Ethnic and socioeconomic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection: prospective cohort study using UK Biobank

Background

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its resulting disease (COVID-19) is spreading rapidly worldwide.¹ A better understanding of the predictors of developing infection is essential for health service planning (e.g. ensuring adequate facilities for those most at risk), targeting prevention efforts (e.g. targeted shielding or surveillance) and for informing future modelling efforts. Age, male sex and pre-existing medical conditions are established predictors of adverse COVID-19 outcomes, as is excess adiposity,² but the role of social determinants is poorly understood.^3,4

Ethnicity and socioeconomic position strongly influence health outcomes for both infectious and non-communicable diseases. Previous pandemics have often disproportionately impacted ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.^5,6 Early evidence suggests that the same may be occurring in the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic but empirical research remains highly limited.⁷ It is highly plausible that infection risk will vary across these social groups. For example, socioeconomic disadvantage is linked to living in overcrowded housing and some ethnic groups are more likely to live in larger households⁸ – both of which potentially predispose to increased risk of infection, and to greater viral load.

Establishing the risk of developing infection across different social groups is challenging. A major issue is that information about ethnicity and socioeconomic position are often not well collected within routine health data. Furthermore, the size of the different social groups in the general population is also often not accurately known. The ideal approach to estimating infection risk across different social groups is to analyse data from a cohort study, but most existing cohort studies which include detailed information about ethnicity and socioeconomic position are subject to long delays in data being available for analysis and are too small to provide useful estimates of infection risk.

The UK Biobank study has carried out data linkage between its study participants and SARS-CoV-2 test results held by Public Health England. We therefore aimed to investigate the relationship between ethnicity, socioeconomic position and the risk of having confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the population-based UK Biobank study.

Methods

Results

Most of the baseline UK Biobank sample in England was white British, with the next largest groups being other white, white Irish and then south Asian and black (Table 1). Approximately one-third (32.6%) of the sample had a degree and 16.5% had no formal qualifications.

Data for 1474 participants who had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 between 16 March and 13 April 2020 were linked to UK Biobank baseline data and available for analysis (N=428,225) (Additonal file Figure S1 for flowchart). Of these, 669 participants received a positive test result from a total of 2724 tests. 572 received a positive test while attending hospital, suggesting more severe illness. The geometric mean number of tests performed per participant tested was 1.63 (95% CI: 1.59 to 1.67), with relatively small differences in the numbers of tests by ethnicity and socioeconomic position.

In comparison to the white British majority ethnic group, several ethnic minority groups had a higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and also testing positive while attending hospital (Figure 1 and Additonal file: Table S3a). Black participants had the highest risk (RR 4.01 (95%CI 2.92-5.52)), with adjustment for country of birth resulting in little attenuation (RR 3.70 (95%CI 2.50-5.48)); adjustment for a history of being a healthcare worker (RR 3.35 (95%CI 2.24-5.00)) and for social factors (including measures of socioeconomic position) did additionally attenuate the risk (RR 2.45 (95%CI 1.57-3.81)). South Asians also had an elevated risk (RR 2.11 (95%CI 1.43-3.10) in model 1), with a similar pattern of attenuation as for the black ethnic group. In contrast, the white Irish group had a consistent modestly elevated risk of having a positive test (RR 1.60 (95%CI 1.08-2.38)) which did not change with adjustment for covariates. The Chinese group had imprecisely estimated risk ratios due to smaller numbers. The pattern of findings for hospital cases was similar, suggesting that the higher testing rates amongst certain ethnic groups in the community were not skewing the results. Similarly, analyses of the likelihood of testing positive amongst those who had been tested was often higher or the same in these ethnic groups (Table 2), whereas a lower risk would have suggested differentially high testing.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Risk ratios for associations between ethnicity (White British as reference category) and SARS-CoV-2

Model 1: Age, sex and assessment centre

Model 2: Model 1 + country of birth

Model 3: Model 2 + healthcare worker

Model 4: Model 3 + social variables (urbanicity, number of people per household, highest education level, deprivation, tenure status, employment status, manual work)

Model 5: Model 4 + health status variables (self-rated health, number of chronic conditions and limiting longstanding illness) + behavioural risk factors (smoking, alcohol consumption and BMI)

In comparison to the most socioeconomically advantaged quartile, living in a disadvantaged area (according to the Townsend deprivation score) was associated with a higher risk of confirmed infection, particularly for the most disadvantaged quartile (RR 2.48 (95%CI 1.95-3.16)) (Figure 2 and Additonal file: Table S4a). Differences in ethnicity and country of birth, social factors, baseline health and behavioural risk factors all moderately attenuated the association in the most disadvantaged quartile. Socioeconomic deprivation was also associated with hospital cases. While testing was again more likely, the risk of being diagnosed positive amongst those tested also tended to be higher, rather than lower (Table 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Risk ratios associations between Townsend deprivation score quartile (most advantaged as reference category) and SARS-CoV-2

Model 1: Age, sex and assessment centre

Model 2: Model 1 + ethnicity + country of birth

Model 3: Model 2 + social variables (healthcare worker, urbanicity, number of people per household, highest education level, tenure status, employment status, manual work)

Model 4: Model 3 + health status variables (self-rated health, number of chronic conditions and limiting longstanding illness) + behavioural risk factors (smoking, alcohol consumption and BMI)

Analyses by education also showed a higher risk of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with lower levels of education (RR 1.95 (95%CI 1.56-2.43) for no qualifications compared to degree level educated) (Figure 3 and Additional file: Table S5a). While adjustment for ethnicity and country of birth made little difference to the association, adjustment for social factors, baseline health and behavioural risk factors all attenuated the association somewhat (RR 1.41 (95%CI 1.09-1.82) in fully adjusted model). We again observed a similar pattern in hospital cases and found little evidence of increased testing amongst the less educated groups (Figure 3 and Table 2). We repeated analyses for those who had complete data on all variables (N= 392,116), but this made little difference to the substantive results (Additional file 1: Figures S2-S4).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Risk ratios for associations between highest educational level (degree educated as reference category) and SARS-CoV-2

Model 1: Age, sex and assessment centre

Model 2: Model 1 + ethnicity + country of birth

Model 3: Model 2 + social variables (healthcare worker, urbanicity, number of people per household, deprivation, tenure status, employment status, manual work)

Model 4: Model 3 + health status variables (self-rated health, number of chronic conditions and limiting longstanding illness) + behavioural risk factors (smoking, alcohol consumption and BMI)

Discussion

Several ethnic minority groups had a higher risk of both being diagnosed and testing positive in a hospital setting with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK Biobank study. The black, south Asian and white Irish ethnic groups were found to be at greatest risk. Similarly, measures of socioeconomic disadvantage (area-based deprivation and lower education) were also associated with an increased risk of having confirmed infection and being a hospital case. For both ethnicity and socioeconomic position, we did not find evidence that these patterns were likely to be due to differential ascertainment, since although the likelihood of testing was increased, the likelihood of a positive test was, if anything, higher among ethnic minorities who had been tested. Ethnic differences in infection risk did not appear to be fully accounted for by differences in pre-existing health, behavioural risk factors or country of birth measured at baseline. Furthermore, socioeconomic differences appeared to make a modest contribution to these ethnic differences.

Our study has several important strengths. First, by using a well characterised cohort study, we can identify a clearly defined population at risk of experiencing SARS-CoV-2 infection. By combining data linkage with a large sample size, this has allowed us to provide empirical data from this pandemic in a timely fashion. Ethnicity was collected using self-report which is widely considered to be a gold-standard approach¹⁷ and the availability of a large dataset has allowed us to provide empirical data on this crucial policy priority in a timely fashion, including a more nuanced appreciation of the risks of infection within different members of the white majority population, as well as minority ethnic populations. Our investigation of socioeconomic position has similarly benefited from being able to study different measures and assess the pattern of findings across these. The detailed data collected in this cohort has also allowed us to investigate the extent to which observed inequalities are potentially mediated by a wide range of factors, including behavioural risk factors, pre-existing health status and other social variables.

However, several potential limitations should be noted. Ascertainment bias is potentially problematic and could arise in several ways, including differential healthcare seeking, differential testing and differential prognosis. Even so, we have been unable to find any evidence to suggest that differential healthcare seeking or testing would explain the observed pattern of findings. Increased ascertainment amongst ethnic minorities would be expected to result in a lower proportion of confirmed cases amongst those tested whereas we observed the opposite. One possibility that remains is that some ethnic and socioeconomic groups have a poorer prognosis and are therefore more likely to be admitted to hospital and therefore to be tested. However, if this were the case, the issue of more adverse outcomes among these groups remains concerning. Other limitations include the non-representativeness of the UK Biobank study population, with those who were more advantaged being more likely to participate and ethnic minorities less well represented. There is therefore the potential that the findings in our study may not reflect the broader UK population.¹⁸ However, empirical research has found that this does not result in substantial bias in measures of association in the UK Biobank study.¹⁹ We have also been unable to fully exclude all deaths that occurred prior to the pandemic, due to lack of up-to-date linkage to mortality records at present. Our exposure data were collected some years ago and it is therefore likely that pre-existing health, risk factors and some social variables have changed, although generally most risk factors track throughout life. Being a healthcare worker was also ascertained at baseline, although many who stopped employment in this area have now returned to work. Lastly, we have not explored the role of specific health conditions such as asthma, diabetes and high blood pressure, which have been shown to be associated with a higher risk of severe outcomes^3,20 and are more prevalent amongst socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and some ethnic minority groups.^21,22 However, these are likely to operate as mediators rather than confounders.

Administrative data from health services has recently suggested an increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease within ethnic minority groups. The UK’s Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre (ICNARC) analysed data on 5,578 patients admitted to critical care up to 16^th April 2020 and found black and Asian people comprised a high proportion of total patients (11.2% and 14.9% respectively), although it was unclear whether these higher percentages were biased by most cases being initially seen in areas with high BME proportions.²³ Similarly, data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also suggest a higher risk amongst Black or African American people, but information on race was missing for approximately two-thirds of those diagnosed.²⁴ Academic research on this topic has been limited to date. An ecological study of US counties has suggested that more socially vulnerable areas (which included greater numbers of people with socioeconomic disadvantage and ethnic minorities) were associated with higher COVID-19 case fatality rates.²⁵ Our study adds substantially to the evidence by finding that ethnicity appears to be an important predictor of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection that is only partly attenuated by a large range of potential mediators (such as socioeconomic position), as well as addressing concerns about numerator-denominator bias.

Our results suggest there is an urgent need for further research on how SARS-CoV-2 infection affects different ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Our findings warrant replication in other datasets, ideally including representative samples and across different countries. As the pandemic evolves, there is a need to monitor infection and disease outcomes by ethnicity and socioeconomic position. However, data to allow this disaggregation is often not available – record linkage could potentially help address this gap, particularly in settings where administrative register data are available. Given the differences in health risks across occupational groups²⁶, understanding the risks that the full range of key workers experience is also required. Lastly, other social groups, such as homeless people, prisoners and undocumented migrants, experience severe disadvantage and research is necessary to study these highly vulnerable populations too.^27,28

Conclusions

The limited evidence available suggests that some ethnic minority groups, particularly black and south Asian people, are particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Socioeconomic disadvantage and poorer pre-existing health do not explain all this elevated risk. There is therefore a need to determine exactly why this increased risk occurs. An immediate policy response is required to ensure the health system is responsive to the needs of ethnic minority groups. This should include ensuring that health and care workforces, which often rely on workers from minority ethnic populations, have access to the necessary protective personal equipment (PPE) to ensure they can work safely. Timely communication of guidelines to reduce the risk of being exposed to the virus is also required in a range of languages.²⁹ Previous evidence suggests ethnic minorities in the UK tend to receive reasonably equitable care in many, but not all, areas.³⁰ However, this is not the case in many other countries (such as the US) where the adverse consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection may be even worse. SARS-CoV-2 therefore has the potential to substantially exacerbate ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities in health³¹, unless steps are taken to mitigate these inequalities. The data from this study may be helpful to inform allocation of more aggressive therapies in people with severe disease, or targeting preventative vaccination to at risk groups, once evidence for such approaches becomes available.

Declarations