Adherence of SARS-CoV-2 Seroepidemiologic Studies to the ROSES-S Reporting Guideline During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Complete reporting of seroepidemiologic studies is critical to their utility in evidence synthesis and public health decision making. The Reporting of Seroepidemiologic studies-SARS-CoV-2 (ROSES-S) guideline is a checklist that aims to improve reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies. Adherence to the ROSES-S guideline has not yet been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the completeness of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic study reporting by the ROSES-S guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic, determine whether guideline publication was associated with reporting completeness, and identify study characteristics associated with reporting completeness. METHODS: A random sample from the SeroTracker living systematic review database was evaluated. For each reporting item in the guideline, the percentage of studies that were adherent was calculated, as well as median and interquartile range (IQR) adherence across all items and by item domain. Beta regression analyses were used to evaluate predictors of adherence to ROSES-S. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-nine studies were analyzed. Median adherence was 48.1% (IQR 40.0%-55.2%) per study, with overall adherence ranging from 8.8% to 72.7%. The laboratory methods domain had the lowest median adherence (33.3% [IQR 25.0%-41.7%]). The discussion domain had the highest median adherence (75.0% [IQR 50.0%-100.0%]). Reporting adherence to ROSES-S before and after guideline publication did not significantly change. Publication source (p < 0.001), study risk of bias (p = 0.001), and sampling method (p = 0.004) were significantly associated with adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Completeness of reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies was suboptimal. Publication of the ROSES-S guideline was not associated with changes in reporting practices. Authors should improve adherence to the ROSES-S guideline with support from stakeholders.

Trends in basal insulin prescribing in older adults with chronic kidney disease in Ontario, Canada: A population-based analysis from 2010 to 2020.

AIM: To examine trends in basal insulin prescribing in older adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based study of adults aged 66 years or older with treated diabetes from 1 January 2010 to 30 September 2020 in Ontario, Canada. We examined prevalent and incident prescriptions for human NPH, Levemir, glargine-100, Basaglar, glargine-300, and degludec insulin over 43 study intervals. We present trends in those with CKD, and in a subgroup, by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). To provide context for prescribing, we provide demographics, co-morbidities, and the healthcare utilization of included patients. RESULTS: In CKD, use of basal insulin was about 2-fold higher than in the general treated diabetes cohort. Prescriptions for NPH declined over time, while prescriptions for Levemir and glargine-100 increased until 2018 then decreased. Following drug formulary approval (September 2018), prescriptions for glargine-300 and degludec increased substantially. Incident prescriptions for basal insulin in CKD declined over time; however, in those with an eGFR of less than 30 ml/min/1.73m2 , rates remained stable. In recent years, rates of degludec and glargine-300 have rivalled glargine-100. CONCLUSIONS: In an era of new oral and injectable diabetes medications, the use of basal insulin has declined in older adults with CKD. However, in those with more advanced CKD, basal insulin, particularly newer analogues, remain a mainstay treatment.