RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Risk of COVID-19 among frontline healthcare workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.04.29.20084111
DO 10.1101/2020.04.29.20084111
A1 Long H. Nguyen
A1 David A. Drew
A1 Amit D. Joshi
A1 Chuan-Guo Guo
A1 Wenjie Ma
A1 Raaj S. Mehta
A1 Daniel R. Sikavi
A1 Chun-Han Lo
A1 Sohee Kwon
A1 Mingyang Song
A1 Lorelei A. Mucci
A1 Meir J. Stampfer
A1 Walter C. Willett
A1 A. Heather Eliassen
A1 Jaime E. Hart
A1 Jorge E. Chavarro
A1 Janet W. Rich-Edwards
A1 Richard Davies
A1 Joan Capdevila
A1 Karla A. Lee
A1 Mary Ni Lochlainn
A1 Thomas Varsavsky
A1 Mark S. Graham
A1 Carole H. Sudre
A1 M. Jorge Cardoso
A1 Jonathan Wolf
A1 Sebastien Ourselin
A1 Claire J. Steves
A1 Tim D. Spector
A1 Andrew T. Chan
A1 On behalf of the COPE Consortium
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/25/2020.04.29.20084111.abstract
AB Background Data for frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited and whether personal protective equipment (PPE) mitigates this risk is unknown. We evaluated risk for COVID-19 among frontline HCWs compared to the general community and the influence of PPE.Methods We performed a prospective cohort study of the general community, including frontline HCWs, who reported information through the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application beginning on March 24 (United Kingdom, U.K.) and March 29 (United States, U.S.) through April 23, 2020. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of a positive COVID-19 test.Findings Among 2,035,395 community individuals and 99,795 frontline HCWs, we documented 5,545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34,435,272 person-days. Compared with the general community, frontline HCWs had an aHR of 11·6 (95% CI: 10·9 to 12·3) for reporting a positive test. The corresponding aHR was 3·40 (95% CI: 3·37 to 3·43) using an inverse probability weighted Cox model adjusting for the likelihood of receiving a test. A symptom-based classifier of predicted COVID-19 yielded similar risk estimates. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE, the aHRs for reporting a positive test were 1·46 (95% CI: 1·21 to 1·76) for those reporting PPE reuse and 1·31 (95% CI: 1·10 to 1·56) for reporting inadequate PPE. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE who did not care for COVID-19 patients, HCWs caring for patients with documented COVID-19 had aHRs for a positive test of 4·83 (95% CI: 3·99 to 5·85) if they had adequate PPE, 5·06 (95% CI: 3·90 to 6·57) for reused PPE, and 5·91 (95% CI: 4·53 to 7·71) for inadequate PPE.Interpretation Frontline HCWs had a significantly increased risk of COVID-19 infection, highest among HCWs who reused PPE or had inadequate access to PPE. However, adequate supplies of PPE did not completely mitigate high-risk exposures.Funding Zoe Global Ltd., Wellcome Trust, EPSRC, NIHR, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer’s Society, NIH, NIOSH, Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen ReadinessEvidence before this study The prolonged course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, coupled with sustained challenges supplying adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) for frontline healthcare workers (HCW), have strained global healthcare systems in an unprecedented fashion. Despite growing awareness of this problem, there are few data to inform policy makers on the risk of COVID-19 among HCWs and the impact of PPE on their disease burden. Prior reports of HCW infections are based on cross sectional data with limited individual-level information on risk factors for infection. A PubMed search for articles published between January 1, 2020 and May 5, 2020 using the terms “covid-19”, “healthcare workers”, and “personal protective equipment,” yielded no population-scale investigations exploring this topic.Added value of this study In a prospective study of 2,135,190 individuals, frontline HCWs may have up to a 12-fold increased risk of reporting a positive COVID-19 test. Compared with those who reported adequate availability of PPE, frontline HCWs with inadequate PPE had a 31% increase in risk. However, adequate availability of PPE did not completely reduce risk among HCWs caring for COVID-19 patients.Implications of all the available evidence Beyond ensuring adequate availability of PPE, additional efforts to protect HCWs from COVID-19 are needed, particularly as lockdown is lifted in many regions of the world.Competing Interest StatementJW, RD, and JC are employees of Zoe Global Ltd. TDS is a consultant to Zoe Global Ltd. DAD and ATC previously served as investigators on a clinical trial of diet and lifestyle using a separate mobile application that was supported by Zoe Global Ltd. Other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.Clinical TrialClinicalTrials.gov NCT04331509Funding StatementZoe provided in kind support for all aspects of building, running and supporting the tracking app and service to users worldwide. LHN is supported by the American Gastroenterological Association Research Scholars Award. DAD is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases K01DK120742. ATC is the Stuart and Suzanne Steele MGH Research Scholar and Stand Up to Cancer scientist. The National Institutes of Health grants related to this project include: UM1 CA186107 (AHE, MJS), U01 CA176726 (AHE, WCW), U01 CA167552 (WCW, LAM), U01 HL145386 (JEC), R24 ES028521 (JEC), P30ES000002 (JEH), and a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health grant contract 200-2017-M-94186 (JEC). The Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR) and Mark and Lisa Schwartz supported MGH investigators (LHN, DAD, ADJ, CGG, WM, RSM, DRS, CHL, SK, MS, ATC). King's College of London investigators (KAL, MNL, TV, MG, CHS, MJC, SO, CJS, TDS) were supported by the Wellcome Trust and EPSRC (WT212904/Z/18/Z, WT203148/Z/16/Z, T213038/Z/18/Z), the NIHR GSTT/KCL Biomedical Research Centre, MRC/BHF (MR/M016560/1), UK Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging & Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, and the Alzheimer's Society (AS-JF-17-011). Sponsors had no role in study design, analysis, and interpretation of data, report writing, and the decision to submit for publication. The corresponding author had full access to data and the final responsibility to submit for publication.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:Partners Human Research Committee (Protocol 2020P000909), King's College London Ethics Committee (REMAS ID 18210, LRS-19/20-18210)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.YesThe datasets and code used for the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Example code used for the analysis is available on GitHub. https://github.com/epimath/cm-dag