3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      COVID-19 mortality: a complex interplay of sex, gender and ethnicity

      discussion
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Several studies have reported a higher rate of COVID-19 mortality in men. 1–3 A higher rate of COVID-19 mortality has also been reported in Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups, 3–5 especially among healthcare providers. 6 The exact reasons for these disparities are not known but may be due to differential susceptibility based on biological sex, 7 as well as gender differences in health behaviours (e.g. smoking) giving rise to differences in comorbidities (e.g. cardiovascular disease) that increase the risk of COVID-19 mortality in men. 8 However, there are social influences that could influence gender differences in exposure and infection; e.g., women are more likely to be involved in service sector work/healthcare; men are more involved in other high-risk jobs such as drivers. 3 , 8 In regards to ethnic differences, people from BAME background may be more likely to be in the frontline, exposed, jobs; they may be more likely to live in crowded multi-generation households making it challenging to maintain physical distancing from elderly family members. 9 In the context of gender and ethnic differences in COVID-19 mortality, additional important policy-related issues include our understanding of (i) whether there are ethnic variations in COVID-19 mortality in men and women, (ii) whether there is heterogeneity in gender differences within individual ethnic groups and (iii) whether we could identify some factors that may help explain these disparities, if any. Most studies of COVID-19 mortality have statistically ‘adjusted’ for factors (e.g. socioeconomic deprivation) that may potentially help to explain gender and ethnic disparities. 10 While often necessary, these adjustments are seldom sufficient in explaining the full spectrum of the disparities. Frequently, we do not have complete information on the causal pathways. Many known or hypothesized factors that could account for gender/ethnic disparities in health are not readily available in routine health records. Methodological and analytic approaches may also affect these conclusions. For example, in the context of gender, ethnicity, and COVID-19 mortality, if gender is ‘adjusted’ in a statistical model, it assumes that the ethnicity-specific risk estimates are fixed in men and women, i.e., it renders invisible any heterogeneity in gender differences within individual ethnic groups. Similarly, if ethnicity is adjusted, the model assumes that the gender-specific risk estimates are fixed in different ethnic groups, i.e., it masks any ethnic variation in men and women. Therefore, just because an association is reported as ‘adjusted’, it is no panacea. We elaborate these issues further drawing on results from three recent reports published using the UK data. The OpenSAFELY study reported that the COVID-19 mortality risk in men was twice as high compared to women. 1 Since this study adjusted for both gender and ethnicity, it assumes that the increased risk of COVID-19 mortality in men is fixed regardless of ethnicity, and that the ethnicity-specific risks are also fixed in men and women. However, the results from the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that there was substantial heterogeneity in the risks of COVID-19 mortality in different ethnic groups, both in men and women. 4 However, the ONS results do not allow the comparison of risks in men and women within individual ethnic groups because the study estimated the risk in men against White men, and that in women against White women. Therefore, to be able to directly compare the gender-specific risks in COVID-19 mortality in individual ethnic groups, we need to precisely know the gender difference in COVID-19 mortality in the reference (White) population. The unadjusted risk was approximately 1.5 times higher in White men (compared to White women) in the ONS study, 4 while the age-adjusted risk ratio was approximately 2.0 in the recent study by Public Health England (PHE). 3 Applying these estimates (1.5 and 2.0) to the ONS regression results, we find that the increased risk in men varies considerably across the ethnic groups (depending on the ONS statistical models, the risk in men varies between 1.3 and 3.5 times that in women in different ethnic groups) (figure 1). These findings are suggestive of an ‘effect modification’, which also mandates presentation of these results stratified by the effect modifier instead of adjusting for them in the regression models. Figure 1 Adjusted odds ratio estimates of COVID-19 mortality in men compared to women in the UK. Models: 1: adjusted for Age; 2: Model 1 + region, rural/urban; 3: Model 2 + IMD decile; 4: Model 3 + household composition; 5: Model 4 + socio-economic status; 6: Model 5 + health status. More details are available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/coronavirusrelateddeathsbyethnicgroupenglandandwales/2march2020to10april2020. After adjusting for a range of socioeconomic and structural factors, the ONS study showed that a considerable portion of ethnic variability could be explained by socioeconomic and structural factors (e.g. deprivation, household composition, regional variabilities). However, we do not know if this is true for gender differences within individual ethnic groups. In the context of gender differences in COVID-19 mortality, it will be invaluable to understand whether the differences in men and women could potentially be explained by determinants related to biological sex or to social factors (gender). These findings will help shape public health policies on the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. A growing body of research is attempting to examine the relationship between sex hormones and COVID-19 susceptibility, which could potentially help explain the sex (biological) differences. 7 Future studies should explore the effects of additional factors, including (but not limited to) pattern, sequence, and duration of multimorbidity, on COVID-19 susceptibility/mortality within the context of individual ethnic groups to disentangle these issues.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Features of 20 133 UK patients in hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: prospective observational cohort study

          Abstract Objective To characterise the clinical features of patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United Kingdom during the growth phase of the first wave of this outbreak who were enrolled in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study, and to explore risk factors associated with mortality in hospital. Design Prospective observational cohort study with rapid data gathering and near real time analysis. Setting 208 acute care hospitals in England, Wales, and Scotland between 6 February and 19 April 2020. A case report form developed by ISARIC and WHO was used to collect clinical data. A minimal follow-up time of two weeks (to 3 May 2020) allowed most patients to complete their hospital admission. Participants 20 133 hospital inpatients with covid-19. Main outcome measures Admission to critical care (high dependency unit or intensive care unit) and mortality in hospital. Results The median age of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, or with a diagnosis of covid-19 made in hospital, was 73 years (interquartile range 58-82, range 0-104). More men were admitted than women (men 60%, n=12 068; women 40%, n=8065). The median duration of symptoms before admission was 4 days (interquartile range 1-8). The commonest comorbidities were chronic cardiac disease (31%, 5469/17 702), uncomplicated diabetes (21%, 3650/17 599), non-asthmatic chronic pulmonary disease (18%, 3128/17 634), and chronic kidney disease (16%, 2830/17 506); 23% (4161/18 525) had no reported major comorbidity. Overall, 41% (8199/20 133) of patients were discharged alive, 26% (5165/20 133) died, and 34% (6769/20 133) continued to receive care at the reporting date. 17% (3001/18 183) required admission to high dependency or intensive care units; of these, 28% (826/3001) were discharged alive, 32% (958/3001) died, and 41% (1217/3001) continued to receive care at the reporting date. Of those receiving mechanical ventilation, 17% (276/1658) were discharged alive, 37% (618/1658) died, and 46% (764/1658) remained in hospital. Increasing age, male sex, and comorbidities including chronic cardiac disease, non-asthmatic chronic pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease and obesity were associated with higher mortality in hospital. Conclusions ISARIC WHO CCP-UK is a large prospective cohort study of patients in hospital with covid-19. The study continues to enrol at the time of this report. In study participants, mortality was high, independent risk factors were increasing age, male sex, and chronic comorbidity, including obesity. This study has shown the importance of pandemic preparedness and the need to maintain readiness to launch research studies in response to outbreaks. Study registration ISRCTN66726260.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Social determinants of health and inequalities in COVID-19

            The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting populations worldwide. Although everyone is susceptible to the virus, there are numerous accounts of the pandemic having a greater impact on lower socioeconomic groups and minorities. 1 , 2 Also, in Stockholm, Sweden, the infection rate is 3–4 times higher in some socioeconomically disadvantaged residential areas compared to the regional average. Scientific studies of inequalities in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking at present, but it is reasonable to assume that disparities in social determinants of health have contributed to these early observations and result in differential exposure to the virus, differential vulnerability to the infection and differential consequences of the disease. Differential exposure leading to increased risk of infection with COVID-19 Limited material circumstances, such as crowded living conditions and multigenerational households, may increase the risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2. The WHO housing and health guidelines from 2018 reports strong associations between crowding and airway infections, and there is reason to believe that COVID-19 is no exception. Work-related exposure is also increased for occupations that do not permit working from home and entail physical proximity to other people or direct contact with the public. These typically include low-income jobs in service sectors, such as health or social care, transportation, cleaning and hospitality. Use of public transportation to get to work and the lack of adequate personal protective equipment, or instructions on how to use them properly, may further increase the exposure risk. Precarious employments and a lack of social insurance are also more common among low-income earners and can limit their financial ability to stay at home during sickness. Differential susceptibility leading to increased risk of severe COVID-19 The risk of severe disease and death in COVID-19 is increased among individuals with poor general health and nutritional status, and among those with underlying chronic conditions such as cardiovascular diseases, lung diseases, diabetes and cancer. 3 The prevalence of these conditions is inversely associated with socioeconomic status. 4 A socioeconomic gradient is also observed for smoking and obesity, which may further aggravate the disease. 3 , 4 As health-seeking behaviors relate to health literacy and access to health care and are influenced by user fees, persons in disadvantaged socioeconomic groups may delay seeking care for COVID-19, potentially resulting in more severe disease and death. 5 Differential consequences of COVID-19 The social and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic will affect the whole population but is expected to strike more severely in lower socioeconomic groups. The risk of unemployment is higher among those with atypical and precarious employment conditions, whose financial margins are already minimal. While unemployment is increasing overall, low-income earners more often serve in sectors that are hardest hit by the pandemic and have smaller economic buffers to sustain periods of lost income. The negative impact of unemployment on health is well known, and includes poor mental health, increased alcohol and substance use and family violence. What can be done? A range of efforts is needed to counteract the apparent risk that COVID-19 will exacerbate existing health inequalities and disproportionately affect lower socioeconomic groups. An important starting point is increasing knowledge and awareness of the underlying mechanisms; studies are needed to understand how the disease strikes and by which pathways it impacts certain population groups more adversely—taking lessons from previous disease outbreaks. As many of the potential risk factors (limited material conditions, crowding, poor general health and underlying disease) tend to cluster in the same individuals and areas, it is important to distinguish the specific impact of each in order to inform preventive interventions and policies. Governments should take early actions to mitigate the various negative effects of COVID-19 and protect vulnerable groups, especially considering policies that alleviate the economic impact on low-income earners. Increased collaboration is needed across multiple levels and stakeholders, including between health and social care, between different administrative levels, and between public and non-governmental organizations. Specific preventive and mitigating measures should be strengthened where the need is greatest and may be focused on areas with socioeconomic conditions that are conducive to high rates of infection and severe disease. Local interventions should be informed by and designed in collaboration with the community to allow appropriate measures to be taken that resonate with the needs of the communities. In addition, these measures should be evaluated for their effectiveness. Finally, the inequality in COVID-19 that quickly arose in the wake of the pandemic indicates the need for disaster preparedness plans to specifically address vulnerable communities in order to ensure a rapid and coordinated response to protect these groups at an early phase in future crisis. Conflicts of interest: None declared.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Simpson's paradox unraveled.

              In a famous article, Simpson described a hypothetical data example that led to apparently paradoxical results. We make the causal structure of Simpson's example explicit. We show how the paradox disappears when the statistical analysis is appropriately guided by subject-matter knowledge. We also review previous explanations of Simpson's paradox that attributed it to two distinct phenomena: confounding and non-collapsibility. Analytical errors may occur when the problem is stripped of its causal context and analyzed merely in statistical terms.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur J Public Health
                Eur J Public Health
                eurpub
                The European Journal of Public Health
                Oxford University Press
                1101-1262
                1464-360X
                25 August 2020
                : ckaa150
                Affiliations
                [c1 ]1 Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [c2 ]2 Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK
                [c3 ]3 Leicester Diabetes Centre, College of Life Sciences, University of Leicester , Leicester, UK
                [c4 ]4 Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University of Southampton , Southampton, UK
                [c5 ]5 Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA , USA
                [c6 ]6 Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Health Equity, University College London , London, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Nazrul Islam, MBBS, MSc, MPH, PhD, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Tel: +44(0)1865 287770, Fax: +44 (0)1865 287884, e-mail: nazrul.islam@ 123456ndph.ox.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3982-4325
                Article
                ckaa150
                10.1093/eurpub/ckaa150
                7545966
                32745211
                effe380b-a0b5-45ee-9579-8b741b884572
                © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.

                This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model ( https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 2
                Funding
                Funded by: Nuffield Department of Population Health (NDPH);
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands (NIHR ARC EM) and the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre;
                Categories
                Commentary
                AcademicSubjects/MED00860
                AcademicSubjects/SOC01210
                AcademicSubjects/SOC02610
                Custom metadata
                corrected-proof
                PAP

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article