|
•
Home •
Contact Us
•
What's New •
New Litters •
Puppy Exports •
About Us
•
Pom Reader Kennel Visit •
Poms in Canada Kennel Visit
•
About Poms •
Stud Services •
Links •
Photo Album •
•
Fun Photos
•
New Damascusroad Championships
• Puppies
Growing Up •
List of Articles •
About Pet Food
• Skin/Coat
Care •
Vaccination Information •
CKC Breed Standard •
When it Comes to Vaccinating Your Pet, Less is More
Pet-friendly vaccine recommendations from Dr. Karen Becker.
Sources:
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association October 2000;
217(7):1021-4 and www.mercola.com
October 1, 2000, Vol. 217,
No. 7, Pages 1021-1024
doi: 10.2460/javma.2000.217.1021
Clinical use of serum
parvovirus and distemper virus antibody titers for
determining revaccination strategies in healthy dogs
Lisa Twark, DVM W.
Jean Dodds, DVM
Hemopet and Antech
Diagnostics, 17672A Cowan Ave, Irvine, CA 92614. (Twark,
Dodds); Present address: 5423 Hwy 66N, Rogersville,
TN 37857. (Twark)
Objective—To
assess whether serum canine parvovirus (CPV) and
canine distemper virus (CDV) antibody titers can be
used to determine revaccination protocols in healthy
dogs.
Design—Case series.
Animals—1,441 dogs
between 6 weeks and 17 years old.
Procedure—CPV and
CDV antibody titers in serum samples submitted to a
commercial diagnostic laboratory were measured by
use of indirect fluorescent antibody (IFA) tests. On
the basis of parallel measurements of CPV and CDV
serum antibody titers in 61 paired serum samples
determined by use of hemagglutination inhibition and
serum neutralization methods, respectively, we
considered titers ≥ 1:5 (IFA test) indicative of an
adequate antibody response.
Results—Age, breed,
and sex were not significantly associated with
adequate CPV- or CDV-specific antibody responses. Of
1,441 dogs, 1,370 (95.1%) had adequate and 71 (4.9%)
had inadequate antibody responses to CPV, whereas
1,346 of 1,379 (97.6%) dogs had adequate and 33
(2.4%) had inadequate responses to CDV. Vaccination
histories were available for 468 dogs (468 for CPV,
457 for CDV). Interval between last vaccination and
antibody measurement was 1 to 2 years for the
majority (281/468; 60.0%) of dogs and 2 to 7 years
for 142 of 468 (30.3%) dogs. Interval was < 1 year
in only 45 of 468 (9.6%) dogs.
Conclusion
and Clinical Relevance—The high prevalence of
adequate antibody responses (CPV, 95.1%; CDV, 97.6%)
in this large population of dogs suggests that
annual revaccination against CPV and CDV may not be
necessary. (J Am Vet Med Assoc
2000;217:1021–1024)
Douglas E. Mouzin
,
Marianne J. Lorenzen
,
John D. Haworth
,
Vickie L. King
. (2004) Duration of serologic
response to three viral antigens in cats.
Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association 224:1,
61-66
Online publication date: 1-Jan-2004.
Abstract |
PDF (124 KB) |
PDF Plus (133 KB)
George E. Moore
,
Lawrence T. Glickman
. (2004) A perspective on vaccine
guidelines and titer tests for dogs.
Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association 224:2,
200-203
Online publication date: 1-Jan-2004.
Citation |
PDF (84 KB) |
PDF Plus (92 KB)
Douglas E. Mouzin
,
Marianne J. Lorenzen
,
John D. Haworth
,
Vickie L. King
. (2004) Duration of serologic
response to five viral antigens in dogs.
Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association 224:1,
55-60
Online publication date: 1-Jan-2004.
Abstract |
PDF (122 KB) |
PDF Plus (134 KB)
(2003) Calls for
marketing methods to promote veterinary medicine
. . . . Manufacturer addresses concerns about
FIV vaccine . . . . Failure to increase fees,
salaries creates concern . . . . Advocate for
serologic testing after vaccination . . . . OCD
study receives praise.
Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association 222:2,
148-152
Online publication date: 1-Jan-2003.
Citation |
PDF (220 KB) |
PDF Plus (142 KB)
|
|
October 1, 2005, Vol. 227,
No. 7, Pages 1102-1108
doi: 10.2460/javma.2005.227.1102
Adverse events
diagnosed within three days of vaccine
administration in dogs
George E. Moore, DVM, MS, PhD, DACVPM, DACVIM
Lynn F. Guptill,
DVM, PhD, DACVIM Michael
P. Ward, BVSc, MS, MPVM, PhD
Nita W. Glickman,
MPH, PhD Karen K. Faunt,
DVM, DACVIM Hugh B. Lewis,
BVMS, DACVP Lawrence T. Glickman,
VMD, DrPH
Department of Veterinary
Pathobiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2027. (Moore,
Ward, Glickman, Glickman); Department of Veterinary
Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2027. (Guptill);
Present address is the Department of Veterinary
Integrative Biosciences, College of Veterinary
Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX 77843-4458. (Ward);
Banfield, The Pet Hospital, 11815 NE Glenn Widing
Dr, Portland, OR 97220. (Faunt, Lewis)
Objective—To determine incidence rates and
potential risk factors for vaccine-associated
adverse events (VAAEs) diagnosed within 3 days of
administration in dogs.
Design—Retrospective cohort study.
Animals—1,226,159 dogs vaccinated at 360
veterinary hospitals.
Procedure—Electronic records from January 1,
2002, through December 31, 2003, were searched for
possible VAAEs (nonspecific vaccine reaction,
allergic reaction, urticaria, or anaphylaxis)
diagnosed within 3 days of vaccine administration.
Information included age, weight, sex, neuter
status, and breed. Specific clinical signs and
treatments were reviewed in a random sample of 400
affected dogs. The association between potential
risk factors and a VAAE was estimated by use of
multivariate logistic regression.
Results—4,678 adverse events (38.2/10,000
dogs vaccinated) were associated with administration
of 3,439,576 doses of vaccine to 1,226,159 dogs. The
VAAE rate decreased significantly as body weight
increased. Risk was 27% to 38% greater for neutered
versus sexually intact dogs and 35% to 64% greater
for dogs approximately 1 to 3 years old versus 2 to
9 months old. The risk of a VAAE significantly
increased as the number of vaccine doses
administered per office visit increased; each
additional vaccine significantly increased risk of
an adverse event by 27% in dogs ≤ 10 kg (22 lb) and
12% in dogs > 10 kg.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Young
adult small-breed neutered dogs that received
multiple vaccines per office visit were at greatest
risk of a VAAE within 72 hours after vaccination.
These factors should be considered in risk
assessment and risk communication with clients
regarding vaccination. (J Am Vet Med Assoc
2005;227:1102–1108)
Timothy S. Frana,
Nancy E. Clough,
Donna M. Gatewood,
Charles E. Rupprecht.
(2008) Postmarketing surveillance of rabies
vaccines for dogs to evaluate safety and
efficacy. Journal of
the American Veterinary Medical Association
232:7, 1000-1002
Online publication date: 1-Apr-2008.
Citation |
Full Text |
PDF (324 KB) |
PDF Plus (332 KB)
George E. Moore,
Andrea C. DeSantis-Kerr,
Lynn F. Guptill,
Nita W. Glickman,
Hugh B. Lewis,
Lawrence T. Glickman.
(2007) Adverse events after vaccine
administration in cats: 2,560 cases (2002–2005).
Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association
231:1, 94-100
Online publication date: 1-Jul-2007.
Abstract |
Full Text |
PDF (616 KB) |
PDF Plus (642 KB)
Timothy S. Frana,
Lawrence A. Elsken,
Steven A. Karli.
(2006) Summary of adverse event reports for
veterinary biologic products received by the
USDA from 1999 through 2005.
Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association 229:7,
1100-1102
Online publication date: 1-Oct-2006.
Citation |
Full Text |
PDF (227 KB) |
PDF Plus (220 KB)
George E. Moore
,
Timothy S. Frana
,
Lynn F. Guptill
,
Michael P. Ward
,
Hugh B. Lewis
,
Lawrence T. Glickman
. (2005) Postmarketing surveillance
for dog and cat vaccines: new resources in
changing times.
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
Association 227:7, 1066-1069
Online publication date: 1-Oct-2005.
Citation |
PDF (87 KB) |
PDF Plus (110 KB)
|
|
Are We
Overvaccinating Our Pets?
Excerpt by Jenette Restivo, ABCNews.com
You may get notices from the veterinarian every year or
two suggesting you revaccinate your pet for distemper, leukemia or other
diseases. But now some vets are wondering whether the repeated doses can do
more harm than good.
If you're a pet owner,
you've seen them in your mailbox - postcards from the neighborhood
veterinarian reminding you that it's time for Fido's distemper vaccine or
Fluffy's leukemia shots.
After all, vaccines are a
standard in health care. We vaccinate our children against hepatitis, polio
and influenza when they're infants and toddlers, giving up to two boosters
of some vaccines until puberty. But then we stop.
Not with our pets, though.
In fact, we continue bolstering the immunity of our pets until they are well
into their senior years. That has spawned a debate as fierce as any fighting
pit bull: To vaccinate or not to vaccinate.
Many veterinarians believe
the practice of annual vaccinations is an unnecessary evil, responsible for
such diseases as allergy, seizures, anemia, even cancer. They say
vaccinations make our animals vulnerable to some of the top diseases
plaguing our pets, and that rather than building up immunity we are
overwhelming their immune systems. Others would rather stick to tradition
and say that vaccinating has warded off the most deadly animal diseases over
the past 30 years, so why question it now.
Lack of Scientific Evidence
Dr. W. Jean Dodds,
president of the nonprofit animal version of the Red Cross called Hemopet,
was one of the pioneers of the vaccine debate, an issue she says has been
percolating for the past 10 years. She says as the profession started
looking into exactly how the recommendations for annual vaccines arose, they
started realizing that they were just that — recommendations. And in fact,
they were not based on scientific evidence.
Dodds says that after 20
years of following the United States Department of Agriculture and the drug
manufacturer's recommendations to make annual vaccines a standard in
veterinary care, professionals who first challenged the standard school of
thought were considered rebels. Her arguments were challenged by other
veterinary professionals whose belief in the duty to vaccinate was
galvanized by episodes such as the deadly parvo virus epidemic in the late
1970s that killed thousands of dogs and was only halted by mass
administration of the parvo vaccine.
But Dodds says an
unfortunate observation led many vets to begin to reconsider current
vaccination protocol. In 1991, three years after Pennsylvania issued a
mandatory rabies vaccination requirement for cats, Dr. Mattie Hendrick's lab
at the University of Pennsylvania noted a connection between the surprising
increase in the number of sarcomas, or cancerous tumors, and vaccination in
cats. It seemed that in some cats, rabies vaccinations were leading to an
inflammatory reaction under the skin.
Shortly after, researchers
at the University of California at Davis showed that feline leukemia
vaccines were also likely to cause sarcomas, and to an even greater degree
than the rabies vaccine. Further investigating led researchers to estimate
the prevalence of vaccine-induced sarcomas to be as much as one cat in
1,000, or up to 22,000 new cases of sarcoma a year.
Soon, veterinary
professionals began to suspect vaccination as a risk factor in other serious
auto-immune diseases. Researchers surmised that, in some animals, vaccines
were stimulating the animal's immune system against his or her own tissues,
leading to potentially fatal diseases such as auto-immune hemolytic anemia (AIHA)
in dogs. Researchers began to suspect delayed vaccine reaction for the cause
of such chronic conditions as thyroid disease, allergy, arthritis and
seizures in cats and dogs.
Such observations led to a
1995 Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association article
that concluded there is "little scientific documentation that backs up label
claims for annual administration of most vaccines," and that the only
vaccine tested routinely for duration is the rabies vaccine. In addition,
the article suggested that though some vaccines should be given annually,
giving others only every few years would be sufficient because of potential
risks associated with them.
Hesitation to Vaccinate
Dodds says that in her own
practice, she only vaccinates when necessary. Rather than automatically
giving boosters, Dodds gives annual titers, or tests, to check the level of
antibodies (disease fighting cells) in the blood to determine if boostering
is necessary. Though she expects that immunity would be conferred for
life, she says that titers offer "an added measure of security."
Though many vets have in
fact begun to change their vaccination habits, many continue to administer
annual shots. Dodds believes that the resistance is not so much a financial
issue since vets should still asks clients to come in for an annual check-up
and titers. Rather, it's more about changing attitudes.
"For decades we were told
that this is what we had to do," Dodds says. "The USDA put the
recommendation on the label. Our confidence was totally shaken up."
Non-Vaccination a Greater Danger?
Still, many vets believe
it's too early to change procedure. The say that until more is known about
the immunity conferred by some vaccines, it's best to take a conservative
approach. They emphasize the fact that annual vaccinations have been
effective at decimating the incidence of formerly common, potentially lethal
viral diseases such as feline panleukopenia, rhinotracheitis, feline
leukemia, canine distemper, hepatitis and canine parvo virus. And with the
incidence of the deadly feline leukemia virus so high, it is too hard and
too risky to determine which cats are at risk.
Dr. Donald Klingborg,
former Chairman of the Council of Biologic and Therapeutic Agents of the
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and Assistant Professor at
the University of California at Davis, says that while the vaccination issue
is a complicated one, non-vaccination is a major error.
"In most cases, the threat
to the animals' health from non-vaccination is much greater than
vaccination," he says. "The diseases are real, severe and common."
Klingborg says the
vaccination debate could be settled by more information on the duration of
immunity most vaccines impart.
Conclusive Answers Difficult
But while vaccine companies
are under no legal obligation to demonstrate duration of immunity, that
question may remain unanswered for some time.
Dr. Susan Wynn, a
Georgia-based veterinarian and former board member of the American Holistic
Veterinary Medical Association says that the problem with obtaining immunity
duration information is monetary and political.
"This information would
have to be gained by challenge studies in which you give viruses to animals
inoculated over five to 10 years ago," she says. "You would have to keep
those animals in a controlled environment for this time — only drug
companies have that kind of money."
Wynn says that for the drug
companies, the decision is based on priorities — it's either more products
or immunity studies, not both.
http://preventdisease.com/news/articles/overvaccinating_pets.shtml
Here's a good
link:
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/default.htm
Will
Over-Vaccination Kill Your Pet?
CENTENNIAL, Colo., Aug. 14 /PRNewswire/
-- Former Colorado fee-only financial planner James Schwartz has done for
over-vaccination of our pets what Jessica Mitford did for American funeral
institutions in 1963 -- a documented expose on the questionable practices,
often at the expense of companion animals and their guardians. In his new
book, "Trust Me, I'm Not a Veterinarian," Schwartz explores the legalities,
pitfalls and sad results of over-vaccination in pets, among other topics.
Schwartz's journey began with the sudden decline and death of his beloved
standard poodle, "Moolah," after a round of routine vaccinations. Moolah was
named for the famed female wrestling champion, "The Fabulous Moolah," a.k.a.
Lillian Ellison. Schwartz took Moolah for her annual rabies vaccine in 1999.
The dog had also received what is known as the "Wombo Combo" in previous
years, which included a triple vaccination for parvo, distemper and rabies.
Schwartz said he requested a delay of 2 more years per the new law, a safer
alternative to a yearly rabies vaccination, but was quoted inaccurate
county statues. A few days after Moolah's shot, Schwartz noticed she "wasn't
herself." "Every guardian knows his or her dog, and when the dog isn't
right," Schwartz said. Moolah "stayed in the cool hallway, panting and
panting," Schwartz said. After taking Moolah back to the vet, Schwartz
learned she had developed an auto-immune disease. Moolah had challenges
which should have precluded her from vaccination -- elderly dogs may be
especially vulnerable to lethal side effects of vaccines, Schwartz said.
Moolah died of the disease in December 1999.
Since then, Schwartz has led an anti-vaccination campaign in the Colorado
state legislature and has been subject to threats and harassment from the
veterinary industry. In his book he demonstrates how vaccinations and their
revenue offshoots serve as huge income sources for vet practices.
Schwartz calculates that 300 animal
hospitals would administer an average of 2.25 million shots per year with a
profit of $156 million over three years. He also notes that 63 percent of
canine and 70 percent of feline vet office visits are for vaccination shots.
Schwartz learned that a British study
demonstrated that up to 12 percent of vaccinated animals showed adverse
reactions within 45 days of vaccination. Schwartz views current American
vaccination practices as a betrayal of trust by the vet industry, quoting
the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Journal as stating:
"The one-year vaccination frequency recommendations for rabies found on many
vaccine labels is based only on historical precedent, NOT on scientific
data."
He also quotes the Colorado State
University's Animal Vaccination Protocol, which states, "Of particular note
has been the association of
auto-immune hemolytic anemia with vaccination of dogs and vaccine-associated
cancers in cats."
Deconstructing the science and
economics of pet vaccination, the author finds little value in current
rabies protocols, demonstrating far more harm
than benefit to pets.
While Schwartz has worked closely
with veterinarians on the projects, none would go on the record with their
views on the business motives of
over-vaccination by vets. "The reason I had to write this book is the
veterinarian choosing collegiality over fixing their vaccination protocols.
The legislation drafts are already written -- making companion animals
living property rather than a couch, which they are by law, and also would
be a deterrent to over-vaccination through loss of companionship damages. It
all boils down to this -- over-vaccination has caused physical and fiscal
harm knowingly, due to their business model and the failure of veterinary
ethics," Schwartz said.
For information, contact James
Schwartz at (303) 850-9166. "Trust Me, I'm Not a Veterinarian" is available
at http://www.amazon.com.
This release was issued through
eReleases(TM). For more information,
visit http://www.ereleases.com.
SOURCE James Schwartz
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS143615+14-Aug-2008+PRN20080814
BOOK: Veterinary
Vaccines
PJB Publications Ltd.
Overview:
Features national market
profiles, market sizes and market forecasts to 2009
The veterinary
vaccines sector accounted for 20% of global animal health product
revenues in 2004. Global sales totalled $3.2 billion and the latest market
forecasts predict the sector will grow in excess of $4 billion by 2009.
This report examines the
market forces within this commercially important sector, highlighting key
market drivers and providing a detailed analysis of future growth, enabling
your organisation to:
-
Understand the
development and application of new technologies that have enabled the
successful commercialisation of new vaccine types, including
gene-deleted, subunit, naked DNA and vectored vaccines
-
Identify the viral,
bacterial and parasitic pathogens that represent core targets for
veterinary vaccines in each of the main food and companion animal
species
-
Assess the world
market for veterinary vaccines, charting recent growth and examining its
structure by major market region and species.
-
Examine trends in
ownership, corporate restructuring and the rising costs associated with
the development and commercialisation of new immunological technologies.
-
Gather key information
on the six leading veterinary vaccine companies, detailing the relative
importance of vaccines as a revenue source and revealing related
structural changes
Key findings
-
Veterinary vaccine
sales amounted to $3,205 million in 2004 and have risen by 7% per year
since 2000. This figure is forecast to exceed $4 billion by 2009.
-
The largest national
markets are the US ($935 million), Japan ($236 million), France ($22
million) and Brazil ($221 million).
-
The Brazilian vaccines
market is dominated by FMD products, which account for 40% of sales. 348
million doses were sold in 2004.
-
Six companies account
for more than 70% of world veterinary vaccine sales. The market leader
is Intervet, with sales of almost $600 million in 2004.
-
More than half of Fort
Dodges animal health sales are vaccines, and the company continues to
invest in new products - a DNA vaccine against West Nile virus was
approved by the USDA in July 2005, and the company has a five-year with
the US government to develop an avian influenza vaccine antigen bank
-
In France, sales of
vaccines for small animals were worth ?50 million in 2004, accounting
for 27% of total vaccine sales. The livestock and poultry markets are
more valuable, but it is the small animal market that is driving growth.
•
Home •
Contact Us
•
What's New •
New Litters •
Puppy Exports •
About Us
•
Pom Reader Kennel Visit •
Poms in Canada Kennel Visit •
About Poms •
Stud Services •
Links •
Photo Album •
•
Fun Photos
•
New Damascusroad Championships
• Puppies
Growing Up •
List of Articles •
About Pet Food
• Skin/Coat
Care •
Vaccination Information
• CKC Breed
Standard •
|