What do you think?

[kehorner]

Yearly vaccinations not necessary??? What do you think about it?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8572826/

[Tambrey]

I think a titre test would be sufficient and then if necessary, give the booster vaccine...I will be honest in saying that for years, I did not get annual vaccines for my cats...they are indoor only, and were never exposed to any others...
but now that I bring in ferals and take care of them, I do make sure they are up on necessary vaccines, for their own safety, except for rabies, which for them being indoor only, I have never seen a risk and need for that one, and my vet agrees...and I always get the new household member in for tests and shots, etc...

[Traci]

Old news.

But, since you asked...

Now, with new research showing that immunity may last longer than once thought, veterinary experts say it's safer to decrease the frequency of most shots that typically have been given every year.

depends on which "experts" are talking.

And dogs may develop certain autoimmune diseases.

Key word is "may". Some texts make the suggestion, but there is no data available to conclude this is true, or to conclude this is a common problem.

More recently, however, several published studies have shown that immunity provided by some vaccines lasts for much longer than one year and in some cases for a lifetime.

Unless they mean to refer to those done by Ronald Shultz, (which the AAHA largely based the canine vaccine protocol on, despite opposition) the veterinary community is divided on that one. See http://www.dvmnewsmagazine.com/dvm/arti ... p?id=62212 and http://www.hilltopanimalhospital.com/va ... versy5.htm and http://www.dvmvac.org/AAHA.htm , and a critique on DOI: http://www.dvmnewsmagazine.com/dvm/arti ... p?id=75555.

"We know that for [canine] distemper and parvo, for example, the immunity lasts a minimum of five years, probably seven to nine years, and for some individuals for a lifetime,” says veterinarian Jean Dodds

Based on one or two studies done by Shultz, this does not mean they are conclusive, and certainly pet owners should never assume vaccines protect "probably for seven to nine years" ('probably' is not conclusive, nor should it be inferred), and "some individuals for a lifetime". Further research and studies clearly need to be done, in order to address vaccine DOI. Unfortunately, this takes a considerable amount of time and expense.

“Current vaccine protocol is to properly immunize puppies and kittens with two or three doses, starting later than we used to, maybe at eight weeks and not earlier than six weeks,” Dodds says.

Actually, most traditional text vaccine guidelines/protocols suggested or recommended vaccines be given to puppies and kittens no earlier than 8 weeks of age (dependent on vaccine type). Standard text has always been AT 8 weeks, for most core vaccines, with boosters following at 3-4 week intervals. Those who may have been vaccinating earlier than 6 weeks were not following standard guidelines. I suspect vaccines given as early as "6 weeks" were recommended to those with increased risk, or catteries, breeding facilities, etc, but certainly was not the standard that the commentators are implying.

“Limited studies suggest that booster vaccinations for many of the core vaccinations last for at least seven years. However, given the limited number of animals involved in these studies, three years seemed like a reasonable compromise.”

Note LIMITED STUDIES. Again, while suggestive, they are not conclusive. Note LIMITED ANIMALS used in the studies, and based on this, the commentators recommend the "probabilities" of vaccine duration. The "compromise" is just that. Limited studies, limited animal studies, a compromise made by limited information, certainly not conclusive information.

If you’re concerned that your dog or cat will develop a vaccine-related health problem, but you want to make sure they’re protected against disease, annual titers are an economical alternative.

A titer should not be considered an alternative to vaccines, there is little data available for the efficacy of titers. For an example, see http://www.dvmvac.org/AVMA.htm.

They’re reliable and costs are comparable to those for vaccinations. For instance, at Canyon Animal Hospital in Laguna Beach, Calif., the rate for a combination distemper/parvo titer is $39. If the dog turns out to need a vaccination, it’s given at no additional charge. Titers are also available for cats.

Titers should never be assumed reliable, since they are open to different interpretation by different types and labs. Many veterinarians do not feel comfortable with titers, since little information is available regarding efficacy, interpretation, or for differentials. In addition, the "current" titers available are certainly not cost-effective, most vets would agree with that.

Consider changing veterinarians if yours claims that titers are too expensive to perform, charges $50 or more for them or wants to vaccinate because a titer level is “too low.”

Dodds is clearly persuading pet owners to dismiss evidence that titers are lacking data to make any solid conclusions. She is also persuading pet owners to dismiss advice given by their primary vets, advice their vet recommends based on individual cases. Vets will of course suggest vaccinating against a "low titer", since they know the titer may not be accurate. Charges for any services of course, are determined by the veterinarian at his/her discretion. To imply a competent vet charges a high fee for a "titer" does not imply the vet is incompetent, is suspicious, or is working under some sort of consipiracy.

“Any measurable titer to a specific antigen means you’ve got immune memory cells,” Dodds says.

(she also made similar claims here: http://www.dvmnewsmagazine.com/dvm/arti ... p?id=43254)

This again, implies that titers are a safe "alternative" to vaccination (Dodds is also known to widely support homeopathic nodoses, yet admitting there is no proof they work....where's the logic in that?). Again, there is little data to suggest titers are a safe "alternative to vaccination".

“Care should be individualized for each pet,” Welborn says. “The days of treating all dogs and cats the same are gone.”

Finally, in the first sentence, they have made some sense. Vaccination protocols have ALWAYS been suggested and recommended to be TAILORED to fit the individual's needs, based on available data, research, and the individual's needs as they apply (i.e., age, exposure risk, environment, lifestyle, etc). The second sentence is a common "anti-vax" comment.

quote from their "fast facts":

— The vaccines most likely to cause reactions are distemper, parvovirus, rabies and giardia.

ANY vaccine can cause an adverse reaction. This is why vaccines MUST be tailored to the individual, based on health and risk factors as noted above.

— The breeds most at risk for vaccine reactions are Akitas, American Eskimo Dogs, Cocker Spaniels, Great Danes and Weimaraners. Any animal with a white coat and pink nose or a dilute coat color, like that of the harlequin Great Dane, is more at risk.

Specific evidence of any animal "with a white coat and pink nose or a dilute coat color", more at risk of specific vaccine reactions?

----------------------
Note: the following articles are a bit older, but worth the read.

Profession should not rely on vaccines as an annual method to see patients:
http://www.dvmnewsmagazine.com/dvm/arti ... p?id=61682

Individualized assessment offers insight to patient's risk exposure
to disease:
http://www.dvmnewsmagazine.com/dvm/arti ... p?id=61783

Guidelines draw mixed industry reaction; question support data:
http://www.dvmnews.com/dvm/article/arti ... p?id=54516

---------------

I agree that vaccines and DOI need to be researched at length, with comparable studies by various independent researchers. Certainly, pets, their owners, and veterinarians can benefit greatly with more studies. But, in the case of the AAHA's guidelines (particularly how they handled the "research"), they should continue to address the situations and become more active in collecting and advocating additional research and studies (and not relying heavily on "biased" panel members).

The bottom line...vaccinations must be tailored to the individual and risk assessment, determined between the owner and his/her vet, and based on available research. The 3-year interval is overall a good idea, but there is and will continue to be some risks involved in individual cases.

Also, keep in mind, that current vaccination protocols (both Feline and Canine) are only intended to be guidelines, they are not an exact protocol, nor a one-size-fits-all approach.

[k9Karen]

My opinion - human vaccines are often lifetime or many years (Hepatitis B series = lifetime, Tetanus = 10 years, MMR = lifetime after second dose, etc). Canine immune systems are very similar to ours, and are probably better. (I don't have much knowledge of feline). IMHO, we ARE over-vaccinating (our kids too). The autoimmune link is, as yet, unproven, but it has not been disproved, despite FDA attempts to do so (the autism link has been disproved with 1000's of children studied long-term).

As for the titers, I don't know what type of approval is required for this type of test, or what qualifications are required of the people who perform them. Just guessing, the FDA has lower standards for animal tests than it does for human, and, I suspect, there are no education or certification/licensure requirements for the 'lab techs' who perform the tests (which is required for human testing in MOST cases). If this testing is not standardized within the industry (as required for human tests), it is no wonder that vets don't trust the results and/or don't know how to correctly interpret them. That said, however, the presence of ANY antibody indicates the presence of active B-Memory cells, which should protect in the event of a real exposure to the infectant.

This controversy has been going on for years, and, I don't think it will be settled any time soon.