|
I had a most interesting day,
at the KC/BSAVA HEALTH SYMPOSIUM held at the RVC.
(Nov 07)
Amongst the content of this latest
symposium, Professor Michael Day, from Bristol Vet School gave
a most informative & update on VACCINATION & given the number
of litters born in the latter part of 2007, this will be relevant to the
puppies & their vaccination programme.
Michael Day is the professor of veterinary
pathology at Bristol Vet School & is one of the leading experts
worldwide. He is the Chairman of the BSAVA
Scientific committee & Chairman for WSAVA (World Small Animal Veterinary
Assoc) & a member of the panel responsible for advising the
profession on the NEW recommendations for vaccinating dogs.
We are indeed very lucky to have him here
in the UK & vets in general practice have access to his independent
expertise & wisdom, particularly in regard to vaccines issues with any dog .
To quote from his introduction…..WHY
DO WE VACCINATE?
It is important that we never lose sight of
the basic reason that we vaccinate-either ourselves or our pets. Since
vaccination was first introduced to the western world in the late 18th
century it has played a major role in the control, and sometimes the
elimination of, significant human diseases. Vaccination became a part of
routine health care for companion animals in the 1960s and
since then in many western countries diseases such as distemper and
adenovirus infection (hepatitis) have become rare. It is clear that
vaccination underlies control of these diseases-as whenever vaccine uptake
declines in a canine population, the diseases can re-emerge Historically
vaccination has also kept pace with the emergence of new infections, the
best example of which was the rapid development of the canine parvo- virus
vaccines after the first recognition of this disease in 1978.
Vaccination of dogs also plays a key role
in the control of zoonotic infections (those that can be passed to humans)
such as rabies, and it is crucial that dogs living in areas in which this
disease is endemic receive vaccination.
The important new principals for
canine vaccination include the recognition of the continued
importance of vaccination.
It is clear that we must maintain
vaccination or the core diseases such as distemper; hepatitis and parvo
virus WILL re-emerge. It is also clear that at present even in
western countries, there is a sub-optimal proportion of the canine
population that is not vaccinated. best estimates put this figure at
somewhere around 30 per cent. The single best means of
controlling any infectious disease is to ensure that the highest possible
number of dogs in a geographical area is vaccinated (this is termed
“herd immunity”) This simply makes it more difficult for infection
to spread throughout the population.
CHANGES TO THE PUPPY VACCINATION SCHEDULE.
Briefly as from SEPT 2007 the
following are the recommended guidelines for the vaccination programme for
all new puppies.
Most dog breeders will understand why it is
necessary to revaccinate puppies to avoid interference from maternally
derived immunity.
Recent data has suggested that these
maternal antibodies may persist in puppies for longer than previously
thought and even at 12 weeks of age, some pups may have levels that may
interfere with the effect of most currently available vaccines
.For this reason the recommendation
NOW is a return to the administration of THREE doses of vaccine to
puppies.
8 weeks.12 weeks. 16 weeks.
More however it is suggested that the
adolescent “booster” given at 12mths AFTER the initial series
is NOW considered to be a full part of the PUPPY
VACCINE regime.
Professor Day anticipated that this is
NEW & there may be some delay with veterinary practices that have not
as yet read this LATEST DATA so YOU may have to discuss such
with your vets
THE WSAVA guidelines are available at
http://www.wsava.org/SAC.htm
You will need acrobat reader on your PC.
In answer to a number of questions
concerning adverse reactions & alleged ill health following vaccinations.
Following licensing, further safety issues
are monitored by the collecting of reports on any unexpected (adverse) event
following a vaccine shot to an individual animal. Although it is realized
that not all such adverse reactions are reported, but they should, on the
appropriate veterinary medicines directorate yellow form, there is data
available to study such reactions. Generally it appears to be .225 in
2.24million, which equates roughly at 1.1 per 10.000 chance worst scenario.
In answer to a question, “Are
vaccinations a contributory factor in auto immune disease”?
REPLY....probably yes to the AI bleeding disorders but
difficult to prove.
Bovine protein in all vaccines can
“trigger” auto immune response. Any dog suffering from an AI disorder should
have vaccination issues discussed between the vet, owner & if necessary the
specialist vet, it is a risk/benefit analysis.
One of the best methods of reducing the
risk factors to adverse consequences of vaccination is to simple reduce
the frequency of administering the vaccines.
There are now good data, accepted by
licensing authorities which support registration of canine vaccines for core
diseases (distemper: CPV: CAV) for at least 3 years period of protection,
these should be used.
We should aim to vaccinate every animal and
to vaccinate each animal LESS frequently.
Professor Day emphasized that a major
message from expert panels to the veterinary profession concerns the role
of vaccination in the health care package. Until recently owners were
advised to take their pets for annual “boosters”,but we MUST
shift away from this emphasis toward an annual veterinary visit for a
HEALTH CHECK which encompasses discussion of ALL
aspects of HEALTH care of which VACCINATION is just
one part.
To Vet Times, BSAVA, BVA, the
Kennel Club, the FAB, and the Dog and Cat Press 5th May 2004.
Re the Recent debates as to whether annual booster
vaccination of animals is necessary. We appreciate that the recent
developments (1) in the ongoing controversy regarding annual booster
vaccines for dogs and cats has left the veterinary profession and the pet
owning public in a dilemma as to the direction they should take, especially
when considering the animal welfare and consumer protection issues involved.
It seems that on one hand you have the vaccine manufacturers, who appear to
be hiding behind legislation and the advice of an industry report (2). Their
stance that annual vaccination must be continued relies on the following
points
(a) They do not know the actual duration of
immunity
(b) Vaccines do not cause significant harm, so
annual vaccination is acceptable. This is also the stated view of the
veterinary organisations i.e. the BVA and BSAVA (3) However, the incoming
President of the BSAVA Dr Ian Mason has been reported as saying 'after due
consideration of the evidence, the current recommendations on vaccination of
animals may need to be refined' (4). Vaccine manufacturers must have known
about the changes in recommendations in response to detailed evidence in the
US for some time, and have been affiliated to UK groups, such as the Cat
Group (11) that have been looking at the work quoted (1). So far it
seems the only action to be taken has been that of Intervet UK in extending
their duration of immunity for Distemper, Hepatitis and Parvo to 3 years.
While this is to be welcomed, no mention has been made yet of the Cat
situation.On the other side there is a small but growing number of
veterinary surgeons and a strongly supportive public who are citing recent
reports and research (5,6,7,17,18) and conclude
(a) That duration of immunity for parvovirus,
adenovirus, distemper (5), and feline enteritis (18), is established as 7
years, and for feline calicivirus and herpes (5,18) is established for at
least 4 years, and it seems that giving booster vaccinations does not offer
any further protection (6).Therefore, annual vaccination is not needed for
dogs and cats (with the exception of Leptospirosis, discussed below)
(b) That vaccines can cause harm
(5,8,9,11,14,18) and therefore unnecessary vaccination should be avoided if
at all possible. Additionally they also consider that information from the
manufacturers is notable. These state that about 50% of dogs (10) and 2/3 of
cats (10,11) in the UK are not vaccinated at all or only infrequently, but
where are the reported outbreaks of the diseases one would expect if the
duration of immunity were so short as to need annual Boosters? While
following the recent debate, there seems to have been only two arguments put
forward for continuing annual booster vaccines in dogs and cats. First there
has been suggestion that the originating letter calling for cessation of
booster vaccines was written by homeopaths and by inference should be
ignored, in fact this was cited as relevant correspondence for the debate in
a mailing from a vaccine manufacturer to all vets in the UK (12) and the
profession is misguidedly it seems seeking to use this (13). Whilst it is
true that some of the signatories have interests in this field, it is
certainly not the case that all the signatories do. All are scientifically
trained Vets in the first instance, all recommend initial vaccination, and
they quote the recent published orthodox research of others. Secondly, and
perhaps more significantly, is the argument for Leptospirosis vaccine, where
it is claimed there is a poor duration of immunity and so annual vaccination
of dogs only for this must continue. This has been the basis of much
research in the USA, and it is appropriate that we in the UK are aware of
the findings. We summarise them below
1. Immunity to Leptospirosis is complex and
poorly understood. It can only be measured by challenge studies. This is
ethically unacceptable so we have to examine what is happening in the field
by epidemiological methods (5).
2. Kansas University reports that the
Leptospirosis vaccine is THE major cause of vaccine reactions, so much so
that they consider the risks outweigh the benefits. It is no longer
considered a core vaccine and they even recommend it should not be given to
puppies (9,14).
3. Another study found the vaccine highly
immunosuppressive and recommended that the vaccine should not be given in
conjunction with other vaccines (it is currently in the UK).
4. The Leptospirosis vaccine does not protect
the dog from being infected with the disease; it just minimises the clinical
symptoms. Hence there seems to be/have been a real risk of vaccinated
healthy dogs shedding the spirochetes so possibly posing a threat to other
dogs and humans. Although one manufacturer has recently claimed it has a new
vaccine to prevent this, the clinical study conducted to test the vaccine
was based on a sample of only 6 dogs (15). In our opinion a study so
narrowly based cannot of course be scientifically credible.
5. The duration of immunity measurable by titre
induced by the Leptospirosis vaccine can be as little as a few months
(14,16) yet the advised interval for boosters is 1 year, which it seems has
been an entirely arbitrary recommendation. By inference it may well be
therefore that even vaccinated dogs have not been protected as their owners
expect.
6. There is little protection between serovars
(types). Use of the vaccine in the USA has led to a shift in the serovars
such that the serovars now infecting dogs are not the ones used in the
vaccines (14). Can we assume this is true also in the UK? Are we now
vaccinating against a disease that barely exists in the form vaccinated for?
7. The vaccine efficacy seems between only 50
-70%, depending on the author (5). The outgoing president of the BSAVA, Dr
Freda Scott-Park, stated that when the science is there the profession would
respond. The science is here, and the profession must respond now or lose
all credibility in this debate. In the USA working parties have resulted in
the removal of mass vaccination requirements in favour of individual
vaccination programmes and consumer choice. This would answer the issues of
insurance and kennels/catteries that are now being raised as well as
restoring public faith in the industry. Whilst we have no wish to presuppose
findings in the UK, it is our desire to establish a truly independent
working party under lay chairmanship critically to review the scientific
data, to raise questions with the manufacturers and report as soon as
practically possible to the profession and the public.
|