I understand that Titre Testing will check whether my dogs are still adequately safe-guarded from their last inoculations. 

Has anyone used this?  If so, where, how and what happens?

Many thanks.

PS.  Also, are you made aware clearly of the results, so that a Vet cannot try and blind the client with science!!

A recent thread on the subject can be found here:-
http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/cgi-bin/board/topic_show.pl?pid=477157;hlm=and;hl=titre#477157

Note to admin: What a shame that so many threads seem to have a number now preventing a clickable link this seems a recent thing is there anything that can be done?

Isabel - delete this part:

;hlm=and;hl=titre#477157

then add [ link ] [/link ] around the link.

It will then make it into a clickable link.

Vaccine Reaction

Thanks very much that is going to be very useful..........so long as I don't forget what to do :)

Titre testing will only test for circulating disease antibodies for Parvo and Distemper. They cannot test for Lepto because the virus does not ilicit titres.  My bitch came back as low Parvo and borderline Distemper, so you would think she needed a booster, oh no! I was told by the university that its the "memory cells" that trigger the immune response to disease not the circulating antibodies, and guess what? they can't measure memory cells! So what that means is the fact my dog had low antibodies only meant that she was not recently exposed to the diseases she had been vaccinated against, NOT that she had no immunity to them, because should she be exposed, then the memory cells would trigger the response to fight the disease. There is little point is there?
Dawn.

I just got mine tested, still waiting on the results.  It'll be interesting to see how they come back. They've had boosters for 9/10 years and I really do not want to give them any more.  But as Dawn B says they can't test memory cells and it's those that trigger the immune response to the disease.  So if they have low antibodies, it doesn't mean they are not immune.  It's crazy. 

Well, just got the results.  Both dogs have sufficient antibodies for Parvo and Distemper & Hepatitis so they'll be bypassing that one this year. 

So really Spender all that means is your dog has recently come into contact with those diseases! 
Dawn.

Does it?  Or does it mean that they have enough antibodies left over from all the booster injections they've received every year?  My bitch had double the amount of antibodies for parvo than my dog and my dog had almost treble the amount of antibodies for distemper than my bitch.  They go everywhere together and have had the same booster every year.  No doubt each dog's immune system is different.

One lass I do know has had her dog titre tested for 3 years.  She got to the third year before she needed a booster. But then again, if you get your dog booster vaccinated every year, who's to say that they then have sufficient immunity?

Annual boosters have been around for a very long time, even if the studies, before they were licensed, that showed that they protected for a minimum of one year were misleading it would have been revealed by now if it was not protecting dogs for that length of time.  The only issues seem to have been over the maximum amount of time it will cover a dog for, current research now indicates 3 years.  What bothers me about titre testing has been highlighted by your friends case.  You say at the 3rd test (am I correct to think that was the 4th anniversary of the last booster?) it showed a booster was needed but that level must have been  falling sometime between the 2nd and 3rd test but when?  To me that says for some period of time maybe a month, maybe 8 months, levels were sitting below safety, that to me is the drawback in relying on titre testing better to stick to vaccinating within the recommended time scale and not risk any period of time when the dog is not sufficiently covered.

<<<<Annual boosters have been around for a very long time, even if the studies, before they were licensed, that showed that they protected for a minimum of one year were misleading it would have been revealed by now if it was not protecting dogs for that length of time.>>>>>

I believe it was since the 60's, Isabel.  There were no studies done at the time to show how long the vaccination protected a dog for.  Most dogs are protected, yes.  However, there may be the odd one who may not develop sufficient immunity with an annual booster.  Or there could be the odd one who develops immunity by disease challenge in which case the vaccination is pointless.  Or if everyone else's dog is protected by vaccination and there's no parvo etc in the specific region then they may not even come across a disease challenge.  Every dog's immune system is different which is probably why there is a lot of controversy about this subject.

<<<<What bothers me about titre testing has been highlighted by your friend's case.  You say at the 3rd test (am I correct to think that was the 4th anniversary of the last booster?) it showed a booster was needed but that level must have been falling sometime between the 2nd and 3rd test but when?>>>>

Yes, 4th anniversary.  Antibodies may have been falling but still within the recommended limit?  I think the dog was borderline when he was given another booster. But as Dawn has said above they cannot test memory cells.  It is quite possible the dog was still immune but to be safe another booster was given.

Anyhow, I thought you trashed this out in the last thread Isabel? ;-)

1960's are 40 years ago now :) Doesn't time fly ;)  Yes it could be the other factors adding in a bit of protection but if there was anything more than an insignificant number unprotected I'm sure it would have bubbled up statistically in over 40 years.
As you say there is variation in individuals so if you friend's dog had dropped to borderline within that final year I feel it is not unfeasable for anothers to drop below it.
Yes, I did talk about this in another thread :) but as your friends experience seems to tie in with the logic I was attempting to apply there I felt it worth mentioning it again :)
I have never given much thought to the memory cells part as I have never gone beyond this stumbling block to considering using titre testing anyway.

I see your point Isabel.  I suppose it may depend on how many antibodies the dog has when tested perhaps giving an estimated time frame for them to drop? 

It's more expensive to annually test as opposed to vaccinate and some owners may not be able to afford it.  And then if their dogs did not have sufficient antibodies they would have to pay for vaccinations on top.

Time fly?  Sure does. Did you know when they first started vaccinations; they were going to give owners the option of testing, Isabel? So they could tailor the vaccinations to the dog's requirements. Apparently they decided against it because they thought the public would not pay for it and more dogs would go unvaccinated.   Hence the trend of vaccinating every year became the norm.  

It's difficult to know what to do for the best.  I suppose what any sensible owner wants to do is give their dogs protection from these diseases without over vaccinating.  It's just trying to find that thin line that's the problem.

Trouble is I'm not convinced it can be accurately predicted at what rate the antibodies will drop in an individual once they start too.
No, I didn't know they were ever going to offer titre testing routinely, bit surprised though as that was not particularly an era of consumer choice and few people feared vaccines as they seem to now and it seems to me it would fall into the same conundrum that we are discussing now of when to repeat the test. 
It is difficult for people to feel comfortable with their choices these days, being bombarded with so much information, but for me the risk/benefits balance still falls into regular boostering.

Its pointless, the University told me titre testing is a useless money grabbing exercise.
DAwn.

Dawn, they told me that too.  When I spoke to Hal he told me based on my dog's history, they would not need a booster for the rest of their lives and testing was a waste of money.  My vet wasn't happy and as I have a good relationship with him, we decided to go with testing.  I also wondered how Hal would know my dog's didn't need a booster seeing as he's never met them.  There appears to be vast differences of opinion in the vet world at the moment and I somehow think the uni know a lot more than they are letting on.

I took part in the clinical trials for Nobivac Parvo-C nearly 20 years ago and rang the Glasgow Veterinary College for the results.  I too was told that my pups would need no further vaccinations for the rest of their lives.  It seems to be only those who make money out of vaccinations that advise differently! :(
Spender I believe that the research is financed by the drug companies.  If so then the Veterinary Colleges would have to be careful what they said publically.  Those of us who've had direct contact are somewhat privileged.

That seems at odds with what Spenders friend has found.  Have you ever had your dogs retested since their first vaccination?

It wasn't the Uni that said the dog required an annual booster on the 4th anniversary, Isabel, it was their vet.  They didn't speak to the Uni directly as far as I know and I don't know where the tests were done either, I'm afraid.

I'm a bit confused Spender, or perhaps you are :) my post was to Va.  Why does it matter where your friends vet sent the test to?  Do you mean different labs would give different results?

Seeing as you were talking about my friend Isabel, I thought it only polite to give you the full facts or the ones that I knew of anyhow.  :-D  It would be advisable to ensure that the lab doing the tests was of a good standing.  That's not to say that different labs give different results, I'm not saying that at all.

Oh I see, a sort of by the by :)

No.  The pups are long gone now.  Neither had a days' illness or had need of a Vet until they were pts - one at nearly 13 years old and the other nearly 14 years old.
I can only speak of my own experience, not that of others.

That's true, Isabel, it wasn't an era of consumer choice back then but I don't think it was choice they were thinking about.  It was - you get your dog tested and if he requires a vaccination then you get one.  And if your vet told you what was what then you didn't question it. But wouldn't that have worked out more expensive for owners?  Would people have known the downfalls of testing in the same way they do now?  Or even about regular vaccinations? There was no internet then and lots of houses didn't even have a TV. 

Of course, there were many people that didn't vaccinate at all.  When we had dogs then, vaccination wasn't the done thing in the area.  Strangely enough we never had a case, but that's not to say it was like that everywhere.

There is so much more information available nowadays and more choice too.  It is difficult for people to make the right one and feel comfortable with it.  There always appears to be pros and cons no matter what you do.