Risk factors for SARS-Cov-2 infection at a United Kingdom electricity-generating company: a test-negative design case-control study =================================================================================================================================== * Charlotte E Rutter * Martie Van Tongeren * Tony Fletcher * Sarah A Rhodes * Yiqun Chen * Ian Hall * Nick Warren * Neil Pearce ## Abstract **Objectives** Identify workplace risk factors for SARS-Cov-2 infection, using data collected by a United Kingdom electricity-generating company. **Methods** Using a test-negative design case-control study we estimated the odds ratios (OR) of infection by job category, site, test reason, sex, vaccination status, vulnerability, site outage, and site COVID-19 weekly risk rating, adjusting for age, test date and test type. **Results** From an original 80,077 COVID-19 tests, there were 70,646 included in the final analysis. Most exclusions were due to being visitor tests (5,030) or tests after an individual first tested positive (2,968). Women were less likely to test positive than men (OR=0.71; 95% confidence interval=0.58- 0.86). Test reason was strongly associated with positivity and although not a cause of infection itself, due to differing test regimes by area it was a strong confounder for other variables. Compared to routine tests, tests due to symptoms were highest risk (94.99; 78.29- 115.24), followed by close contacts (16.73; 13.80-20.29) and looser work contacts 2.66 (1.99-3.56). After adjustment, we found little difference in risk by job category, but some differences by site with three sites showing substantially lower risks, and one site showing higher risks in the final model. **Conclusions** Infection risk was not associated with job category. Vulnerable individuals were at slightly lower risk, tests during outages were higher risk, vaccination showed no evidence of an effect on testing positive, and site COVID-19 risk rating did not show an ordered trend in positivity rates. **Key messages** * The effects of different job types on risk of COVID-19 infection are unknown and the effect estimates are often confounded by date of test due to differing prevalence rates and testing protocols over time. * Both date and reason of test are important confounders to be included when estimating odds ratios for COVID-19 infection * There was little difference in COVID-19 infection risk by job category after adjusting for test reason; however women were less likely to test positive than men ## Introduction In July 2020, government scientific advisers and key funders identified where the United Kingdom (UK) must increase research to respond to near term strategic, policy and operational needs, and ultimately improve resilience against COVID-19 through 2021 and beyond. Six COVID-19 National Core Studies (NCS) have been established to meet these needs, including the NCS project on transmission of the SARS-CoV-2, led by the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE). This project is known as “PROTECT”: The Partnership for Research into Occupational, Transport and Environmental Covid NCS, which brings together more than 70 researchers from 16 different institutions. One of the six key themes of the “PROTECT” project is to collect data from outbreak investigations in a range of workplaces to understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk factors, potential causes for COVID-19 outbreaks and the effectiveness of a range of measures to control and prevent these outbreaks. In addition to specific outbreak investigations conducted as part of PROTECT, some companies have been identified which succeeded in assembling some detailed data on testing in their workforces including relevant data on outbreaks they have experienced. One of these is a large electricity-generating company. We here report the findings of a test-negative design case-control study conducted using the data collected by this company. The main aim of these analyses was to investigate contextual-level, workplace subgroups and individual-level risk factors for SARS-Cov-2 infections. ## Methods The large electricity-generating company which is the subject of this report, tested staff frequently on site throughout the course of the pandemic. The testing strategy and method varied over time and by facility. During some time-periods, all staff were tested routinely, whereas in other time-periods, most workers were only tested because they had symptoms, or were identified as a contact of a positive case. These practices also varied across sites, so that at any given time, some sites may have been testing routinely, while others were only doing symptomatic and contact testing. Reason for test was collected and categorised into 4 groups: testing due to symptoms (using a lower threshold than government recommendations), testing for close contacts (using government defined criteria), testing for looser work contacts (as per company protocols) and routine testing. Tests with a missing or inconclusive result were excluded, along with those from visitors (single tests), and any person with missing job type. We also excluded tests that were missing one of the following a priori confounders: age, sex, site, test date or test type. We included a maximum of one test per day for each person. Where there were multiple tests in a day with different outcomes or reasons (only a small number were identified), we prioritised positive results over negative (as false positives are less common than false negatives), and test reason in order of strength of reason (i.e., symptoms, close contact, loose contact, screening, and then missing). For each person, we used tests only up to and including their first positive result. Thus, the analyses presented here relate to the risks of a first infection, and subsequent infections were not considered. We used a test-negative design, in which positive tests (cases) were compared with negative tests (controls) during each quarter (3-month period). This approach is intended to control for factors that affect the propensity to be tested at different time points (e.g. changing testing protocols and recognition of symptoms). It also has the advantage of being feasible, since we only had access to the test data, and not to data on individuals who were not tested. It has been widely used for assessing vaccine effectiveness, both for COVID-19(1) and for other infections(2). More recently, it has been used for assessing risk factors for COVID-19 infection(3, 4). Site risk rating was assessed by the Outbreak Management Team consisting of the company doctors, occupational health advisors and site representatives for each power station, approximately once a week, based on the background prevalence of disease and the number of cases on site. The risk rating from 0 to 5 determined the COVID-19 mitigation requirements (e.g. cleaning, PPE, testing, social distancing). If there was no available risk rating for a particular week then the rating for the closest previous date was chosen. For sites with no risk rating assigned then the average risk rating across all sites was used. An outage is a statutory shutdown, when a power station is offline, and maintenance can be undertaken. It is often a time with an increased number of external visitors/contractors to the site. We have a binary flag determining whether a test was taken during an outage at the relevant site. Vulnerability status was determined by increased risk of severe disease or death from COVID-19 due to a pre-existing health condition as determined by the literature and was based on an employee’s request for assessment. We have a binary flag for identified vulnerable staff members, who followed different protocols for their own protection (such as home working practices). Vaccination information was captured for most workers on a voluntary basis. Where we had date of vaccine then we could determine vaccine status at the time of the test, defining vaccine immunity as beginning 10 days after the vaccination date. Partial vaccination was defined as having received one vaccine (10 days or more prior) and full vaccination as two or more. Individuals without vaccination information were assumed unvaccinated as negative information was not captured. There were different types of tests available at different sites at different times and for different reasons. We categorised the tests as PCR LAMP (polymerase chain reaction loop- mediated isothermal amplification), other PCR (polymerase chain reaction), and LFT (lateral flow test). For PCR LAMP, all positives and 10% of negatives were then confirmed by PCR. We fitted logistic regression models comparing tests with positive outcomes to those with negative outcomes adjusting for the time-period. There may have been more than one test per person during a time-period but unless the tests were very close together there would not be much dependency. In addition to the a priori confounders of age, sex, date of test, and test type, we considered the other available information detailed above as potential confounders or other explanatory variables of interest. Some of these factors were related, e.g., routine testing was more common during site outages. All potential confounders were included in the final model, provided there were no problems of collinearity or non- convergence of the model. Ordinal variables were tested for linear trend using a likelihood ratio test and included as either categorical or continuous based on the result. The analysis used Stata version 17. ## Results From an original file of 80,077 tests there were 70,878 included in the analysis (Table 1). Most exclusions were due to being visitor tests (5,030) or being tests for an individual after they first tested positive (2,968, of which 433 [14.6%] were also positive). View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/29/2023.08.25.23294609/T1) Table 1: Test numbers and exclusions Table 2 shows the demographic characteristics of the study participants. Almost 90% of the workers tested were men. There was a wide spread of ages from under 20 to over 70 and the median age group was 41-45. The largest proportion of workers were external contractors (53%), followed by engineering (16%) and operations (13%). Jobs were spread in a variety of locations, most at power stations, and there were many more tests per person at power stations 3, 7 and 8 (around 10 per person on average) than at other sites (between 2-5 per person on average). View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/29/2023.08.25.23294609/T2) Table 2: Demographic characteristics of analysis sample The number of tests varied hugely by date, reflecting different stages of the pandemic, as well as changes in regulations and protocols of testing and the general prevalence of COVID- 19 in the UK. Most tests were in the first half of 2021, but most positive tests were in the first half of 2022 (Figure 1). ![Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/08/29/2023.08.25.23294609/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/29/2023.08.25.23294609/F1) Figure 1 Number of tests, positive tests, and percentage due to routine screening, by date The proportions of positive tests that were identified, according to the reasons for testing, are shown in Table 3. Overall, testing those with symptoms identified more than half (54%) of the positive results, whereas testing close contacts picked up 24% and looser contacts 3%. Nevertheless, a significant minority of cases (16%) were identified by routine screening. The remaining 3% had missing test reason. View this table: [Table 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/29/2023.08.25.23294609/T3) Table 3 Proportion of positive tests by test reason in each time-period Table 4 shows the findings for the main risk factors under study. Our “base model” adjusted for test date, age-group and test type (results not shown), as well as the other risk factors shown in the table. There was strong evidence against a linear trend for time-period (p<0.0001) and weak evidence for age group (p=0.05) so these were both included as categorical. View this table: [Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/29/2023.08.25.23294609/T4) Table 4: Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of risk of testing positive on covid test We found that the reason for testing was a strong confounder; in particular, the odds ratio for “external” workers (i.e. contractors) changed from 0.74 (95% CI=0.61-0.89) to 1.14 (0.89- 1.45) after adjusting for the test reason. Also, women showed lower risks than men, after adjustment for test reason (0.70; 0.58-0.86) but not before 1.00 (0.85-1.17). As well as being a strong confounder of job type, reason for testing was a very strong factor itself (Table 4). Vulnerability, outages, vaccination status and site risk rating were not identified as confounders (on introduction to the model, results not shown) but were included in the final model for completeness. There was strong evidence against a linear trend for site risk rating (p<0.0001) so this was included as categorical. There was no evidence against a linear trend for vaccine status (p=0.92) so this was included as continuous. The final model included job type, age, sex, test date, test type, test reason, job site, vaccination status, vulnerability status, outage, and site risk rating. This model showed that there were few differences between job types and likelihood of testing positive after adjusting for all the other included factors. Women were less likely to test positive than men (0.71; 0.58-0.86). The relationship between site and test positivity showed that power station 8 was higher risk (2.05; 1.52-2.77) than power station 7, the test site with the most tests. All other sites were estimated to be similar or lower risk than power station 7 but with varying magnitudes and levels of evidence (Table 4). There was a large effect of test reason, with those testing due to symptoms having 94.99 (78.29-115.24) times the odds of those from routine screening, those testing due to a positive close contact had 16.73 (13.80-20.29), and looser contact 2.66 (1.99-3.56) times the odds of those tested in routine screening (Table 4). There was no evidence of a difference in risk for vaccinated workers (0.97 per vaccination; 0.88-1.06) but vulnerable workers were at lower risk of testing positive than other workers (0.78; 0.63-0.96) and workers testing during an outage were at increased risk (1.35; 1.12- 1.63). The site risk rating did not have a linear relationship with an individual worker’s risk of testing positive; category 2 was lower risk than category 1 (baseline), but categories 3 and 4 were higher risk (Table 4). We additionally ran the final model separately for each reason for testing (Supplementary Table S1). This showed markedly different findings according to the reason for testing, e.g., with some sites and job categories showing reduced risks if the testing was for symptoms, but increased risks if it was completed as part of routine screening. However, these findings are difficult to interpret because there is a problem with data sparsity in some time-periods due to the changing testing protocols (Figure 1). Nevertheless, table S1 shows large differences by site for positivity after routine testing. ## Discussion In this test-negative design study, based on data from a United Kingdom electricity- generating company, we estimated the odds ratios for infection by job category, site, reason for testing, vulnerability, sex, reason for testing and the COVID-19 weekly risk rating for each site, adjusting for age and test date. There was little difference in risk by job category, and few differences by site. Women were less likely to be infected than men (OR=0.71). As might be expected, the reason for testing was very strongly associated with test positivity with ORs of 94.99 for those tested because of symptoms, 16.73 for those tested as close contacts of positive cases, and 2.66 for looser contacts, compared to those tested routinely. Reason for testing was also a strong confounder for the other independent variables. Thus, in studies of this type, it is important to collect information on, and adjust for, the reason for testing, as previously suggested by Vandenbroucke et al(3). It is also notable, that despite these strong associations with symptomatic and contact testing, across the pandemic, 16% of cases were identified by routine testing. Thus, routine testing may have played an important role in identifying a significant minority of cases, and thereby also reducing the spread of infection to contacts. One limitation of this study is that we have included multiple tests on the same person in each time-period (Supplementary Table S2). If the tests are well-spaced then they should still be independent. However, tests close together on the same person will be more likely to have the same result as each other. One option is to shorten each time-period and remove multiple tests, but if the time-periods are very short then there are problems of sparse data due to the large number of parameters in the model. In addition, although most individuals had up to 4 tests in a time-period, there were some with substantially more. These could bias results towards the null as there is a maximum of one positive result per person and so the multiple negative tests would outweigh the positive one when estimating the effects. Overall, these findings showed little difference in positivity rates by job category once the analyses were adjusted for test reason. There were some differences by site, with four sites showing substantially lower risks, and one site showing higher risks in the final model. Vulnerable individuals showed slightly lower risks, possibly due to those individuals taking more care. Positivity rates were slightly higher during outages when more people were on site. The site risk rating did not show consistent associations with positivity rates, which may mean that the Covid rules had varying effects at the different levels. Vaccination did not show a protective effect on testing positive which is perhaps surprising. ## Supporting information Supplementary Table [[supplements/294609_file02.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability The data is not available ## Research Ethics Approval The Observational Research Committee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine gave ethical approval for this work (ref 28125). ## Funding sources This work was supported by the PROTECT (Partnership for Research in Occupational, Transport and Environmental COVID Transmission) COVID-19 National Core Study on Transmission and Environment and managed by the Health and Safety Executive on behalf of HM Government (grant number 1.11.4.3941). ## Conflict of Interest None declared. ## Disclosure Statement The contents of this paper, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect Health and Safety Executive policy. ## Footnotes * References updated * Received August 25, 2023. * Revision received August 29, 2023. * Accepted August 29, 2023. * © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Cerqueira-Silva T, Katikireddi SV, de Araujo Oliveira V, Flores-Ortiz R, Júnior JB, Paixão ES, et al. Vaccine effectiveness of heterologous CoronaVac plus BNT162b2 in Brazil. Nat Med. 2022;28(4):838–43. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F08%2F29%2F2023.08.25.23294609.atom) 2. 2.Vandenbroucke JP, Pearce N. Test-negative designs: differences and commonalities with other case-control studies with ‘other patient’ controls. Epidemiology. 2019;30:838–44. 3. 3.Vandenbroucke JP, Brickley EB, Pearce N, Vandenbroucke-Grauls C. The Evolving Usefulness of the Test-negative Design in Studying Risk Factors for COVID-19. Epidemiology. 2022;33(2):e7–e8. 4. 4.Vandenbroucke JP, Brickley EB, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CMJE, Pearce N. The test-negative design with additional population controls: a practical approach to rapidly obtain information on the causes of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. Epidemiology. 2020:in press.