Vascular responses of the extremities to transdermal application of vasoactive agents in Caucasian and African descent individuals

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Springer in European Journal of Applied Physiology on 04/04/2015, available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-015-3164-2 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.© 2015, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Purpose: Individuals of African descent (AFD) are more susceptible to non-freezing cold injury than Caucasians (CAU) which may be due, in part, to differences in the control of skin blood flow. We investigated the skin blood flow responses to transdermal application of vasoactive agents. Methods: Twenty-four young males (12 CAU and 12 AFD) undertook three tests in which iontophoresis was used to apply acetylcholine (ACh 1 w/v %), sodium nitroprusside (SNP 0.01 w/v %) and noradrenaline (NA 0.5 mM) to the skin. The skin sites tested were: volar forearm, non-glabrous finger and toe, and glabrous finger (pad) and toe (pad). Results: In response to SNP on the forearm, AFD had less vasodilatation for a given current application than CAU (P = 0.027–0.004). ACh evoked less vasodilatation in AFD for a given application current in the non-glabrous finger and toe compared with CAU (P = 0.043–0.014) with a lower maximum vasodilatation in the non-glabrous finger (median [interquartile], AFD n = 11, 41[234] %, CAU n = 12, 351[451] %, P = 0.011) and non-glabrous toe (median [interquartile], AFD n = 9, 116[318] %, CAU n = 12, 484[720] %, P = 0.018). ACh and SNP did not elicit vasodilatation in the glabrous skin sites of either group. There were no ethnic differences in response to NA. Conclusion: AFD have an attenuated endothelium-dependent vasodilatation in non-glabrous sites of the fingers and toes compared with CAU. This may contribute to lower skin temperature following cold exposure and the increased risk of cold injuries experienced by AFD.Published versio

Oral vitamin B(12 )therapy in the primary care setting: a qualitative and quantitative study of patient perspectives

BACKGROUND: Although oral replacement with high doses of vitamin B(12 )is both effective and safe for the treatment of B(12 )deficiency, little is known about patients' views concerning the acceptability and effectiveness of oral B(12). We investigated patient perspectives on switching from injection to oral B(12 )therapy. METHODS: This study involved a quantitative arm using questionnaires and a qualitative arm using semi-structured interviews, both to assess patient views on injection and oral therapy. Patients were also offered a six-month trial of oral B(12 )therapy. One hundred and thirty-three patients who receive regular B(12 )injections were included from three family practice units (two hospital-based academic clinics and one community health centre clinic) in Toronto. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent (63/86) of respondents were willing to try oral B(12). In a multivariate analysis, patient factors associated with a "willingness to switch" to oral B(12 )included being able to get to the clinic in less than 30 minutes (OR 9.3, 95% CI 2.2–40.0), and believing that frequent visits to the health care provider (OR 5.4, 95% CI 1.1–26.6) or the increased costs to the health care system (OR 16.7, 95% CI 1.5–184.2) were disadvantages of injection B(12). Fifty-five patients attempted oral therapy and 52 patients returned the final questionnaire. Of those who tried oral therapy, 76% (39/51) were satisfied and 71% (39/55) wished to permanently switch. Factors associated with permanently switching to oral therapy included believing that the frequent visits to the health care provider (OR 35.4, 95% CI 2.9–432.7) and travel/parking costs (OR 8.7, 95% CI 1.2–65.3) were disadvantages of injection B(12). Interview participants consistently cited convenience as an advantage of oral therapy. CONCLUSION: Switching patients from injection to oral B(12 )is both feasible and acceptable to patients. Oral B(12 )supplementation is well received largely due to increased convenience. Clinicians should offer oral B(12 )therapy to their patients who are currently receiving injections, and newly diagnosed B(12)-deficient patients who can tolerate and are compliant with oral medications should be offered oral supplementation