Canine Vaccinations

[raptor5]

What is the current school of thought concerning yearly vaccinations (DA2PP, CVK). Most Vets in my area recommend them, but due to prolonged lathargy that my 13lb JRT exhibits I am hesitant. I am thinking that the the DVMs in my area at least have a substandard understanding of immunology
(since much changes in this field every year). I am also concerned why my dog keeps getting the same dosage as those of larger breeds. Is pharmacokinetics also lacking. I do not intend to offend any current DVMs or Vet students, I am just wondering if there has been a change of mindset from old school vets (that may not follow current literature) to new vets or those who follow the literature. I have had some trouble finding journal articles concerning this, hence the reason for asking. If anybody could provide insight on what is currently believed, practiced, or why it contradicts human vaccination schedules that would be greatly appreciated. Again, my intent is not offend anyone and if I have I am sorry.
Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrSambo]

The short answer to your question doesn't exist.

This is an area of debate in the veterinary world. They typical canine vaccination schedule currently recomended is a series of shots as a puppy, then yearly adult boosters.

Probably this is a bit of overkill. I really can't say for sure, nor do I think most can. It really hasn't been studied adequately to give a definate answer.

As far as vets having a substandard understanding of immunology and pharmacokinetics, I can only say that having gradutated from both the Mississippi State University College of Veterinary Medicine with the D.V.M. degree, and the University of Mississippi Medical Center School of Medicine with the M.D. degree, that my education in the areas of immunology and pharmacology was vastly superior in veterinary school as compared to medical school.

As far as why canine vaccianation schedules don't follow those of humans, the trite answer is that canines are not simply small furry humans who amble about on all fours. They are completely different animals with completely different immune systems which are being vaccinated against completely different diseases.

Dosing of vaccinations is typically standardized. This is true in human medicine as well. A 400 pound NFL football player typically gets the same vaccine dose as a 89 pound ballet dancer.

I guess the bottom line here is this. Are current vaccination recomendations excessive? Perhaps so, but from a medical standpoint I haven't seen any convincing evidence that too frequent vaccinations cause any harm (other than to the owners purse perhaps.)

I have however seen in the literature as well as witnessed firsthand on countless occassions the devastating effects, both on the pet as well as the owners purse, of undervaccination.

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. McCreedy, D.V.M., M.D.

 

[raptor5]

Thanks. I did not mean to suggest that current DVM training is substandard just that some of the vets in my area are graduates from the 70s, 80s and much has changed. I was not aware of the differences in immune systems. Are they trivial? My concern lies not in my wallet but rather in my dog's health and well being. Seeing him suffer every year is painful, for both of us.

 

[HeartSong]

I've encountered quite a bit of debate over vaccinations recently and have been trying to do some research on it. There is some evidence that suggests that vaccinations can lead to health problems involving the liver, pancreas, and kindeys as well as neurological conditions. There are also studies that suggest vaccinations in humans may increase the chance of autism. It seems to me like there is a lot of research being done and it's not clear yet whether there is a greater risk to over-vaccinating or under-vaccinating.

Personally, my dogs are on a three year program where they do get boosters, but only once every three years. The rabies vaccine that they are on is a kind that is proven to be effective for three years so I don't have to worry about getting in trouble for not having them vaccinated every year (it is a law here that dogs have to be current on their rabies vaccines.)

Here's a link to a site that discusses the ingredients in vaccines and the possible risks involved with them http://www.doggiedoor.com/forums/showthread.php?t=378

 

[DrSambo]

It seems to me like there is a lot of research being done and it's not clear yet whether the greater risks lie in vaccinating or not vaccinating.
]

While I agree that the optimal frequency of vaccination may be unclear, it is 100% ludicrous to even sort of suggest that it's not clear whether the greater risks lie in vaccination or not vaccinating.

The trial attorneys would love to have us all think that the vaccines are more harm thant they're worth, but they are full of crap.

The nebulous possible risks of autism, pancreas damage, liver damage etc....pale in comparison to the in-your-face real outcomes of failure to vaccinate. Anybody who has ever seen a dog with distemper, parvo, etc...or a human with smallpox, measles, polio, etc...knows this.

Again, I'm not talking frequency here. Perhaps a 3 year program is superior in dogs. I don't know. I think anybody who claims for certain that they do is either not too bright, or not too honest.

 

[leavinthelab]

It may be possible to have a blood titre drawn to confirm immunity. When I was working in the vet hospitals there was a lot of talk about this but I'm not sure if many places do it. Although I'm not sure if you would be able to opt out of something that is state mandated (like rabies) with a titre.

 

[DrSambo]

It may be possible to have a blood titre drawn to confirm immunity. When I was working in the vet hospitals there was a lot of talk about this but I'm not sure if many places do it. Although I'm not sure if you would be able to opt out of something that is state mandated (like rabies) with a titre.

That is certainly possible, however probably pretty cost prohibitive. I think it would certainly cost more than most vaccines. Quite frankly the majority of the griping about the current yearly vaccine recs is due to cost. Owners not wanting to pay for shots yearly.

Not saying that is everyones motivation, but it is my experience that it the motivation for the majority of folks I hear gripe about it.

 

[raptor5]

I do not question vaccines, only the fact that my dog has had had 3 years worth of vaccines and boosters and to keep doing this to him every year seems ludricous. MY vet recommends the DA2PP and CVK booster every year and I am thinking about every 3, not sure. Frankly I do not think he is at risk for most of these. House dog with very little interaction with local wildlife, other pets, but what do I know. I asked called and asked my vet about having a titer drawn instead. The vet said that it will only give you a positive or negative whether Abs are present and not the level. Now I am thinking, no S**t, I do not need that good of resolution. Of course not being a Vet student I am pretty ignorant about the ins and outs of vet med, but I am not an idiot. Or am I.

Another question, who determines these vaccination schedules anyway? State health departments for Rabies I assume. What about the others?

 

[HeartSong]

(Greatly embarrased [they need a smiley for that]) I definitely misstated myself when I said not vaccinating, I really meant as often as we do, not to cut it out all together. (I'll edit that). It is vital that all pets to get vaccinated before their last booster wears off.

I've done some more research and have found that it is the manufactures of the product that say how long their vaccine is good for, so it's not the vet trying to make more money by vaccinating too often. They merely go by what the manufactures suggest which is reasonable since they should know their product well enough to know how long it lasts. I too have heard the suggestion of getting monitoring titers annually to see when the vaccine wears off though I don't know the cost involved.

In Texas there is a lot more debate about whether or not a three year rabies vaccine is good because of how many rabid wildlife are around. If a pet is in an environment that they have a lot of exposure or possible exposure to other animals either wild or domestic, then the owner needs to be a lot more careful to make sure that they are current on vaccine since it is a greater risk than health risks involved with boosters.

If the pet is already showing signs of health problems that are associated with over-vaccinating, though, the risk may lie the other way and it may be worth whatever the cost to get regular titers done to only vaccinate as much as needed. It is a difficult subject for pet owners because it is something that is in debate even among experts so it is often left to the owner to make the final decision on what is best for their specific pet.

 

[HeartSong]

When talking with anyone or with groups of people you are going to get a variety of responses, especially with something as debated as this. You might want to find professional article concerning the topic, try to find some on both sides. Here are a few of the sites that I have gone to that touch on this topic:
http://www.vetcity.com/2004_02_01_archive.html

http://www.geocities.com/~kremersark/atwhatcost.html

http://www.vetinfo.com/dogvacc.html

Also, since the internet isn't always a very reliable source, here are some profession journals that I found and the source info needed to locate the articles that talk specifically about this issue:

Veterinary Record: Journal of the British Veterinary Association 4/10/2004, Vol. 154 Issue 15, p452,

DVM: The Newsmagazine of Veterinary Medicine Jun2004, Vol. 35 Issue 6, p17

I don't know if you'll be able to find these specific journals, try public libraries and college libraries if there are any near. But many veterinary journals will likely have article about this since it is a fairly hot topic presently.

 

[raptor5]

Thanks, I just realized that I have access to vet journals through the library website of the med school I go to.

 

[DrSambo]

Raptor5,

Titers do indeed show you the level of antibodies, not just the presence or lack thereof.

The titer, by definition, is the level of antibodies present. The "resolution" as you put it, is the whole point of a titer.

When looking for immunologic protection, the level of antibodies present matters quite a bit.

The fact is, once an adult animal has been vaccinated once, you can probably find the presence of some antibodies in his system for the remainder of his life.

That level will diminish over time however and eventually may get low enough to no longer confer any meaningful protection to the animal. It is even possible for the level to reach zero.

The point of boosters is to re-stimulate the immune system to ramp up the defenses against the bug.

Yes, you could have titers drawn to all the bugs you are vaccinating against. I've never done this in clinical practice, but I'm sure it can be done.

What you want to do is conduct a lot research, perhaps contact the vaccine manufacturers as well to get info regarding what level of antibodies (titer) is considered to confer adequate protection against each individual virus being vaccinated against.

You would then need to have blood drawn yearly and sent off to the appropriate laboratory or laboratories (you will have to contact various labs to find out who actually runs these titers. You may likely find that no one lab is set up to run titers for each individual virus of concern. Buy hey, you may get lucky).

Then, based on the results of the titers, you could make a better informed decision whether a booster is appropriate at that time.

Here's where things get a little more complicated however (assuming the above isn't complicated enough for you).

When I was in veterinary practice (I've been out for about 7 years now), the typical adult canine booster I administered was DA2PLPC and rabies. The first was a combination product containing antigens for Distemper Virus, Adenovirus, Parainfluenza Virus, Leptospirosis (not a virus actually...though most vaccines are for viruses), Parvovirus, and Corona Virus.

I also would give an intranasal vaccine for Bordatella Bronchiseptica.

Suppose you get your titers back and they show adequate protection for everything except distemper and leptospirosis. I'm not aware of any product available that contains only antigens for distemper and/or leptospirosis.

This is just one example off the top of my head.

For the most part, canine and feline vaccines come as combination products like the one mentioned above. There are a few individual products like the rabies vaccine, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

So, in order to bring the dog in the example above up to date on his lacking distemper and leptospirosis, I don't think you are going to be able to do it without using a combo product which also contains antigens to the other bugs.

I suppose the main value of running titers first would be in the event that all titer come back with adequate levels, then you could avoid the entire vaccine that year.

Another caveat however, in case I wasn't clear about this. Titers will have to be run for each individual bug. This may involve a signigicant amount of blood being drawn. I don't have any numbers, but off-hand, I would guess (this is only a guess) that you would be looking at spending at least several hundred dollars (probably close to a thousand) to have these titers run.

Not saying it can't be done. It's just not as easy or as cheap as one might think at first glance.

If this were to become a more commonly done thing...i.e. standard practice in vet clinics....which I think is highly unlikely anytime soon....then perhaps costs would come down some. Who knows, maybe some day in the future there will be some sort of simple cheap in-house test that could be run to test for adequate immunity. Doesn't exist right now however.


Hope this helps some.

My personal recomendation at the present time is to get your dogs boosters yearly. If he is a little tired and worn out for a day or two afterward, pet him a bit more, give him a treat, make him feel more loved, and tell yourself, "Gosh just imagine how fatigued he'd be if he just had two pints of blood drawn to run a bunch of titers, and then had to be vaccinated anyway because his distemper titer was too low. And damn, I'd be too poor to afford any treats for him at that point as well."

Cheers,

Sam

 

[HeartSong]

Most titers will just test for Parvo and Distemper. The claim is that if these are adequate then the others will be too. You can have the others tested for if you are concerned about their levels, higher cost of course.

As for the price, "Expect to pay your veterinarian from $40 to $100 for CDV and CPV titer testing from a laboratory, and slightly less for an in-office test, for which your veterinarian must purchase the TiterCHEKTM test kit." (quote from http://www.canine-epilepsy-guardian-angels.com/titer_test.htm)

 

[DrSambo]

Most titers will just test for Parvo and Distemper. The claim is that if these are adequate then the others will be too. You can have the others tested for if you are concerned about their levels, higher cost of course.

As for the price, "Expect to pay your veterinarian from $40 to $100 for CDV and CPV titer testing from a laboratory, and slightly less for an in-office test, for which your veterinarian must purchase the TiterCHEKTM test kit." (quote from http://www.canine-epilepsy-guardian-angels.com/titer_test.htm)

It doesn't surpise me especially that these two are available as they are fairly common bugs with devastating potential. I'm especially not surprised about parvo, since this is a titer that is actually run ocassionally in clinical practice due to the fact that some dogs (especially Rottweillers) have a tendency to develop poor immune responses to the vaccines.

I think the claim that if parvo and distemper titers are adequate, then all the others will be too sounds a bit silly. Do they have any sort of evidence to back that up?

If anything, due to the commonality of these two bugs with the resultant higher chance of environmental exposure by a previously vaccinated animal, I would think that these two would be most likely to have high titers while the titers of less common bugs might be falling.

I admit I haven't visited the site you linked to and probably won't since this isn't really all that important to me. I'll take your word for it whether or not they have decent evidence to back this claim.

Do they?

 

[HeartSong]

They don't back up the claim in this article. I don't know if there are any studies that would back it up since the whole concept is fairly new. All that is said in this article is "Actually, measuring the titers for just two vaccines, according to Dr. Dodds, can offer the dog owner a reliable ?picture? of the dog?s immunological status. Good immunity to canine parvovirus (CPV) and canine distemper virus (CDV), she says, indicates proper ?markers for the competence of the dog?s immune system.? "

 

[DrSambo]

They don't back up the claim in this article. I don't know if there are any studies that would back it up since the whole concept is fairly new. All that is said in this article is "Actually, measuring the titers for just two vaccines, according to Dr. Dodds, can offer the dog owner a reliable ?picture? of the dog?s immunological status. Good immunity to canine parvovirus (CPV) and canine distemper virus (CDV), she says, indicates proper ?markers for the competence of the dog?s immune system.? "

I think it would be very foolish to assume adequate immune protection to other bugs simply because of adequate titers to CDV and CPV.

That last statement of theirs is silly. An animal that has never been vaccinated to anything likely has a perfectly competent immune system. That doesn't in any way mean adequate protection to any particular pathogen.

Bottom line is that they apparently don't back up such a claim and I suspect this is because they cannot.