Cited by 518COVID-19 epidemiological studiesCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts

Estimating excess 1-year mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic according to underlying conditions and age: a population-based cohort study

Open access
Banerjee, Amitava, Pasea, Laura, Harris, Steve, Gonzalez-Izquierdo, Arturo, Torralbo, Ana, Shallcross, Laura, Noursadeghi, Mahdad, Pillay, Deenan +8 more·2020·The Lancet

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The medical, societal, and economic impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has unknown effects on overall population mortality. Previous models of population mortality are based on death over days among infected people, nearly all of whom thus far have underlying conditions. Models have not incorporated information on high-risk conditions or their longer-term baseline (pre-COVID-19) mortality. We estimated the excess number of deaths over 1 year under different COVID-19 incidence scenarios based on varying levels of transmission suppression and differing mortality impacts based on different relative risks for the disease. METHODS: In this population-based cohort study, we used linked primary and secondary care electronic health records from England (Health Data Research UK-CALIBER). We report prevalence of underlying conditions defined by Public Health England guidelines (from March 16, 2020) in individuals aged 30 years or older registered with a practice between 1997 and 2017, using validated, openly available phenotypes for each condition. We estimated 1-year mortality in each condition, developing simple models (and a tool for calculation) of excess COVID-19-related deaths, assuming relative impact (as relative risks [RRs]) of the COVID-19 pandemic (compared with background mortality) of 1·5, 2·0, and 3·0 at differing infection rate scenarios, including full suppression (0·001%), partial suppression (1%), mitigation (10%), and do nothing (80%). We also developed an online, public, prototype risk calculator for excess death estimation. FINDINGS: We included 3 862 012 individuals (1 957 935 [50·7%] women and 1 904 077 [49·3%] men). We estimated that more than 20% of the study population are in the high-risk category, of whom 13·7% were older than 70 years and 6·3% were aged 70 years or younger with at least one underlying condition. 1-year mortality in the high-risk population was estimated to be 4·46% (95% CI 4·41-4·51). Age and underlying conditions combined to influence background risk, varying markedly across conditions. In a full suppression scenario in the UK population, we estimated that there would be two excess deaths (vs baseline deaths) with an RR of 1·5, four with an RR of 2·0, and seven with an RR of 3·0. In a mitigation scenario, we estimated 18 374 excess deaths with an RR of 1·5, 36 749 with an RR of 2·0, and 73 498 with an RR of 3·0. In a do nothing scenario, we estimated 146 996 excess deaths with an RR of 1·5, 293 991 with an RR of 2·0, and 587 982 with an RR of 3·0. INTERPRETATION: We provide policy makers, researchers, and the public a simple model and an online tool for understanding excess mortality over 1 year from the COVID-19 pandemic, based on age, sex, and underlying condition-specific estimates. These results signal the need for sustained stringent suppression measures as well as sustained efforts to target those at highest risk because of underlying conditions with a range of preventive interventions. Countries should assess the overall (direct and indirect) effects of the pandemic on excess mortality. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, Health Data Research UK.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30854-0

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Banerjee, A., Pasea, L., Harris, S., Gonzalez-Izquierdo, A., Torralbo, A., Shallcross, L., Noursadeghi, M., Pillay, D., Sebire, N., Holmes, C., Pagel, C., Wong, W. K., Langenberg, C., Williams, B., Denaxas, S., & Hemingway, H.
Affiliations
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Great Ormond Street Hospital (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • The Alan Turing Institute (GB)
  • Health Data Research UK (GB)
Corresponding author
Banerjee, Amitava
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-05
Volume
395
Issue
10238
Pages
1715-1725
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W3024344902
Cited by
518
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 175 · 2020: 154
FWCI
17.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • reponame:Expeditio Repositorio Institucional UJTL
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Health Data Research UK (grant no LOND1)
  • NIHR Clinician Scientist award (CS-2016-007)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, excess mortality, COVID-19 mortality, underlying disease, comorbidities, age, mortality estimation, transmission suppression, relative risk, risk calculator, vulnerable populations, England, public health policy, health disparities, socioeconomic deprivation
MeSH terms
Multimorbidity, COVID-19, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mortality, Pneumonia, Viral, Risk Factors, Models, Statistical, Cohort Studies, Coronavirus Infections, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review