There has been a lot of debate about vaccinations in pets
occurring in the past several years.
There has been a lot of debate about vaccinations in pets occurring in the past several years. It started with concerns about cancer being caused by cat vaccines. About 12 years ago, when this debate started, I would go to veterinary meetings and see large numbers of veterinarians claiming they had seen multiple cases of such cancers.
It made me wonder if there was something wrong with me because I had only seen one in more than 10 years of practice. Now, after many years of research, it turns out that the real incidence of such tumors is between 1 and 3 per 10,000 vaccinated cats. One can guess that the other 9,997 cats might be very happy they are vaccinated and alive. The massive numbers suggested by the responses at meetings just didn’t exist.
The bad thing coming from this debate has been a plethora of vaccination recommendations that has been confusing for veterinarians as well as pet owners. The good coming from this debate is that the profession is taking a more scientific approach to vaccinations and a consensus is slowly emerging.
The “gold standard” for vaccine recommendations is the so-called “challenge study.” A challenge study is where an animal is vaccinated, then challenged with a lethal dose of the infective microbe it is vaccinated against. Effectiveness of the vaccine is determined by both survival and the degree of prevention of illness. To be considered valid there must also be a control group of unvaccinated animals that suffer the full consequences of the disease of concern.
Studies like these are expensive to conduct, can take years to show results, and are surrounded by concerns about the humane use of animals for research purposes. For all these reasons studies on extended duration of immunity, which attempt to validate longer intervals between vaccines, have been slow in coming, but have now been done.
Alternative methods of validating vaccine intervals, such as doing blood tests to show immunity levels have been discredited for most vaccines. It has been shown that trying to correlate blood tests with protection against disease simply doesn’t work for most diseases.
What is wrong with the way we have been doing things all these years? The answer to that is – not much. Veterinarians have done a good job of educating the public about animal health and reducing disease and suffering through vaccination and other advances in health care. Although vaccine reactions can, and do, occasionally cause harm, the rate of such events is tiny compared to the good done through regular health exams and vaccinations.
Why then, are we so occupied with looking at vaccine effectiveness and frequency? I believe the answer is that health care expectations have gone up. As pet owners and as health care professionals we want to do the most good and the least harm possible with every pet. We are reflecting on the good we have done and refining our methods to reduce the small amount of potential for harm caused by vaccination.
What vaccines are appropriate and what frequency is justified needs to be a decision made by each pet owner in consultation and discussion with their pet’s veterinarian. There are “standards of care,” recommended vaccine guidelines that have been produced and published by the American Animal Hospital Association. These guidelines are based on a combination of extended duration of immunity challenge studies recently completed – combined with debate and consensus opinions of experts in the field.
This process is not fool proof and is subject to some political correctness, but it represents our best efforts to refine the care we provide for owners and their pets. Science has reached a level that does permit some defined changes in recommendations. A good Web site discussing these changes is www.dvmvac.com. The “Hot Topics” area offers a balanced perspective on the debate and changes underway in determining the vaccines your pet needs. Your part in this debate is to make yourself well informed and then to discuss these issues with your veterinarian.
At the Animal Care Center we are now making the following recommendations:
n Dog Core (basic) Vaccines: We are going to a three-year cycle for dog distemper and parvo virus vaccines (after the first annual booster) while continuing to recommend annual vaccination for leptospirosis, a particularly dangerous bacteria.
n Dog Optional Vaccines: We continue our recommendation for annual vaccines for intranasal kennel cough (required for boarding, grooming and dog park dogs), lyme disease and a new dental vaccine.
n Cat Core Vaccines: We are going to a three-year cycle for cat distemper and upper respiratory virus vaccines after the first annual booster.
n Cat Optional Vaccines: We continue our recommendation for annual vaccination against feline leukemia virus.
n Rabies vaccine recommendations remain on a three-year cycle for dogs and cats – after the first annual booster.
Some previously used vaccines are now considered to be ineffective. For dogs this includes the corona virus vaccine and the giardia vaccine; for cats it includes the feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) vaccine and the giardia vaccine.
The emphasis is on informed consent. That means that there is a passing of information to you as a client, which allows you to make a good decision for the health of your pet. Do your part by visiting the Web site listed above and then having an informed discussion with your veterinarian.
John Quick has owned and operated the Animal Care Center in Morgan Hill for 25 years. He is a founder of WERC and Furry Friends Foundation and was Morgan Hill Male Citizen of the Year in 2003.
