PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Mutambudzi, Miriam
AU  - Niedzwiedz, Claire L
AU  - Macdonald, Ewan B
AU  - Leyland, Alastair H
AU  - Mair, Frances S
AU  - Anderson, Jana J
AU  - Celis-Morales, Carlos A
AU  - Cleland, John G.
AU  - Forbes, John
AU  - Gill, Jason MR
AU  - Hastie, Claire E
AU  - Ho, Frederick K
AU  - Jani, Bhautesh D
AU  - Mackay, Daniel F
AU  - Nicholl, Barbara I
AU  - O’Donnell, Catherine A
AU  - Sattar, Naveed
AU  - Welsh, Paul
AU  - Pell, Jill P
AU  - Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal
AU  - Demou, Evangelia
TI  - Occupation and risk of severe COVID-19: prospective cohort study of 120,075 UK Biobank participants
AID  - 10.1101/2020.05.22.20109892
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.05.22.20109892
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/03/2020.05.22.20109892.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/03/2020.05.22.20109892.full
AB  - Objectives To investigate severe COVID-19 risk by occupational group.Methods Baseline UK Biobank data (2006-10) for England were linked to SARS-CoV-2 test results from Public Health England (16 March to 26 July 2020). Included participants were employed or self-employed at baseline, alive and aged less than 65 years in 2020. Poisson regression models adjusted sequentially for baseline demographic, socioeconomic, work-related, health, and lifestyle-related risk factors to assess risk ratios (RRs) for testing positive in hospital or death due to COVID-19 by three occupational classification schemes (including Standard Occupation Classification 2000).Results Of 120,075 participants, 271 had severe COVID-19. Relative to non-essential workers, healthcare workers (RR 7.43, 95% CI:5.52,10.00), social and education workers (RR 1.84, 95% CI:1.21,2.82) and other essential workers (RR=1.60, 95% CI:1.05,2.45) had higher risk of severe COVID-19. Using more detailed groupings, medical support staff (RR 8.70, 95% CI:4.87,15.55), social care (RR 2.46, 95% CI:1.47,4.14) and transport workers (RR= 2.20, 95% CI:1.21,4.00) had highest risk within the broader groups. Compared to white non-essential workers, non-white non-essential workers had a higher risk (RR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.90,5.62) and non-white essential workers had the highest risk (RR 8.34, 95% CI:5.17,13.47). Using SOC2000 major groups, associate professional and technical occupations, personal service occupations and plant and machine operatives had higher risk, compared to managers and senior officials.Conclusions Essential workers have higher risk of severe COVID-19. These findings underscore the need for national and organizational policies and practices that protect and support workers with elevated risk of severe COVID-19.Trial registration-N/AWhat is already known on this topicEssential workers have a higher exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus due to the nature of their work.In comparison to non-essential workers, healthcare workers appear to have a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.What this study addsHealthcare workers had a more than seven-fold higher risk of severe COVID-19; those working in social care and transport occupations had a two-fold higher risk.Adjusting for potential confounding and mediating variables did not fully account for the differences in the observed risk amongst most occupational groups.Non-white essential workers had the highest risk of severe COVID-19 infection.How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future?Our findings reinforce the need for adequate health and safety arrangements and provision of PPE, particularly in the health and social care sectors, and highlight the need for national and organizational policies and practices that protect and support workers with elevated risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Competing Interest StatementJill Pell is a member of the UK Biobank Scientific Steering Committee.Funding StatementWe also acknowledge financial support from the Medical Research Council and Chief Scientist Office (MC_UU_12017/13; SPHSU13). CLN is supported by a Medical Research Council Fellowship (MR/R024774/1) and SVK by a NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15). The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the above funding bodies.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 UK Biobank study received ethical approval from the NHS National Research Ethics Service North West (16/NW/0274) and all participants provided written informed consent.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).YesI 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.YesThis research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource (application No 41686 & 17333).