Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 9;16(12):e0260381. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260381. eCollection 2021.
The COVID-19 pandemic's first wave in England during spring 2020 resulted in an approximate 50% increase in all-cause mortality. Previously, risk factors such as age and ethnicity, were identified by studying COVID-related deaths only, but these were under-recorded during this period.
To use a large electronic primary care database to estimate the impact of risk factors (RFs) on excess mortality in England during the first wave, compared with the impact on total mortality during 2015-19.
Medical history, ethnicity, area-based deprivation and vital status data were extracted for an average of 4.8 million patients aged 30-104 years, for each year between 18-March and 19-May over a 6-year period (2015-2020). We used Poisson regression to model total mortality adjusting for age and sex, with interactions between each RF and period (pandemic vs. 2015-19). Total mortality during the pandemic was partitioned into "usual" and "excess" components, assuming 2015-19 rates represented "usual" mortality. The association of each RF with the 2020 "excess" component was derived as the excess mortality ratio (EMR), and compared with the usual mortality ratio (UMR).
RFs where excess mortality was greatest and notably higher than usual were age >80, non-white ethnicity (e.g., black vs. white EMR = 2.50, 95%CI 1.97-3.18; compared to UMR = 0.92, 95%CI 0.85-1.00), BMI>40, dementia, learning disability, severe mental illness, place of residence (London, care-home, most deprived). By contrast, EMRs were comparable to UMRs for sex. Although some co-morbidities such as cancer produced EMRs significantly below their UMRs, the EMRs were still >1. In contrast current smoking has an EMR below 1 (EMR = 0.80, 95%CI 0.65-0.98) compared to its UMR = 1.64.
Studying risk factors for excess mortality during the pandemic highlighted differences from studying cause-specific mortality. Our approach illustrates a novel methodology for evaluating a pandemic's impact by individual risk factor without requiring cause-specific mortality data.
2020 年春季,英格兰首次出现 COVID-19 疫情,导致全因死亡率上升约 50%。此前,仅通过研究与 COVID 相关的死亡人数来确定年龄和种族等风险因素,但在这一时期,这些风险因素的记录不足。
利用大型电子初级保健数据库,估计在英格兰第一波疫情期间,与 2015-19 年总死亡率相比,各种风险因素(RFs)对超额死亡率的影响。
从 2015 年 3 月 18 日至 5 月 19 日的 6 年期间内,平均为 480 万 30-104 岁的患者提取病史、种族、基于地区的贫困程度和生存状况数据。我们使用泊松回归来调整年龄和性别后对总死亡率进行建模,并在每个 RF 和时期(大流行与 2015-19 年)之间进行交互。假设 2015-19 年的比率代表“通常”死亡率,将大流行期间的总死亡率分为“通常”和“超额”两部分。通过将每个 RF 与 2020 年的“超额”部分联系起来,得出超额死亡率比(EMR),并与通常死亡率比(UMR)进行比较。
风险因素中,超额死亡率最高且明显高于通常死亡率的是年龄>80 岁、非白人种族(例如,黑人与白人的 EMR=2.50,95%CI 1.97-3.18;相比之下,UMR=0.92,95%CI 0.85-1.00)、BMI>40、痴呆、学习障碍、严重精神疾病、居住地(伦敦、养老院、最贫困地区)。相比之下,性别因素的 EMR 与 UMR 相当。尽管某些合并症(如癌症)导致 EMR 明显低于 UMR,但 EMR 仍>1。相比之下,当前吸烟的 EMR 低于 1(EMR=0.80,95%CI 0.65-0.98),而其 UMR=1.64。
研究大流行期间超额死亡率的风险因素突出了与研究特定原因死亡率的差异。我们的方法通过不要求特定原因死亡率数据,就每个风险因素评估大流行的影响提供了一种新颖的方法。