PLoS ONE
image
Impact of influenza vaccination on amoxicillin prescriptions in older adults: A retrospective cohort study using primary care data
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0246156 , Volume: 16 , Issue: 1
Article Type: research-article, Article History
Abstract

Background

Bacterial infections of the upper and lower respiratory tract are a frequent complication of influenza and contribute to the widespread use of antibiotics. Influenza vaccination may help reduce both appropriate and inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. Electronic health records provide a rich source of information for assessing secondary effects of influenza vaccination.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study to estimate effects of influenza vaccine on antibiotic (amoxicillin) prescription in the elderly based on data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The introduction of UK policy to recommend the influenza vaccine to older adults in 2000 led to a substantial increase in uptake, creating a natural experiment. Of 259,753 eligible patients that were unvaccinated in 1999 and aged≥65y by January 2000, 88,519 patients received influenza vaccination in 2000. These were propensity score matched 1:1 to unvaccinated patients. Time-to-amoxicillin was analysed using the Prior Event Rate Ratio (PERR) Pairwise method to address bias from time-invariant measured and unmeasured confounders. A simulation study and negative control outcome were used to help strengthen the validity of results.

Results

Compared to unvaccinated patients, those from the vaccinated group were more likely to be prescribed amoxicillin in the year prior to vaccination: hazard ratio (HR) 1.90 (95% confidence interval 1.83, 1.98). Following vaccination, the vaccinated group were again more likely to be prescribed amoxicillin, HR 1.64 (1.58,1.71). After adjusting for prior differences between the two groups using PERR Pairwise, overall vaccine effectiveness was 0.86 (0.81, 0.92). Additional analyses suggested that provided data meet the PERR assumptions, these estimates were robust.

Conclusions

Once differences between groups were taken into account, influenza vaccine had a beneficial effect, lowering the frequency of amoxicillin prescribing in the vaccinated group. Ensuring successful implementation of national programmes of vaccinating older adults against influenza may help contribute to reducing antibiotic resistance.

Rodgers, Streeter, Lin, Hamilton, Henley, and Ramagopalan: Impact of influenza vaccination on amoxicillin prescriptions in older adults: A retrospective cohort study using primary care data

Introduction

The influenza vaccine has been shown to be effective in reducing the incidence of secondary respiratory infections [16]. As respiratory illnesses are difficult to diagnose precisely in the early stages, patients with respiratory symptoms, particularly the elderly, are often prescribed antibiotics. Antibiotic prescription may serve as a proxy for influenza presenting as a respiratory infection (inappropriate prescribing) or a possible bacterial infection complicating influenza (appropriate prescribing) [1, 7, 8]. The routine prescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections risks the evolution of antimicrobial resistance through their overuse [912]. Therefore, antibiotic use as an outcome is increasing in importance, e.g. in an ongoing trial of influenza vaccination in patients with diabetes [13]. A recent review [14] found that antibiotic prescriptions related to respiratory illness were reduced in children receiving the influenza vaccination.

Influenza vaccination effectiveness (IVE) in the elderly has been an ongoing subject of debate, with previous studies suggesting that much older patients gain less protection [15] due to immunosenescence [4, 16, 17] and confounding due to frailty [18, 19]. The source of uncertainty arises because there are relatively few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in older patients and much of the evidence comes from observational studies. The trials that have been conducted have tended to consider a younger healthier subset of adults ≥65yrs and often lack power to draw conclusions from more representative samples from this age group [4, 20], or older subsets [5, 21]. In a cost-effectiveness evaluation of the vaccination in the elderly, Newall et al [22] stratify their analysis into five-year groups; although no details on group differences were given, overall the vaccination was found to be cost-effective. Electronic healthcare records (EHR) are an important source of information for studies of vaccine efficacy in real-world settings. However, bias has been identified in observational studies using these data [5, 2325] Influenza is one vaccine in particular where confounding may influence efficacy estimates. Some studies have proposed using the period between influenza seasons to assess the bias between exposure groups, although it is uncertain whether the bias is the same as that during influenza circulation [26, 27]. A further complication arises when considering the degree to which the effect of vaccination carries over into the next influenza season [2830]. This is difficult to assess as IVE can vary depending on how well matched the vaccine is to the current virus strain [4, 30]. Dependent on the type of confounding, IVE can be under or overestimated [29, 31, 32]. Possible disease covariates have been identified [3, 7, 26] but the potential remains for residual confounding, arising from unmeasured or unidentified covariates, to impact on estimates of IVE from EHR data.

In this study, we assess the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine in reducing antibiotic prescription for acute respiratory infections amongst adults aged ≥65yrs using EHR data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). In 2000 the UK introduced a policy to offer the influenza vaccination to all adults aged ≥65yrs. Health Protection England reported a vaccination level of 46% in 1999, 65% in 2000 and subsequent increase to current levels at >70% [33]; recruiting a large cohort of never-before-vaccinated patients created the basis for a natural experiment to assess the impact of influenza vaccination on antibiotic prescription [7]. We apply the prior event rate ratio (PERR) Pairwise method [34, 35] which can reduce bias in estimates from EHR data, and has been used in a previous study of influenza vaccination effectiveness [36]. We look at age sub-groups as part of this study to evaluate any difference due to age.

Material and methods

Study cohort

CPRD [37] contains primary care records from 45 million patients registered at General Practices in the UK. Patients who had reached the age of 65y by the year 2000 were extracted from CPRD. 259,753 patients met the inclusion criteria for this study (Fig 1, S1 Fig). The PERR methodology requires that patients should never have had the treatment prior to the study period. In the case of influenza vaccination, this may not be the case. To avoid any residual vaccination effect, we selected patients who were vaccination free for at least two years before the study period. 88,519 had an influenza vaccination in the 2000 season. Vaccinated patients were matched to controls based on a propensity score (PS) model using 1:1 nearest neighbour matching. Matching was based on disease covariates, selected according to clinical risk groups [38] and the Quality Outcomes Framework [39]; a proxy for patient health using a binary variable for ≥12 GP consultations [4] between 01/09/1999–31/08/2000; smoking status, age, gender, ethnicity and region were also included. Table 1 lists all variables (age-dementia) our cohort were matched on.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for study.
Fig 1
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for study.
Table 1
Mean (SD) or percentage reported.
Demographic characteristics of each group.
Vaccinated Group
(n = 88519)
Control Group
(n = 88519)
Prescribed amoxicillin in prior period7.5%4.0%
Prescribed amoxicillin in study period7.1%4.4%
Dies in study period1.3%1.2%
Age Mean(SD)73.3 (6.7)73.3 (6.6)
Gender (% male)44.6%45.7%
Ethnicity White74.4%74.7%
    Unknown24.1%23.8%
    Non-White1.6%1.5%
Smoking Current47.6%47.4%
    Ex-smoker10.0%10.4%
    Non-smoker42.1%42.1%
More than 12 GP consultations9.6%8.7%
Asthma13.8%13.1%
Mental Health0.9%0.8%
Epilepsy3.1%3.0%
Thyroid5.0%4.9%
Hypertension28.6%28.1%
Stroke5.3%5.1%
Chronic Heart Disease11.9%11.3%
COPD2.7%2.5%
Heart Failure2.8%2.6%
Cancer5.2%5.0%
Depression9.6%9.4%
Diabetes1.8%1.6%
Arterial Fibrillation3.1%2.9%
Dementia0.6%0.6%

Ethics approval

Approval for the study was granted by the CPRD Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC 14_159R2). Patient data received from CPRD is fully anonymised.

Outcomes

There are no outcome measures in primary care data that explicitly identify viral influenza infection; laboratory confirmed influenza is not well recorded in primary care and all-cause mortality is not considered useful [46]. The main effect of influenza is respiratory; there is evidence of a reduction in respiratory illness due to the influenza vaccination [13]. As respiratory illnesses are difficult to diagnose precisely in early stages, patients, particularly the elderly, are prescribed antibiotics. Antibiotic prescription may serve as a proxy for influenza presenting as a respiratory infection or possible bacterial infection complicating influenza [1, 7, 8] Amoxicillin is frequently prescribed for respiratory illness [11] and antibiotic prescription is recorded reliably in CPRD data [40]. The outcome measure for this study was time to amoxicillin prescription. Relevant amoxicillin codes were identified by a pharmacist. September was used as the start of the influenza season; the prior period was defined between 01/09/1999–30/04/2000 and the study period 01/09/2000–30/04/2001; Fig 2. The adjusted start date for each vaccinated patient was the vaccination date plus 14 days to allow for antibodies to reach protective levels [33]. The cohort was followed in the study period from adjusted start date until they either received antibiotics, died or reached the end of the study period. The start date in the prior period was the adjusted vaccination date minus one year; patients were followed until they either received amoxicillin prescription or reached the end of the period. Control patients were assigned start dates for follow-up based on the vaccination dates of vaccine recipients, to whom they had been matched.

Study design schematic.
Fig 2
Study design schematic.

Statistical analysis

To tackle bias arising from unmeasured confounding in EHR data, several methods have been proposed [41, 42] with some previously applied for estimating influenza vaccine effects [6, 27, 43]. One promising method is the prior event rate ratio (PERR), and an extension of this method, PERR Pairwise [34, 35]. The PERR approach involves fitting a model for event outcomes after the start of treatment (the study period) and adjusting treatment estimates based on a model for the same outcome in a prior period. By selecting a cohort of vaccinated and unvaccinated patients that have never received the treatment before the study period, the hazard ratio (HR) for the prior period should reflect the effect of confounders, measured and unmeasured, independent of vaccination status. Simulation studies [3436, 44] have found that bias in treatment effect estimates in the presence of unmeasured confounders can be reduced using this methodology.

To assess IVE in a real-world setting, we apply Cox proportional hazards (PH) models, PERR and PERR Pairwise to CPRD data. Cox (PH) models were fitted to the outcome in the prior period and the study period. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the risk of antibiotic prescription in the vaccinated group vs the unvaccinated group are calculated for each time period, HRprior and HRstudy. Any difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups in the prior period (i.e. if the 95% confidence interval for HRprior does not include 1) is assumed to reflect unmeasured confounding.

The PERR methodology adjusts the HRstudy using the estimate of the underlying difference between the two groups identified in the prior period, HRprior, as follows:

HRPERR=HRStudyHRPrior

The extension to this method, PERR Pairwise, uses a paired Cox regression and reduces bias found in the original formulation [34, 35]. Mathematical details of the statistical models, and R code, are reported elsewhere [34, 35, 45]. After matching on the propensity score, vaccination status was the only covariate in the models.

CRPD data were extracted using Stata v15.0 and analysed using R v3.0.2.

Sensitivity analyses

Previous work has proposed that negative control outcomes (NCO) [45] and simulations should accompany analyses using observational data [46]. We used incidence of oedema as an NCO to test the robustness of applying PERR Pairwise to produce real-world estimates of IVE; this is unrelated to amoxicillin prescription and we would expect to find no difference between the two groups (S1 File). A simulation study (S2 File) was designed to replicate the features of our motivating data with an unmeasured confounder influencing outcome. We explored the impact on IVE estimates if the model assumptions for the PERR methodology were violated. In particular, we simulated scenarios in which vaccinated and control groups could have different characteristics, confounders were allowed to be time-varying (comorbidities over the prior and study periods) and there was heterogeneity in response to vaccination, i.e. no subgroups (S2 File, S1 Table).

Results

Study cohort

Of those over 65yrs in our data, 38% (n = 515,580) received the influenza vaccination in 1999 and 56% in 2000 (n = 514,291); this is reasonably comparable to the increase in coverage reported by Public Health England. In our study population, the vaccinated group received a greater number of amoxicillin prescriptions in both periods than the control group, Table 1. There is a difference in the number of prescriptions in the vaccination-free prior period, 7.5% for the group to who went on to be vaccinated vs 4.0% for the control group. This indicates the presence of a pre-existing difference in the health of the exposure groups or a difference in healthcare-seeking behaviour; those who were vaccinated were more likely to be prescribed amoxicillin. Prescriptions in the vaccinated group decreased to 7.1% in the study period, whereas prescriptions in the control group increased to 4.4%.

Influenza vaccine effectiveness

The results from the propensity score-adjusted Cox PH model for the prior period showed a difference in the hazards between the vaccinated and control groups. The bias was not fully removed by matching on the propensity scores (which were derived from the measured confounders alone) (for the ≥ 65y cohort: HR 1.90 95% CI [1.83, 1.98]; Fig 3). The HR from the PS-adjusted Cox model for the study period was above 1, corresponding to an implausible harmful effect of vaccination (for the ≥ 65y cohort: HR 1.64 95% CI [1.58, 1.71]). However, accounting for group-differences in outcomes in the prior period with PERR and PERR Pairwise models, gave a protective effect estimate for vaccination, with HRs 0.86 (0.81,0.92) and 0.86 (0.81, 0.92) respectively.

Results of influenza vaccination effectiveness in 2000 season.
Fig 3
Results of influenza vaccination effectiveness in 2000 season.

Age

The subgroups based on age showed similar results. More prescriptions were issued to the vaccinated groups in the prior period, 7.5% in <75yrs and 7.6% in ≥75yrs in the vaccinated group and 4.3% in <75yrs and 3.6% in ≥75yrs for the control group. Similarly, in the study period, rates of prescriptions were 7.0% and 7.1% for <75yrs and ≥75yrs respectively in the vaccinated group and 4.5% and 4.0% respectively in the control group. We again found evidence of a difference between the groups before the study period and Cox PH models for the study periods (Fig 3) indicating a greater likelihood of antibiotic prescription in the vaccinated group in both age groups in the prior period. The PERR Pairwise adjustment found a beneficial response for the <75y age group, PERR Pairwise 0.87 (0.81,0.94). A beneficial effect of the influenza vaccination for ≥75yrs was also found, HR 0.84 (0.76,0.94).

Sensitivity analyses

After adjusting for the prior period with the PERR methods, the artefactual association between oedema, our NCO, and influenza vaccination was eliminated, HR 1.05 (0.95,1.16) and 1.06 (0.95,1.19) for PERR and Pairwise, respectively (S1 File, S2 Fig). In the simulation study (S2 File, S3 and S4 Figs, S1 and S2 Tables), we tested the robustness of estimates to violations of the PERR methodology assumptions (S1 Table). We found that bias would be induced if there was a change between the prior and study periods or if a proportion of the vaccinated group did not respond to the vaccination (immunosenescence). The study provided no evidence for a difference in IVE between age groups suggesting immunosenescence was not an important factor; thus, providing there were no substantial change over time within patients, consistent with our NCO analysis, the estimates using PERR are robust. The PERR and Pairwise results in the simulation studies were similar and only Pairwise is presented in S2 File.

Discussion

In this study, we found evidence of a beneficial effect of influenza vaccination in reducing antibiotic prescribing in EHRs, by taking a robust approach to the problem of confounding and applying methods to adjust/mitigate for confounding bias. In the year that all ≥65yrs were first entitled to a free vaccination, having accounted for the prior period, vaccination reduced the risk of being prescribed antibiotics; those vaccinated had a 14% (8–19%) lower risk of being prescribed the commonest antibiotic used for respiratory infection than those who were not vaccinated. Those who were vaccinated in 2000 were different to the control group who were not vaccinated: in both periods the vaccinated group were at greater risk of being prescribed antibiotics; the HR for vacinees vs controls in the prior period being 1.90 (1.83,1.98) and 1.64 in the period after vaccination (1.58,1.71). Examining the period post-vaccination in isolation, resulted in a spurious estimate of IVE corresponding to a harmful effect of being vaccinated–in practice, patients due to accept influenza vaccination are more likely to be prescribed antibiotics for respiratory infections because of an increased likelihood of healthcare-seeking behaviour.

Strengths and limitations

Given the strain of the influenza virus can vary from year to year, it is possible that not only will vaccination effectiveness vary but the influence of the confounders may also vary. Bias may be introduced into estimates from the PERR methods when the influence of unmeasured confounders on response is different in the prior and study periods. The PERR methodology also requires unmeasured confounders to be time invariant. Some advice should be taken prior to applying the PERR methodology about how comparable the prior and study periods are. In this case consultation with a virologist about the strains of influenza and their impact on health in the two seasons should inform study design. In this study, patients identified with a vaccine-free prior period could have a history of exposure to the vaccine thus potentially contaminating the prior period and reducing the performance of the method in adjusting for bias. However, a strength of the PERR methodology is that it allowed us to adjust for the prior incidence of antibiotic prescriptions and greatly reduce the imbalance between the two groups without full knowledge of the underlying confounders. A naïve model could use prior use of antibiotics as a covariate in the study model but this would not be as effective in reducing bias due to confounding as the PERR adjustment [45]. Our NCO outcome, oedema, showed bias in estimates using prior and study periods only. Applying the PERR methodology removed a false association between influenza vaccination and oedema.

The simulation study showed where we could ‘trust’ our estimates of vaccine efficacy. Our simulations are novel in that they utilise biologically plausible baseline hazards and adding a small competing risk. In scenario 1, the PERR methods were robust to differences in the distributions of the continuous confounder in the vaccinated and control groups, provided they remained the same within each group over the two periods, whereas we found high bias in the Cox model in comparable settings.

In scenario 2, the confounding variable which influenced the groups changed between periods. We found biased estimates in this scenario, however confidence intervals still contained the true effect. Assuming our vaccinated and control groups did not change significantly in their underlying health between the two time periods, then our PERR estimates were valid. We attempted to capture health seeking behaviour that may contribute to variation in outcomes using the number of GP visits in one year as a covariate. This approach may fail to pick up where health seeking behaviour has changed over time and further work is required to investigate how best to incorporate these time dependent effects within the PERR framework. The simulation study scenario 3 showed that, if there were a subgroup who did not respond to vaccination, any analysis would be biased. We found no difference in response to vaccination due to age in our cohort which suggested that immunosenescence did not impact on the results.

Our study concentrated on amoxicillin prescription as an outcome to study reduction in antibiotic prescription following influenza vaccination. Incidence of influenza is poorly recorded in EHR data and proxies related to respiratory illness, such as amoxicillin prescription, provide a feasible alternative. Amoxicillin can be used for many different types of bacterial infections but we chose to use a sensitive outcome definition without restriction to amoxicillin prescriptions where there was an associated clinical code for respiratory illness. We note that some patients may have been allergic to penicillin and unable to receive amoxicillin. Amoxicillin is the most commonly prescribed antibiotic for respiratory illness [11]; but further work could explore other antibiotics.

Comparison to other literature

Klugman and Black [14] reviewed studies of antibiotic resistance after influenza vaccination. One efficacy study, reporting the effect on antibiotic prescriptions found 13.2% fewer prescriptions in the six months after vaccination [47]. Another study found 36% fewer prescriptions in the vaccine group in Asia Pacific, 59% in Central America and 71% in Europe as well as a reduction in antibiotic prescriptions across five seasons [48]. However, both of these studies were in young children. An observational study in the UK [49] found a reduction of 14.5% in amoxicillin prescription during the influenza season which is a similar figure to our study, but again this was a study in children. Kwong et al [7] looked at the effect of the Canadian introduction of an influenza programme in 2000 and found a risk Ratio 0.36 (0.26–0.49). This 64% reduction in risk of antibiotic prescription covers a population from 6 months upwards. Our study found a reduction of 14% (8–19%) in antibiotic prescriptions in those ≥65yrs. This matches the positive effect of influenza vaccination on antibiotic prescription seen in other studies [14]: however, no other studies have looked at this in our aged population.

Our results did not find a diminished protective effect with age; 13% (6–19%) reduction in risk of prescriptions for <75 yrs and 16% (6–24%) in those ≥75yrs. Previous work has commented on the lack of evidence for effectiveness in much older people [4, 5, 15, 16, 26], and while we found a beneficial effect in ≥75yrs here, we would caution against interpreting this as definitive evidence; age may be too simple a subgrouping. Functional status, location and social connectivity have been identified as possible subgroups [2, 29, 50], but such data are not available in CPRD. Further work should explore more complex subgroups.

Conclusions

We have found evidence, using EHR data, that vaccinating patients aged at least 65 years against influenza reduces prescriptions of a common antibiotic used to treat respiratory infections. This effect still holds when looking at a subgroup of over 75years. Antibiotic resistance is a growing healthcare problem, the consequences of which include longer healthcare stays and more expensive healthcare costs. Our findings suggest that improving uptake of influenza vaccination in older patients can contribute to strategies to reduce antibiotic resistance.

Acknowledgements

The Age UK Project team at the University of Exeter for Read codes for the disease covariates.

References

NicholKL, TreanorJJ. Vaccines for seasonal and pandemic influenza. J Infect Dis. 2006;194 Suppl:S1118. doi: 10.1086/507544

MontoAS, HornbuckleK, OhmitSE. Influenza vaccine effectiveness among elderly nursing home residents: a cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154:15560. doi: 10.1093/aje/154.2.155

GrossPA, HermogenesAW, SacksHS, LauJ, LevandowskiRA. The efficacy of influenza vaccine in elderly persons. A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123:51827. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-123-7-199510010-00008

LoneNI, SimpsonC, KavanaghK, RobertsonC, McMenaminJ, RitchieL, et al Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the community (SIVE): protocol for a cohort study exploiting a unique national linked data set. BMJ Open. 2012;2(2). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001019

NelsonJC, JacksonML, WeissNS, JacksonLA. New strategies are needed to improve the accuracy of influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates among seniors. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 7;62(7):68794. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.014

HottesTS, SkowronskiDM, HiebertB, JanjuaNZ, RoosLL, Van CaeseeleP, et al Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in the Elderly Based on Administrative Databases: Change in Immunization Habit as a Marker for Bias. PLoS One. 2011;6(7).

KwongJCC, MaatenS, Upshur REGE, Patrick DMM, Marra F. The effect of universal influenza immunization on antibiotic prescriptions: an ecological study. Clin Infect Dis. 2009/07/25. 2009 9 1;49(5):7506. doi: 10.1086/605087

HarperSA, FukudaK, UyekiTM, CoxNJ, BridgesCB. Prevention and control of influenza. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2005;54:140.

GuitorAK, WrightGD. Antimicrobial Resistance and Respiratory Infections Vol. 154, Chest. Elsevier Inc; 2018 p. 120212. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.06.019

10 

KlugmanKP. Clinical impact of antibiotic resistance in respiratory tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007;29:S610. doi: 10.1016/S0924-8579(07)70004-3

11 

NowakowskaM, Van StaaT, Mö LterA, AshcroftDM, TsangJY, WhiteA, et al Antibiotic choice in UK general practice: rates and drivers of potentially inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74(11):33718. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkz345

12 

HaversFP, HicksLA, ChungJR, GaglaniM, MurthyK, ZimmermanRK, et al Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Infections During Influenza Seasons. JAMA Netw open. 2018 6 1;1(2):e180243 doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0243

13 

CasanovaL, CortaredonaS, GaudartJ, LaunayO, VanhemsP, VillaniP, et al Effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination in patients with diabetes: Protocol for a nested case-control study. BMJ Open. 2017 8 1;7(8). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016023

14 

KlugmanKP, BlackS. Impact of existing vaccines in reducing antibiotic resistance: Primary and secondary effects Vol. 115, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. National Academy of Sciences; 2018 p. 12896901. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1721095115

15 

SimonsenL, ViboudC, TaylorRJ, MillerMA, JacksonL. Influenza vaccination and mortality benefits: new insights, new opportunities. Vaccine. 2009/10/21. 2009;27(45):63004. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.07.008

16 

NelsonJC, MarshT, LumleyT, LarsonEB, JacksonLA, JacksonML. Validation sampling can reduce bias in health care database studies: an illustration using influenza vaccination effectiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013/07/17. 2013;66(8 Suppl):S11021. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.015

17 

HaqK, McElhaneyJE. Immunosenescence: Influenza vaccination and the elderly. Vol. 29, Current Opinion in Immunology. 2014 p. 3842. doi: 10.1016/j.coi.2014.03.008

18 

SullivanSG, CowlingBJ, GreenlandS. Frailty and influenza vaccine effectiveness. Vaccine. 2016;34(39):46456. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.08.003

19 

McElhaneyJE, AndrewMK, McNeilSA. Estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness: Evolution of methods to better understand effects of confounding in older adults. Vaccine. 2017 11 1;35(46):626974. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.084

20 

BaguelinM, FlascheS, CamachoA, DemirisN, MillerE, EdmundsWJ. Assessing Optimal Target Populations for Influenza Vaccination Programmes: An Evidence Synthesis and Modelling Study. PLoS Med. 2013/10/12. 2013;10(10):e1001527 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001527

21 

GovaertTM, ThijsCT, MasurelN, SprengerMJ, DinantGJ, KnottnerusJA. The efficacy of influenza vaccination in elderly individuals. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. JAMA. 1994 12 7;272(21):16615.

22 

NewallAT, DehollainJP. The cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination in elderly Australians: An exploratory analysis of the vaccine efficacy required. Vaccine. 2014;24. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.017

23 

DarvishianM, GefenaiteG, TurnerRM, PechlivanoglouP, Van Der HoekW, Van Den HeuvelER, et al After adjusting for bias in meta-analysis seasonal influenza vaccine remains effective in community-dwelling elderly. Vol. 67, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2014 p. 73444. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.02.009

24 

AinslieKEC, ShiM, HaberM, OrensteinWA. On the bias of estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness from test–negative studies. Vaccine. 2017 12 19;35(52):7297301. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.10.107

25 

JeffersonT, Di PietrantonjC, Al-AnsaryLA, FerroniE, ThorningS, ThomasRE. Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(2). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004876.pub3

26 

WongK, CampitelliMA, StukelTA, KwongJC. Estimating Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Community-Dwelling Elderly Patients Using the Instrumental Variable Analysis Method. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(6):48491. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.2038

27 

GroenwoldRHH, HoesAW, HakE. Impact of influenza vaccination on mortality risk among the elderly. Eur Respir J. 2009;34(1):5662. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00190008

28 

ÖrtqvistÅ, BryttingM, LevalA, HergensM-P. Impact of repeated influenza vaccinations in persons over 65 ears of age: A large population-based cohort study of severe influenza over six consecutive seasons, 2011/12–2016/17. Vaccine. 2018 9 5;36(37):555664. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.07.052

29 

JacksonLA, NelsonJC, BensonP, NeuzilKM, ReidRJ, PsatyBM, et al Functional status is a confounder of the association of influenza vaccine and risk of all cause mortality in seniors. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35:34552. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyi275

30 

RamsayLC, BuchanSA, StirlingRG, CowlingBJ, FengS, KwongJC, et al The impact of repeated vaccination on influenza vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2019 12 10;17(1):9 doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1239-8

31 

GroenwoldRHH, HakE, HoesAW. Quantitative assessment of unobserved confounding is mandatory in nonrandomized intervention studies. Vol. 62, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009 p. 228. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.011

32 

HakE, HoesAW, NordinJIM, NicholKL. Benefits of influenza vaccine in US elderly—appreciating issues of confounding bias and precision. Int J Epidemiol. 2006 6 1;35(3):8002. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyl068

33 

Public Health England. Greenbook of Immunisation: chapter 19—Influenza [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Mar 26]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/influenza-the-green-book-chapter-19

34 

LinNX, HenleyWE. Prior event rate ratio adjustment for hidden confounding in observational studies of treatment effectiveness: a pairwise Cox likelihood approach. Stat Med. 2016 12 10;35(28):514969. doi: 10.1002/sim.7051

35 

YuM, XieD, WangX, WeinerMG, TannenRL. Prior event rate ratio adjustment: numerical studies of a statistical method to address unrecognized confounding in observational studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012/05/11. 2012 5;21 Suppl 2:608.

36 

ThommesEW, MahmudSM, Young‐XuY, SniderJT, AalstR, LeeJKH, et al Assessing the prior event rate ratio method via probabilistic bias analysis on a Bayesian network. Stat Med. 2019 12;sim.8435 doi: 10.1002/sim.8435

37 

Clinical Practice Research Datalink [Internet]. [cited 2020 Apr 9]. Available from: https://www.cprd.com/

38 

Public Health England. Immunisation against infectious disease: The green book [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Mar 26]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/immunisation-against-infectious-disease-the-green-book

39 

NHS England. 2019/20 General Medical Services (GMS) contract Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Apr 9]. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/2019-20-general-medical-services-gms-contract-quality-and-outcomes-framework-qof/

40 

GullifordMC, SunX, AnjumanT, YellandE, Murray-ThomasT, GullifordM. Antibiotic prescribing records in two UK primary care electronic health record systems. Comparison of the CPRD GOLD and CPRD Aurum databases. BMJ Open. 2020;10(e038767). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038767

41 

StreeterAJ, LinNX, CrathorneL, HaasovaM, HydeC, MelzerD, et al Adjusting for unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized longitudinal studies: a methodological review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 4 28; doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.022

42 

UddinMJ, GroenwoldRHH, AliMS, de BoerA, RoesKCB, ChowdhuryMAB, et al Methods to control for unmeasured confounding in pharmacoepidemiology: an overview. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016 4 18;38(3):71423. doi: 10.1007/s11096-016-0299-0

43 

GroenwoldRHH, HakE, KlungelOH, HoesAW. Instrumental Variables in Influenza Vaccination Studies: Mission Impossible?! Value Heal. 2010;13(1):1327. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00584.x

44 

UddinMJ, GroenwoldRHH, van StaaTP, de BoerA, BelitserS V, HoesAW, et al Performance of prior event rate ratio adjustment method in pharmacoepidemiology: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015 5;24(5):46877. doi: 10.1002/pds.3724

45 

RodgersLR, DennisJM, ShieldsBM, MounceL, FisherI, HattersleyAT, et al Prior event rate ratio adjustment produced estimates consistent with randomised trial: a diabetes case study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 3 17;122:7886. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.007

46 

GroenwoldRHH, NelsonDB, NicholKL, HoesAW, HakE. Sensitivity analyses to estimate the potential impact of unmeasured confounding in causal research. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39:10717. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyp332

47 

MarchisioP, EspositoS, BianchiniS, DusiE, FusiM, NazzariE, et al Efficacy of injectable trivalent virosomal-adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine in preventing acute otitis media in children with recurrent complicated or noncomplicated acute otitis media. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2009 10;28(10):8559. doi: 10.1097/INF.0b013e3181a487b4

48 

DbaiboG, AmanullahA, ClaeysC, IzuA, JainVK, KosalaraksaP, et al Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Prevents Illness and Reduces Healthcare Utilization Across Diverse Geographic Regions During Five Influenza Seasons: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2020 1 1;39(1):e110. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002504

49 

HardelidP, Ghebremichael-WeldeselassieY, WhitakerH, RaitG, GilbertR, PetersenI. Effectiveness of live attenuated influenza vaccine in preventing amoxicillin prescribing in preschool children: a self-controlled case series study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73(3):77986. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkx463

50 

LeeSS, ToKW, WongNS, ChoiKW, LeeKCK. Comparison of the characteristics of elderly influenza patients in two consecutive seasons. Int J Infect Dis. 2014 7;24:402. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2014.03.1384

24 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-35449

Impact of influenza vaccination on amoxicillin prescriptions in older adults: A retrospective cohort study using primary care data

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rodgers,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 08 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sreeram V. Ramagopalan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: WH has a personal long-term shareholding in Glaxo Wellcome, who manufacture an influenza vaccine. WEH has previously received funding from IQVIA."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4.  We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Your outcome of interest (Amoxicillin use) is potentially too vague. Amoxicillin can be used for many different types of bacterial infections. It is not clear why you did not use diagnoses codes for respiratory infections.

Would also have used time-varying cox regression to assess vaccination status. You potentially have introduced immortal time into the vaccinated cohort.

Would be nice to see the covariates you matched on. Did you control for senility? You mention health seeking behavior. Can you think if any proxies that you could use to account for health seeking behavior?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.


12 Jan 2021

Response to editor comments

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

The paper has been updated to conform to PLOS ONE’s requirements.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

We have added “Patient data received from CPRD is fully anonymised.” to our ethics statement section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: WH has a personal long-term shareholding in Glaxo Wellcome, who manufacture an influenza vaccine. WEH has previously received funding from IQVIA."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

We have updated our competing interests statement:

WH has a personal long-term shareholding in Glaxo Wellcome, who manufacture an influenza vaccine. WEH has previously received funding from IQVIA. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. Data are owned by the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (www.cprd.com). Researchers can apply for data access from CPRD and submit a study protocol to the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee for approval.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Thank you.

The data used in this study are owned by the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (www.cprd.com). Researchers can apply for data access from CPRD and submit a study protocol to the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee for approval, using the information outlined in the Methods section of the manuscript. The authors had no special access privileges to the data that future researchers would not have.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

The ethics statement has been moved to the end of the Study Cohort section of Materials and Methods

Response to reviewer comments

1. Your outcome of interest (Amoxicillin use) is potentially too vague. Amoxicillin can be used for many different types of bacterial infections. It is not clear why you did not use diagnoses codes for respiratory infections.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. There is difficulty is selecting an appropriate outcome measure in a study of influenza vaccination using electronic health records; outcomes must be related to the effect of the treatment and well recorded. As noted in the outcomes section of the paper, laboratory confirmed influenza is not well recorded in primary care and all-cause mortality is not considered a useful outcome. Influenza attacks the respiratory system and there is evidence of a reduction in respiratory illness due to influenza vaccination [Gross et al, Nichol et al, Monto et al]. As respiratory illnesses are difficult to diagnose precisely in early stages, patients, particularly the elderly, are often prescribed antibiotics. Antibiotic prescription is well-recorded in routine health records and may serve as a proxy for influenza presenting as a respiratory infection or possible bacterial infection complicating influenza[Kwong et al, Nichol et al, Harper et al]. Our chosen outcome in this study was prescription of amoxicillin, the first choice antibiotic recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for low or moderate severity community acquired pneumonia. Although we could have further qualified our outcome by only selecting amoxicillin prescriptions where there was an associated clinical code for respiratory illness, we chose to use a more sensitive definition in this exploratory study to maximise available sample size. Our choice of within-patient design (based on the PERR method) should ensure that we remove the effect of any differences in levels of amoxicillin prescription for non-respiratory infections between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Text has been added to the Material and Methods Outcomes section to clarify our choice of outcome measure. Relevant amoxicillin codes were identified by a pharmacist. We acknowledge the limitations of our study in paragraph 3 of Strengths and Limitations section of the Discussion and agree further work should investigate this outcome measure further.

Gross PA, Hermogenes AW, Sacks HS, Lau J, Levandowski RA. The efficacy of influenza vaccine in elderly persons. A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Ann Intern Med 1995;123:518–27

Nichol KL, Treanor JJ. Vaccines for seasonal and pandemic influenza. J Infect Dis 2006;194 Suppl:S111–8. doi:10.1086/507544.

Monto AS, Hornbuckle K, Ohmit SE. Influenza vaccine effectiveness among elderly nursing home residents: a cohort study. Am J Epidemiol 2001;154:155–60.

Kwong JC, Maaten S, Upshur RE, Patrick DM, Marra F. The effect of universal influenza immunization on antibiotic prescriptions: an ecological study. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49:750–6. doi:10.1086/605087

Harper SA, Fukuda K, Uyeki TM, Cox NJ, Bridges CB. Prevention and control of influenza. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 2005;54:1–40.

2. Would also have used time-varying cox regression to assess vaccination status. You potentially have introduced immortal time into the vaccinated cohort.

Although immortal time bias could be a potential problem with the PERR methodology as, by design, patients must be alive at the start of the study period, this issue has been addressed by previous authors including Tannen et al (2009) in response to a comment on their original paper. As with their original study design, our patients in both exposure groups had a predefined time interval to meet entry criteria for the study (no vaccination for two years prior to the study period). There was a large pool of unvaccinated patients (n=171274) who were matched to vaccinated patients based on the characteristics in Table 1. Their start date for the study period was effectively random as it was allocated by their matched vaccinated counterparts. Immortal time bias is introduced when the period of “immortality” before exposed patients receive treatment is either misclassified with regards to treatment status or excluded from the analysis. Neither of these issues apply here and Tannen et al point out that immortal time bias should not be an issue due to the careful choice of design. Furthermore, we have previously conducted a simulation study that showed the Pairwise PERR method is unbiased in the presence of differential case fatality because of the within-patient nature of the comparisons (Lin and Henley, 2016). We also note that the PERR framework set out by Lin and Henley (2016) allows for flexible modelling including use of multiple time-varying covariates and effects (Section 7.1). The version of the Pairwise PERR model that we use in this study does indeed allow for the time-varying effect of vaccination status.

Tannen Richard L, Weiner Mark G, Xie Dawei. Use of primary care electronic medical record database in drug efficacy research on cardiovascular outcomes: comparison of database and randomised controlled trial findings BMJ 2009; 338 :b81

Lin NX, Henley WE. Prior event rate ratio adjustment for hidden confounding in observational studies of treatment effectiveness: a pairwise Cox likelihood approach. Stat Med. 2016 Dec 10;35(28):5149–69.

3. Would be nice to see the covariates you matched on. Did you control for senility?

Subjects were matched on the covariates in Table 1. This has been clarified in Material and Methods Study Cohort section. We have matched on dementia to control for senility (Table 1).

4. You mention health seeking behaviour. Can you think if any proxies that you could use to account for health seeking behaviour?

We have tried to capture health seeking behaviour through including the number of GP visits over the 12 months of the prior period as a covariate. We have used the number of consultations within one year as a snap shot of health seeking behaviour and assumed this to be representative during our study. However, we acknowledge that a change in consultations over this time period may be indicative of changing health. A limitation of current PERR methodology is the assumption that any unmeasured confounders are time invariant. We have added to the discussion this limitation (paragraph two of strengths and limitations) and highlighted the need for further work.

Submitted filename: responsetoreviewers.docx

15 Jan 2021

Impact of influenza vaccination on amoxicillin prescriptions in older adults: A retrospective cohort study using primary care data

PONE-D-20-35449R1

Dear Dr. Rodgers,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sreeram V. Ramagopalan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:


21 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-35449R1

Impact of influenza vaccination on amoxicillin prescriptions in older adults: A retrospective cohort study using primary care data

Dear Dr. Rodgers:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sreeram V. Ramagopalan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

https://www.researchpad.co/tools/openurl?pubtype=article&doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0246156&title=Impact of influenza vaccination on amoxicillin prescriptions in older adults: A retrospective cohort study using primary care data&author=&keyword=&subject=Research Article,Biology and Life Sciences,Immunology,Vaccination and Immunization,Medicine and Health Sciences,Immunology,Vaccination and Immunization,Medicine and Health Sciences,Public and Occupational Health,Preventive Medicine,Vaccination and Immunization,Medicine and Health Sciences,Medical Conditions,Infectious Diseases,Viral Diseases,Influenza,Medicine and Health Sciences,Pharmacology,Drugs,Antimicrobials,Antibiotics,Biology and Life Sciences,Microbiology,Microbial Control,Antimicrobials,Antibiotics,Medicine and Health Sciences,Medical Conditions,Infectious Diseases,Infectious Disease Control,Vaccines,Medicine and Health Sciences,Medical Conditions,Infectious Diseases,Respiratory Infections,Medicine and Health Sciences,Medical Conditions,Respiratory Disorders,Respiratory Infections,Medicine and Health Sciences,Pulmonology,Respiratory Disorders,Respiratory Infections,Biology and Life Sciences,Microbiology,Microbial Control,Antimicrobial Resistance,Antibiotic Resistance,Medicine and Health Sciences,Pharmacology,Antimicrobial Resistance,Antibiotic Resistance,Medicine and Health Sciences,Epidemiology,Medical Risk Factors,Medicine and Health Sciences,Public and Occupational Health,Behavioral and Social Aspects of Health,