ABSTRACT
Objectives To assess risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection by first comparing positive cases with negative controls as determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and then comparing these two groups with an additional population control group.
Design and setting Test-negative design (TND), multicentre case-control study with additional population controls in South Eastern Norway.
Participants Adults who underwent SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing between February and December 2020. PCR-positive cases, PCR-negative controls, and additional age-matched population controls.
Primary outcome measures The associations between various risk factors based on self-reported questionnaire and SARS-CoV-2 infection comparing PCR positive cases and PCR-negative controls. Using subgroup analysis, the risk factors were then compared with a population control group. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed.
Results In total, 400 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive cases, 719 PCR-negative controls, and 14,509 population controls were included. Male sex was associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection when PCR-positive cases were compared with PCR-negative controls (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.6). Age, education level, comorbidities (asthma, diabetes, hypertension), an exercise were not associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection when PCR-positive cases were compared with PCR-negative controls. In the subgroup analysis comparing PCR-positive cases with age-matched population controls, asthma was associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.1). Daily or occasional smoking was negatively associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in both analyses (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8 and OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35, to 0.82, respectively).
Conclusions Male sex was a possible risk factor, whereas smoking was negatively associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, when comparing PCR-positive cases and PCR-negative controls. Asthma was associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection when PCR-positive cases were compared with population controls.
Strengths and limitations of this study
The test-negative design (TND) was an important strength of this study. The design can reduce confounding from healthcare-seeking bias because PCR-controls are likely to have similar healthcare-seeking attitudes as PCR+ cases.
This study mostly included non-hospitalised patients, which can improve the generalisability of the findings to the general public.
The use of an additional control group from the general public for comparison with the findings from the test-negative controls provides further information on the similarities and differences in risk factors for COVID-19 and other respiratory tract infections.
In the subgroup analyses, PCR+ cases and PCR- controls were compared with the population controls to assess the risk factors for those aged 18–55 years. Hence, the results may not be generalisable to patients older than 55 years.
PCR test results, rather than symptoms, were used to categorise the participants into cases or controls, and therefore risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and not COVID-19 disease were assessed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The research was supported by funding from the Telemark Hospital Trust. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public and commercial sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All participants provided written informed consent before inclusion. The Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics of Southeast Norway A (ID 146469), Norwegian Centre for Research Data (ID 533954), and data protection officers in the participating hospitals approved the study (ID 20-02553 and ID 20-06971).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I 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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
There are legal and ethical restrictions on sharing our dataset. Our dataset is not fully anonymized and has a relative small sample size making identification possible. The potentially identifying patient information is age, birthdate, location and dates for PCR testes. However, data requests for the minimal dataset, which includes only the main variables of the final analyses, can be made to the Research department at the Telemark Hospital trust, Ulefossvegen 55, 3710 Skien, Norway email: fou{at}sthf.no.
