ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study is to determine the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the levels of empathy toward patients among undergraduate dental students in Pakistan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, survey-based study was conducted at Islamic International Dental College, Islamabad, Pakistan. After taking an informed consent, a validated and pretested Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) was distributed amongst the undergraduate dental students at two points, one before the COVID-19 existed, and the other after August 7th, 2020, when the COVID-19 cases dropped in Pakistan. Responses were indicated on a five point Likert Scale. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) was used to compare the TEQ scores between the different years of education at the dental school. Difference within the groups was analyzed using the post-hoc Tukey test. Pre- and post-COVID-19 comparison was done using the Chi-square test (significance level p < 0.05). RESULTS: A total of 221 out of 260 students in the pre-COVID-19 group, while 210 out of 260 students in the post-COVID-19 group enrolled in the dentistry program participated in the study. Significant difference in the empathy levels was observed in the pre- and post-COVID-19 groups of the same population, i.e., (p < 0.05). The response rate was 85%. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed an increase in mean empathy scores among the undergraduate dental students after COVID-19, indicating a significant improvement in their empathy levels during the time of COVID-19. It highlights the impact of the pandemic, whereby death and chaos seem to have brought about an improvement in interpersonal harmony.
ABSTRACT
A comparison of the plasma glucose and insulin day profiles between two prandial rapid-acting insulin analogues, insulin glulisine (glulisine) and insulin lispro (lispro), in 18 obese subjects with Type 2 diabetes. Subjects (body mass index: males, 36.7 [33.2-43.8] kg/m(2); females, 40.0 [35.7-46.5] kg/m(2)) received subcutaneous glulisine or lispro (0.15 U/kg) at 4-h intervals immediately (within 2 min) before three standard test meals during each of two 12-h, randomised, open-label, crossover studies (7+/-2-day interval between each). Overall, preprandial-subtracted glucose concentrations (area under the curve) were similar on the glulisine and lispro study days. However, the mean of the three maximal preprandial subtracted plasma glucose concentrations (DeltaGLU(max)) were lower with glulisine versus lispro (12%; p<0.01). Mean concentrations of insulin analogue were significantly higher post-meal with glulisine (p<0.01 for all). Post hoc analysis showed a significantly faster absorption rate for glulisine versus lispro in the first 30 min post-meal (estimated difference 0.48 microU/min; p<0.0001). Only two cases of hypoglycaemia were reported; both from one subject during the lispro day. When glulisine is injected immediately before a meal in obese patients with Type 2 diabetes, glulisine achieves significantly lower glucose excursions over lispro. Significantly faster absorption with higher and sustained post-meal levels of insulin analogue was achieved at every meal with glulisine versus lispro.
