第二个who和第一个who是什么关系？

A large RCT was recently published that evaluated early supplementation with a single enteral dose in 1078 vitamin D-deficient ICU patients at high risk of death. Patients who were considered ‘at risk’ for ARDS, who were not necessarily critically ill were enrolled. There was no difference in 90-day mortality or clinically important differences in any of the secondary endpoints. The severity of deficiency at baseline did not affect the association between treatment assignment and mortality. This study was terminated prematurely prior to the enrolment target of 3000 patients. Also, a single loading dose of vitamin D can achieve therapeutic levels in critical illness; however, it has a half-life of approximately 2 weeks. Therefore, repeat dosing may be required to realize the benefits of supplementation.

一项大型RCT研究，发表了对1078名维生素D缺乏的高死亡风险的ICU患者，评估早期肠内单剂量应用维生素D的作用。研究了有ARDS风险及并一定危重病人。90天病死率无明显差异，任何一项次要终点也无明显的临床差异。基础缺乏的严重程度并不影响治疗分配和死亡率之间的关系。本研究在3000名患者的登记目标之前提前终止。此外，维生素D单次负荷剂量可达到危重疾病的治疗水平;然而，它的半衰期约为2周。因此，可能需要重复给药才能认识到补充的好处。

第二个who和第一个who是什么关系？并列还是修饰？

并列：有ARDS风险及并非一定是危重病人，但是这样后面的非危重病人似乎与前面说的高死亡风险的ICU患者不符

修饰：有ARDS风险且并非一定是危重病人，但是这样非危重病人似乎也与前面说的高死亡风险的ICU患者不符