Evaluating the impact of alcohol minimum unit pricing on deaths and hospitalisations in Scotland: a controlled interrupted time series study.

BACKGROUND: Since May 1, 2018, every alcoholic drink sold in Scotland has had minimum unit pricing (MUP) of £0·50 per unit. Previous studies have indicated that the introduction of this policy reduced alcohol sales by 3%. We aimed to assess whether this has led to reductions in alcohol-attributable deaths and hospitalisations. METHODS: Study outcomes, wholly attributable to alcohol consumption, were defined using routinely collected data on deaths and hospitalisations. Controlled interrupted time series regression was used to assess the legislation's impact in Scotland, and any effect modification across demographic and socioeconomic deprivation groups. The pre-intervention time series ran from Jan 1, 2012, to April 30, 2018, and for 32 months after the policy was implemented (until Dec 31, 2020). Data from England, a part of the UK where the intervention was not implemented, were used to form a control group. FINDINGS: MUP in Scotland was associated with a significant 13·4% reduction (95% CI -18·4 to -8·3; p=0·0004) in deaths wholly attributable to alcohol consumption. Hospitalisations wholly attributable to alcohol consumption decreased by 4·1% (-8·3 to 0·3; p=0·064). Effects were driven by significant improvements in chronic outcomes, particularly alcoholic liver disease. Furthermore, MUP legislation was associated with a reduction in deaths and hospitalisations wholly attributable to alcohol consumption in the four most socioeconomically deprived deciles in Scotland. INTERPRETATION: The implementation of MUP legislation was associated with significant reductions in deaths, and reductions in hospitalisations, wholly attributable to alcohol consumption. The greatest improvements were in the four most socioeconomically deprived deciles, indicating that the policy is positively tackling deprivation-based inequalities in alcohol-attributable health harm. FUNDING: Scottish Government.

COVID-19 infection and outcomes in a population-based cohort of 17 203 adults with intellectual disabilities compared with the general population.

BACKGROUND: Adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) may be at higher risk of COVID-19 death. We compared COVID-19 infection, severe infection, mortality, case fatality and excess deaths, among adults with, and without, ID. METHODS: Adults with ID in Scotland's Census, 2011, and a 5% sample of other adults, were linked to COVID-19 test results, hospitalisation data and deaths (24 January 2020-15 August 2020). We report crude rates of COVID-19 infection, severe infection (hospitalisation/death), mortality, case fatality; age-standardised, sex-standardised and deprivation-standardised severe infection and mortality ratios; and annual all-cause mortality for 2020 and 2015-2019. FINDINGS: Successful linkage of 94.9% provided data on 17 203 adults with, and 188 634 without, ID. Adults with ID had more infection (905/100 000 vs 521/100 000); severe infection (538/100 000 vs 242/100 000); mortality (258/100 000 vs 116/100 000) and case fatality (30% vs 24%). Poorer outcomes remained after standardisation: standardised severe infection ratio 2.61 (95% CI 1.81 to 3.40) and mortality ratio 3.26 (95% CI 2.19 to 4.32). These were higher at ages 55-64: 7.39 (95% CI 3.88 to 10.91) and 19.05 (95% CI 9.07 to 29.02), respectively, and in men, and less deprived neighbourhoods. All-cause mortality was slightly higher in 2020 than 2015-2019 for people with ID: standardised mortality ratio 2.50 (95% CI 2.18 to 2.82) and 2.39 (95% CI 2.28 to 2.51), respectively. CONCLUSION: Adults with ID had more COVID-19 infections, and worse outcomes once infected, particularly adults under 65 years. Non-pharmaceutical interventions directed at formal and informal carers are essential to reduce transmission. All adults with ID should be prioritised for vaccination and boosters regardless of age.

Remote history of VTE is associated with severe COVID-19 in middle and older age: UK Biobank cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common, life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 risk-prediction models include a history of VTE. However, it is unclear whether remote history (>9 years previously) of VTE also confers increased risk of COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To investigate possible association between VTE and COVID-19 severity, independent of other risk factors. METHODS: Cohort study of UK Biobank participants recruited between 2006 and 2010. Baseline data, including history of VTE, were linked to COVID-19 test results, COVID-19-related hospital admissions, and COVID-19 deaths. The risk of COVID-19 hospitalization or death was compared for participants with a remote history VTE versus without. Poisson regression models were run univariately then adjusted stepwise for sociodemographic, lifestyle, and comorbid covariates. RESULTS: After adjustment for sociodemographic and lifestyle confounders and comorbid conditions, remote history of VTE was associated with nonfatal community (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.02-2.54, p = .039), nonfatal hospitalized (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06-2.17, p = .024) and severe (hospitalized or fatal) (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04-1.89, p = .025) COVID-19. Associations with remote history of VTE were stronger among men (severe COVID-19: RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.14-2.42, p = .009) than for women (severe COVID-19: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.66-1.74, p = .786). CONCLUSION: Our findings support inclusion of remote history of VTE in COVID-19 risk-prediction scores, and consideration of sex-specific risk scores.

Occupation and risk of severe COVID-19: prospective cohort study of 120 075 UK Biobank participants.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate severe COVID-19 risk by occupational group. METHODS: Baseline UK Biobank data (2006-10) for England were linked to SARS-CoV-2 test results from Public Health England (16 March to 26 July 2020). Included participants were employed or self-employed at baseline, alive and aged <65 years in 2020. Poisson regression models were adjusted sequentially for baseline demographic, socioeconomic, work-related, health, and lifestyle-related risk factors to assess risk ratios (RRs) for testing positive in hospital or death due to COVID-19 by three occupational classification schemes (including Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) 2000). RESULTS: Of 120 075 participants, 271 had severe COVID-19. Relative to non-essential workers, healthcare workers (RR 7.43, 95% CI 5.52 to 10.00), social and education workers (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.82) and other essential workers (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.45) had a higher risk of severe COVID-19. Using more detailed groupings, medical support staff (RR 8.70, 95% CI 4.87 to 15.55), social care (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.47 to 4.14) and transport workers (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.00) had the highest risk within the broader groups. Compared with white non-essential workers, non-white non-essential workers had a higher risk (RR 3.27, 95% CI 1.90 to 5.62) and non-white essential workers had the highest risk (RR 8.34, 95% CI 5.17 to 13.47). Using SOC 2000 major groups, associate professional and technical occupations, personal service occupations and plant and machine operatives had a higher risk, compared with managers and senior officials. CONCLUSIONS: Essential workers have a higher risk of severe COVID-19. These findings underscore the need for national and organisational policies and practices that protect and support workers with an elevated risk of severe COVID-19.

Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for COVID-19, and comparison to risk factors for influenza and pneumonia: results from a UK Biobank prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate demographic, lifestyle, socioeconomic and clinical risk factors for COVID-19, and compared them to risk factors for pneumonia and influenza in UK Biobank. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: UK Biobank. PARTICIPANTS: 49-83 year olds (in 2020) from a general population study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Confirmed COVID-19 infection (positive SARS-CoV-2 test). Incident influenza and pneumonia were obtained from primary care data. Poisson regression was used to study the association of exposure variables with outcomes. RESULTS: Among 235 928 participants, 397 had confirmed COVID-19. After multivariable adjustment, modifiable risk factors were higher body mass index and higher glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C) (RR 1.28 and RR 1.14 per SD increase, respectively), smoking (RR 1.39), slow walking pace as a proxy for physical fitness (RR 1.53), and use of blood pressure medications as a proxy for hypertension (RR 1.33). Higher forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol were both associated with lower risk (RR 0.84 and RR 0.83 per SD increase, respectively). Non-modifiable risk factors included male sex (RR 1.72), black ethnicity (RR 2.00), socioeconomic deprivation (RR 1.17 per SD increase in Townsend Index), and high cystatin C (RR 1.13 per SD increase). The risk factors overlapped with pneumonia somewhat, less so for influenza. The associations with modifiable risk factors were generally stronger for COVID-19, than pneumonia or influenza. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that modification of lifestyle may help to reduce the risk of COVID-19 and could be a useful adjunct to other interventions, such as social distancing and shielding of high risk.

Comparison of two different frailty measurements and risk of hospitalisation or death from COVID-19: findings from UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND: Frailty has been associated with worse prognosis following COVID-19 infection. While several studies have reported the association between frailty and COVID-19 mortality or length of hospital stay, there have been no community-based studies on the association between frailty and risk of severe infection. Considering that different definitions have been identified to assess frailty, this study aimed to compare the association between frailty and severe COVID-19 infection in UK Biobank using two frailty classifications: the frailty phenotype and the frailty index. METHODS: A total of 383,845 UK Biobank participants recruited 2006-2010 in England (211,310 [55.1%] women, baseline age 37-73 years) were included. COVID-19 test data were provided by Public Health England (available up to 28 June 2020). An adapted version of the frailty phenotype derived by Fried et al. was used to define frailty phenotype (robust, pre-frail, or frail). A previously validated frailty index was derived from 49 self-reported questionnaire items related to health, disease and disability, and mental wellbeing (robust, mild frailty, and moderate/severe frailty). Both classifications were derived from baseline data (2006-2010). Poisson regression models with robust standard errors were used to analyse the associations between both frailty classifications and severe COVID-19 infection (resulting in hospital admission or death), adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. RESULTS: Of UK Biobank participants included, 802 were admitted to hospital with and/or died from COVID19 (323 deaths and 479 hospitalisations). After analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, a higher risk of COVID-19 was observed for pre-frail (risk ratio (RR) 1.47 [95% CI 1.26; 1.71]) and frail (RR 2.66 [95% CI 2.04; 3.47]) individuals compared to those classified as robust using the frailty phenotype. Similar results were observed when the frailty index was used (RR mildly frail 1.46 [95% CI 1.26; 1.71] and RR moderate/severe frailty 2.43 [95% CI 1.91; 3.10]). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty was associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 infection resulting in hospital admission or death, irrespective of how it was measured and independent of sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. Public health strategies need to consider the additional risk that COVID-19 poses in individuals with frailty, including which additional preventive measures might be required.

Is older age associated with COVID-19 mortality in the absence of other risk factors? General population cohort study of 470,034 participants.

INTRODUCTION: Older people have been reported to be at higher risk of COVID-19 mortality. This study explored the factors mediating this association and whether older age was associated with increased mortality risk in the absence of other risk factors. METHODS: In UK Biobank, a population cohort study, baseline data were linked to COVID-19 deaths. Poisson regression was used to study the association between current age and COVID-19 mortality. RESULTS: Among eligible participants, 438 (0.09%) died of COVID-19. Current age was associated exponentially with COVID-19 mortality. Overall, participants aged ≥75 years were at 13-fold (95% CI 9.13-17.85) mortality risk compared with those <65 years. Low forced expiratory volume in 1 second, high systolic blood pressure, low handgrip strength, and multiple long-term conditions were significant mediators, and collectively explained 39.3% of their excess risk. The associations between these risk factors and COVID-19 mortality were stronger among older participants. Participants aged ≥75 without additional risk factors were at 4-fold risk (95% CI 1.57-9.96, P = 0.004) compared with all participants aged <65 years. CONCLUSIONS: Higher COVID-19 mortality among older adults was partially explained by other risk factors. 'Healthy' older adults were at much lower risk. Nonetheless, older age was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 mortality.