Different perspectives on vaccination advice

Michael Day, from the University of Bristol and chair of the World Small animal Veterinary association’s scientific committee as well as its vaccination guidelines group (VGG), was the first to speak. Vets had been vaccinating companion animals for more than 40 years and, he noted, ‘for most of that time, we’ve been using a very simple protocol’, with animals being vaccinated ‘against everything’ annually. however, many of the core vaccines recommended for all dogs – against canine distemper virus, canine adenovirus and canine parvovirus – as well as the core feline panleukopenia vaccine for cats, now had threeor four-year licences. Non-core vaccines were required annually, but only by animals deemed to be at risk. The recognition of feline injection site sarcomas over 20 years ago had provided ‘one of the first inklings that vaccination may have some safety issues related to it’, Professor Day said. an example in dogs was the triggering of a spectrum of immune-mediated disorders. looking at recent vaccination data from the UK and USa, it could be seen that adverse reactions occurred in only a small percentage of cases. although vaccination appeared to be an incredibly safe procedure, ‘we can’t be complacent, because just occasionally adverse reactions are documented,’ he said. analysis of data on the frequency of adverse reactions had been one driver for change in vaccination protocols; another had come from ‘our clients, the general public and, more importantly, the media’. concerns about human vaccine safety had had knock-on effects in the veterinary field; for example, the MMR debate had put vaccination very firmly in the public eye and people had also begun to question the safety of vaccines in animals. Was it possible to reduce the small risk posed by vaccination without losing sight of why it was so important? Professor Day said that vaccination guidelines groups had been created with this in mind. Vaccination guidelines were non-compulsory recommendations that could ‘assist the vet in practice to use vaccines more efficiently’. Guidelines might differ distinctly from the summary of product characteristics (SPcs) associated with individual vaccines, because guidelines were ‘cutting-edge, current scientific thought’. however, any deviation from the SPc in terms of how a vaccine was used required informed client consent. Ten years ago triennial vaccination would have been controversial; now, he suggested, what was more contentious was administering core vaccines annually. The results of a UK survey had shown that, at this time last year, 53 per cent of practices had implemented the new protocol for dogs. another concept supported by the WSaVa’s VGG was the ‘annual health check’, of which vaccination formed just one part. Products were now available that allowed the vet to ‘mix-and-match’ vaccine components between core vaccinations. There was no ‘one size fits all, global vaccination schedule for dogs and cats’, and the onus was on the vet to discuss and implement the best vaccination schedule for their client. Vets needed to think more rationally about the vaccines that an animal might require, and ‘use non-core vaccines in particular in a much more judicious fashion’. The production of guidelines had also highlighted a deficiency in global small animal disease surveillance, Professor Day noted. in order to make progress scientifically, good data on the prevalence of key infectious diseases were needed.