (5.2 to 14.4) nmol/L, respectively. Corresponding differences at day-56 were 10.8 (6.8 to 14.8) and 1.7 (− 7.6 to 11.1) nmol/L, respectively. The difference between the placebo and active arms in area-under-the-curve at day-28 (AUC28) and day-56 (AUC56) were 262.3 (197.8 to 326.7) and 605.1 (446.3 to 784.0) for 25(OH)D3 (study-1) and 282.2 (111.2 to 453.3) and 431.2 (179.3 to 683.2) nmol.d/L for 25(OH)D2 (study-2), respectively. There were significant correlations between day-28 changes in 25(OH)D2 and 25(OH)D3 levels in study-1 (rho = − 0.79, p < 0.001) and study-2 (rho = − 0.36, p = 0.01), and between day-28 changes in 25(OH)D2 level and baseline 25(OH)D level in study-2 (rho = − 0.42, p = 0.003).ConclusionsCompared to placebo, D3 treatment is associated with a decrease in 25(OH)D2 level similar in magnitude to D2-treatment associated decrease in 25(OH)D3 level; however, the D3-placebo difference in 25(OH)D2 level is shorter-lasting. Changes in 25(OH)D2 and 25(OH)D3 levels are correlated with each other and with baseline 25 (OH) D levels, suggesting a common regulatory mechanism.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT03035084 (registered January 27, 2017).

BackgroundConventional randomized placebo-controlled study design assumes the absence of drug*placebo interaction. We hypothesized the presence of such an interaction and that conventionally estimated drug effect might be biased. The objectives of the study were to determine the drug*placebo interaction effect (main) and compare conventionally estimated and interaction model-estimated drug effects (secondary).MethodsWe used a hybrid of balanced placebo and randomized placebo-controlled designs. Four hundred eighty healthy volunteers were randomized to three groups. The first received hydroxyzine (25 mg) described as hydroxyzine or placebo, the second received placebo described as hydroxyzine or placebo, and the third received hydroxyzine and placebo described as unknown; each in a randomized crossover design. Seven participants failed to crossover. Group assignment was concealed from participants and study coordinators. Coordinators were blinded to group and intervention assignment. Participants and coordinators were deceived as to study objectives. Main outcomes were mean area-under-the-curve of drowsiness (therapeutic outcome) and mouth-dryness (adverse outcome), self-reported on 100 mm visual analog scale over 7 h. Drug, placebo, placebo + interaction, and total effects were estimated using analysis of covariance by comparing received hydroxyzine/told placebo to received placebo/told placebo, received placebo/told hydroxyzine to received placebo/told placebo, received hydroxyzine/told hydroxyzine to received hydroxyzine/told placebo, and received hydroxyzine/told hydroxyzine to received placebo/told placebo, respectively. Drug effect was also conventionally estimated in the third group.ResultsMean (SD) age was 31.4 (6.6) years, 65% were males. There was significant difference between placebo + interaction effect and placebo effect for both drowsiness and mouth-dryness with a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of 35.1 (5.6 to 64.6) and 23.8 (2.4 to 45.2) mm*hr, respectively. Total effect was larger than the sum of drug and placebo effects for drowsiness (139.7 (109.8 to 169.6) vs. 99.1 (68.2 to 130.0) mm*hr) and mouth-dryness (63.6 (41.1 to 86.1) vs. 34.7 (11.1 to 58.4) mm*hr). Conventionally estimated drug effect was larger than interaction model-estimated drug effect for drowsiness (69.2 (45.5 to 92.8) vs. (58.3 (31.6 to 85.0) mm*hr) and mouth-dryness (19.9 (5.3 to 34.5) vs. 9.5 (−9.2 to 28.1) mm*hr).ConclusionsThere is significant and important drug*placebo interaction effect that may bias conventionally estimated drug effect.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT01501591 (registered December 25, 2011).