RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparison of COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded populations: A general population cohort study of 1.3 million
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.09.17.20196436
DO 10.1101/2020.09.17.20196436
A1 Bhautesh D Jani
A1 Frederick K Ho
A1 David J Lowe
A1 Jamie P Traynor
A1 Sean MacBride-Stewart
A1 Patrick B Mark
A1 Frances S Mair
A1 Jill P Pell
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/13/2020.09.17.20196436.abstract
AB Many western countries used shielding (extended self-isolation) of people presumed to be at high-risk from COVID-19 to protect them and reduce healthcare demand. To investigate the effectiveness of this strategy, we linked family practitioner, prescribing, laboratory, hospital and death records and compared COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded individuals in the West of Scotland. Of the 1.3 million population, 27,747 (2.03%) were advised to shield, and 353,085 (26.85%) were classified a priori as moderate risk. COVID-19 testing was more common in the shielded (7.01%) and moderate risk (2.03%) groups, than low risk (0.73%). Referent to low-risk, the shielded group had higher confirmed infections (RR 8.45, 95% 7.44-9.59), case-fatality (RR 5.62, 95% CI 4.47-7.07) and population mortality (RR 57.56, 95% 44.06-75.19). The moderate-risk had intermediate confirmed infections (RR 4.11, 95% CI 3.82-4.42) and population mortality (RR 25.41, 95% CI 20.36-31.71) but, due to their higher prevalence, made the largest contribution to deaths (PAF 75.30%). Age ≥70 years accounted for 49.55% of deaths. In conclusion, shielding has not been effective at preventing deaths in individuals at high risk. Also, to be effective as a population strategy, shielding criteria would need to be widely expanded to include other criteria, such as the elderly.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding sources.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was approved by the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Primary Care Information Sharing Group and the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Local Privacy Advisory Committee (LPAC) (Reference GSH/20RM005) and was covered by the generic Safe Haven Research Ethics Committee approval (GSH20RM005_COVID_Community).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is available in the Glasgow Safe Haven. https://www.nhsggc.org.uk/about-us/professional-support-sites/safe-haven/services/