RESUMO
ObjectiveTo estimate occupational differences in COVID-19 mortality, and test whether these are confounded by factors, such as regional differences, ethnicity and education or due to non-workplace factors, such as deprivation or pre-pandemic health. DesignRetrospective cohort study SettingPeople living in private households England Participants14,295,900 people aged 40-64 years (mean age 52 years, 51% female) who were alive on 24 January 2020, living in private households in England in 2019, were employed in 2011, and completed the 2011 census. Main outcome measuresCOVID-19 related death, assessed between 24 January 2020 and 28 December 2020. We estimated age-standardised mortality rates per 100,000 person-years at risk (ASMR) stratified by sex and occupations. To estimate the effect of occupation due to work-related exposures, we used Cox proportional hazard models to adjust for confounding (region, ethnicity, education), as well as non-workplace factors that are related to occupation. ResultsThere is wide variation between occupations in COVID-19 mortality. Several occupations, particularly those involving contact with patients or the public, show three-fold or four-fold risks. These elevated risks were greatly attenuated after adjustment for confounding and mediating non-workplace factors. For example, the hazard ratio (HR) for men working as taxi and cab drivers or chauffeurs changed from 4.60 [95%CI 3.62-5.84] to 1.47 [1.14-1.89] after adjustment. More generally, the overall HR for men working in essential occupations compared with men in non-essential occupations changed from 1.45 [1.34 - 1.56] to 1.22 [1.13 - 1.32] after adjustment. For most occupations, confounding and other mediating factors explained about 70% to 80% of the age-adjusted hazard ratios. ConclusionsWorking conditions are likely to play a role in COVID-19 mortality, particularly in occupations involving contact with COVID-19 patients or the public. However, there is also a substantial contribution from non-workplace factors, including regional factors, socio-demographic factors, and pre-pandemic health.
Assuntos
COVID-19RESUMO
BackgroundTo externally validate a risk prediction algorithm (QCovid) to estimate mortality outcomes from COVID-19 in adults in England. MethodsPopulation-based cohort study using the ONS Public Health Linked Data Asset, a cohort based on the 2011 Census linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, the General Practice Extraction Service Data for pandemic planning and research, radiotherapy and systemic chemotherapy records. The primary outcome was time to COVID-19 death, defined as confirmed or suspected COVID-19 death as per death certification. Two time periods were used: (a) 24th January to 30th April 2020; and (b) 1st May to 28th July 2020. We evaluated the performance of the QCovid algorithms using measures of discrimination and calibration for each validation time period. FindingsThe study comprises 34,897,648 adults aged 19-100 years resident in England. There were 26,985 COVID-19 deaths during the first time-period and 13,177 during the second. The algorithms had good calibration in the validation cohort in both time periods with close correspondence of observed and predicted risks. They explained 77.1% (95% CI: 76.9% to 77.4%) of the variation in time to death in men in the first time-period (R2); the D statistic was 3.76 (95% CI: 3.73 to 3.79); Harrells C was 0.935 (0.933 to 0.937). Similar results were obtained for women, and in the second time-period. In the top 5% of patients with the highest predicted risks of death, the sensitivity for identifying deaths in the first time period was 65.9% for men and 71.7% for women. People in the top 20% of predicted risks of death accounted for 90.8% of all COVID-19 deaths for men and 93.0% for women. InterpretationThe QCovid population-based risk algorithm performed well, showing very high levels of discrimination for COVID-19 deaths in men and women for both time periods. It has the potential to be dynamically updated as the pandemic evolves and therefore, has potential use in guiding national policy. FundingNational Institute of Health Research RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSPublic policy measures and clinical risk assessment relevant to COVID-19 need to be aided by rigorously developed and validated risk prediction models. A recent living systematic review of published risk prediction models for COVID-19 found most models are subject to a high risk of bias with optimistic reported performance, raising concern that these models may be unreliable when applied in practice. A population-based risk prediction model, QCovid risk prediction algorithm, has recently been developed to identify adults at high risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes, which overcome many of the limitations of previous tools. Added value of this studyCommissioned by the Chief Medical Officer for England, we validated the novel clinical risk prediction model (QCovid) to identify risks of short-term severe outcomes due to COVID-19. We used national linked datasets from general practice, death registry and hospital episode data for a population-representative sample of over 34 million adults. The risk models have excellent discrimination in men and women (Harrells C statistic>0.9) and are well calibrated. QCovid represents a new, evidence-based opportunity for population risk-stratification. Implications of all the available evidenceQCovid has the potential to support public health policy, from enabling shared decision making between clinicians and patients in relation to health and work risks, to targeted recruitment for clinical trials, and prioritisation of vaccination, for example.