Right, I'd like a nice calm discussion here so play nice people! :D

Without going into the ins and outs of why I'm bringing this up now, I would like to ask why it should ever be necessary to give a double vaccination for parvo, distemper and hepatitis due to either late boostering or unknown vaccination history, assuming of course that the dog in question is say 16 weeks or older so I'm talking more adult dogs here.  For this post, I am leaving aside vaccines for leptospirosis and parainfluenza which can be given separately if required anyway.

Vaccine manufacturers seem to agree that provided a dog is 10 weeks or older, one vaccination for parvo, distemper and hepatitis is sufficient to provide protection for these diseases.  If the dog is required to be vaccinated earlier, the second later dose is given just in case the first was compromised by the presence of maternal antibodies.

So could someone please explain to me why some vets seem to feel it necessary to restart these vaccinations from scratch when an adult dog is late with its boosters or vaccination history is unknown even though there is no question of the vaccine not working due to maternal antibodies?

Because if they never started from scratch and your dog caught something, not saying you personally, but many owners would then sue and say if the vet had done thier job properly and given the double vaccination thier dog would have been fine.  Sometimes they are in a no win situation.
Best way is to titre test and see what the dog actually needs if anything.

Best way is to titre test and see what the dog actually needs if anything
Agreed Bev, which is what I do. :)

my dog is late on his booster so i cheacked and was told there is a 3 month window so if the booster is over 3 months late will have to start the course again.

That's what I'm disputing Bek!  Can't see why that is necessary for parvo, distemper or hepatitis.

It also concerns me that the first thing some animal rescue centres do when they pick up a stray dog is to have it vaccinated.  It's quite possible that the dog had all his innoculations the day before

As they are going into a high risk environment, Tyby, I would say this is a case when benefit very much outdoes any possible risk.

It also concerns me that the first thing some animal rescue centres do when they pick up a stray dog is to have it vaccinated.  It's quite possible that the dog had all his innoculations the day before

Good point tyby, and the dog would no doubt be stressed - another good reason not to vaccinate!

Our nearest stray kennels (council kennels) do not vaccinate dogs they pick up unless somebody has paid a deposit for them and is going to adopt. (Which cannot be earlier than 7 days later as an existing owner has to have a chance to appear.) They have a big problem with dogs dying of parvo. They'd be better off doing it at once but  I don't think funds permit it. I once had to hand a dog over to them (Staffy cross somebody dumped on me one Christmas Day, my own dogs would not accept him so he had to go quickly and it was Christmas so nowhere else open), he died of Parvo, and another time had picked a pup we were going to get , she too died of Parvo.

As in first vaccination, some take two and others will be effective with one.  If you have a look at the Intervet site they advise kennel owners this is the case.
As ever you can titre test, which in this case makes more sense as you are determing present status rather than predicting, but is venipuctune risk free?

I did say Isabel that I wasn't talking about lepto or parainfluenza. :)  Parvo, distemper and hepatitis is supposed to give protection with one dose provided the dog is older than 10 weeks (according to the vaccine manufacturers) so I can't see the need for ever giving an adult dog more than one dose of this.

You often mention that titre testing only shows the now and future protection can't be predicted but the experts who do these tests are quite happy to predict future protection based on their experience in the field.  However, titre testing is another topic so I'd rather not go off at a tangent here. :)

Are you sure that they are not just giving the components that require it twice.

>but the experts who do these tests are quite happy to predict future protection based on their experience in the field.

I don't see how they can :)  They can tell you the figures are high but cannot tell you the drop off rate once the vaccinations cover is anticipated, by research, to be expiring.  It may stay high for some individuals but we know that is not the case with all so, come the one year/three year limit, you would need to then start titring pretty often and, as we have been made aware, venipuncture carries it's own risks quite apart from being rather a pain for the dog and owner to keep going to do.

Are you sure that they are not just giving the components that require it twice.

When they use phrases like "need to start a new course of vaccination" and "complete new course" - yes! :)

No, I still don't understand why you think 'starting a new course' when some of the components do need doing twice is an unreasonable discription.   I suppose to be very precise they might say a course of some components and a treatment of some others but, personally, I think it would be fine as a shorthand.  Do you actually know that they are giving the whole lot twice?

>I don't see how they can.  They can tell you the figures are high but cannot tell you the drop off rate once the vaccinations cover is anticipated, by research, to be expiring.  It may stay high for some individuals but we know that is not the case with all so, come the one year/three year limit, you would need to then start titring pretty often.

The immune system is not a petrol tank, Isabel, vaccines are not petrol pumps and titre tests are not petrol gauges. :-P :-D

It's not the number of antibodies that are found on a titre test at any given point of time that protects the dog.  Antibodies fluctuate through time, they go up and they go down.  It's the number of antibodies found that estimates the immune response and cellular immunity.  

For example, dog A with a positive titre test measured at year 1 and with a negative titre test at year 3 is no more at risk of disease than dog B that has been vac annually.  In fact, maybe less, as we know dog A had a good immune response at year 1 indicating cellular immunity.   We don't know about dog B as we are vaccinating blind. 

My understanding is that they can measure cellular immunity but it is not available to the general public.  It's costly, time-consuming and difficult.  Immunity is down to the individual too.   But by using the knowledge they have and using a set a parameters that dogs fall into, they can titre test to give an estimation of the immune system response and cellular immunity by measuring the number of antibodies at a given point in time. 

I am sorry my description was oversimplified and I have heard that the titre test is misleading too.

>For example, dog A with a positive titre test measured at year 1 and with a negative titre test at year 3 is no more at risk of disease than dog B that has been vac annually. 

Are you talking about vaccination that have been found to sustain for three years here?  If so then I would say dog A was now at risk and I fail to see how a negative titre test would alter that.

>We don't know about dog B as we are vaccinating blind.

Yes I believe this is always the case.  We use the research on the population as a whole as a reasonable assumption of when boostering is required.  This has proved very effective for years with minimal risk.  I don't see that a negative titre test would be any thing different and I still think a positive one at the end of the expected cover will not tell you that that immunity will continue for another year or whatever.

>But by using the knowledge they have and using a set a parameters that dogs fall into, they can titre test to give an estimation of the immune system response and cellular immunity by measuring the number of antibodies at a given point in time. 

My understanding is that there are so many other factors involved in an animals immune system, their general health, environmental factors etc, well you say this yourself :) so I cannot see that that can be an accurate predictor no more accurate than using the masses of data they have on the minimum cover achieved by the population as a whole. 
At the end of the day the research shows risk from vaccination is so minimal anyway I cannot see the value in sticking extra needles in over and above following the recommended booster times.

It's not the negative titre that's the case in point, it's the positive 1 three years earlier.

In this example no antibodies does not mean dog A is not covered.  It is more than likely he is, due to the strong cellular immune response 3 years earlier.  The question is how long is it reasonable to go relying on cellular immunity in this example, that's the judgement call.....

It is also likely the dog B is covered too due to 3 vac in a 3 year period, (I'm just using 1 year as an example) but more vac does not mean a dog is covered more and similarly will unnecessary vac do the dog any good?

>My understanding is that there are so many other factors involved in an animal's immune system, their general health, environmental factors etc, well you say this yourself 

Indeed, :-) and this can effect the immune response to vac too.

>In this example no antibodies does not mean dog A is not covered. 

No antibodies does not say he is either!

>The question is how long is it reasonable to go relying on cellular immunity in this example, that's the judgement call.....

Exactly, not a very reliable predictor.  Instead of guessing let's use the tried and tested way of giving a booster at the minimum time indicated by research.

>Indeed,  and this can effect the immune response to vac too

Quite, that is why we use the minimum cover suggested by the large numbers examined in research over the years rather that the longest possible immunity found in some dogs.  Do you think we might be safer going back to yearly vaccinations then? ;)

>No antibodies does not say he is either!

On the balance of probabilities, it is more likely he is (in this example), based on a good cellular immune response 3 years ago. :-P  :-D

>Quite, that is why we use the minimum cover suggested by the large numbers examined in research over the years rather that the longest possible immunity found in some dogs.  Do you think we might be safer going back to yearly vaccinations then?

What would be the point when existing antibodies neutralise the booster? What would be the point vaccinating at the 3 yr point either if existing antibodies neutralise the booster too, which may be the case in some dogs.  Without a titre we won't know, so is giving unnecessary vac doing a dog any good? ;-)

>What would be the point when existing antibodies neutralise the booster?

I don't believe that is true, there will always be some antibodies otherwise the recommended regime would be more frequent.  As I understand it a new challenge will stimulate the creation of more. 
I am sure some dogs are vaccinated sooner that they need to be because the whole regime has been calculated to protect the ones with the shortest lenght of sustained cover but when you ask

>so is giving unnecessary vac doing a dog any good? 

I would say maybe not but on the other hand we know it very rarely does any harm.  Does unnecessary blood sampling do any harm?  Well we know that very rarely that could too.

>There will always be some antibodies otherwise the recommended regime would be more frequent.

Not necessarily, it's not antibodies per say that protect the dog, its cellular immunity and the immune response.

>I understand it a new challenge will stimulate the creation of more.

Depends on circulating antibodies, if there is a sufficient amount to neutralise the booster, no further cellular immunity stimulation will occur.

>so is giving unnecessary vac doing a dog any good? 

>I would say maybe not but on the other hand we know it very rarely does any harm.

So if it does'nt do any good, what's the point?  Why do it?  And according to experts in the field over-vac can do harm.

>Not necessarily, it's not antibodies per say that protect the dog, its cellular immunity and the immune response.

Whatever, the cover remains sufficient, we know this from the research that has defined the regime.

>Depends on circulating antibodies, if there is a sufficient amount to neutralise the booster, no further cellular immunity stimulation will occur.

I think it unlikely that can happen often because the research would not have indicated that boosters will provide another 3 years cover routinely.  Infact this looks more like an arguement for the return of more regular annual vaccines to me ;)
I think the scientists that conducted the POOCH report were expert enough in research :)

>Depends on circulating antibodies, if there is a sufficient amount to neutralise the booster, no further cellular immunity stimulation will occur.

>I think it unlikely that can happen often because the research would not have indicated that boosters will provide another 3 years cover routinely.

It doesn't matter in theory how many antibodies there are at the 3 year point for a booster to cover another 3 years.  It should do it regardless.

I.e. If there are a sufficient amount of antibodies, vac is neutralised, no further stimulation of cellular immunity occurs but there doesn't need to be as the max immune response has been reached for that dog with vac at that time = another 3 years cover

If there isn't sufficient amount of antibodies, vac boosters cellular immunity and more antibodies are created.  So in this case, the vac acts as a reminder to cellular immunity to stimulate memory cells = another 3 years cover.

The immune response is the case in point, not antibodies per say.  A strong immune response = lots of antibodies and strong memory cells.  It's why a recovered dog with parvo as an example, does not need a booster for the rest of their lives.

>It doesn't matter in theory how many antibodies there are at the 3 year point for a booster to cover another 3 years.  It should do it regardless.

>I.e. If there are a sufficient amount of antibodies, vac is neutralised, no further stimulation of cellular immunity occurs but there doesn't need to be as the max immune response has been reached for that dog with vac at that time = another 3 years cover

I can't follow this at all first you are saying it doesn't matter how many antibodies there are then you are saying a sufficient number will neutralise a vaccination
You have said yourself the measurement of antibodies does not give a true indication of the real level of immunity so I remain unconvinced that there is a way of measuring and predicting how cover will be remaining for a further 3 years.  As far as I can see we have research that tells us the vast majority of dogs will remain covered for the anticipated length of time, some may be covered for more but as we cannot predict which these are the best bet is to vaccinate to the minimum time suggested.  Alongside of this we have convincing research that there are very few problems with this regime.  But this has been discussed many times, nothing has convinced the BVA of a better way of ensuring our dogs remain at their healthiest so I think you have little chance of convincing me :)

>I can't follow this at all first you are saying it doesn't matter how many antibodies there are then you are saying a sufficient number will neutralise a vaccination.

Only in respect of a 3 yr vaccine covering for a further period of 3 years.  Whatever the number of antibodies at that given point of time, the vac should still do what it says it will, the dog should be covered for a further 3 years.  A vac being neutralised does not mean the dog is not covered, it just means the max immune response has been reached already at that point in time.  Bear in mind that if the dog is harbouring the disease and receives a vaccination for that disease, the challenge could be too great.  But we won't know without a titre test. :-D

Me...(acts all innocent).... trying to convince you Isabel, never...:-D  :-D

>Me...(acts all innocent).... trying to convince you Isabel, never...

Mmmmmm, as you say, never! :D

:-D :-D

>strong cellular immune response 3 years earlier.

To be honest, that's almost ancient history. It's the current response that matters.

There is no justification according to a spokesman of a vaccine manufacturer at a seminar I attended a couple of years ago.

Often it would seem Vets would tell people if their booster was late they would need a full course at a higher price, I suspect to ensure they kept coming on time to avoid an extra charge.

I think that is dishonest behaviour Brainless :(.  It also means they would be prepared to give a dog a double dose when it wasn't necessary.

Despite what this spokesman may have said the vets are merely following the advise on the manufacturers web site.  I have given the link above.

Not as far as parvo, distemper and hepatitis are concerned.

On the web site it says one or two vaccinations are required to create immunity.  That suggests to me some but not all components.

I think you are very well aware which vaccines require two doses Isabel and I've specifically excluded those in my query.  If you refer back to my original question, it was whether it is ever medically required to give an adult dog more than one dose of vaccine for parvo, distemper and hepatitis - a question you seem to be finding it very hard to answer. :) 

Just in case that I am misunderstanding that you are basing this on your comments re being told "a course will be given" has this actually happened to you or someone that you know of the exact components given?  If it has happened I think you would have to ask the vet why they thought it appropriate.

So you're still choosing not to answer Isabel - that's fine. :)

Why don't you ask the vet?

One of our vets did say that they vaccinated not only in accordance with Manu's instructions but also in line with the BSAVA's guidelines.  http://www.bsava.com/resources/vaccination/policyonvaccines/

In all the vac stuff I've read and I've done the topic to death, I've never come across anything that says it is necessary for an adult dog with an expired vac history to receive 2 vac for parvo, distemper and hepatitis (adeno).  But it's an accepted practice with many vets which makes me think they are working to specific guidelines.

One of mine came to us with an unknown vaccination history and got the full course twice.  This was 9 years ago, before I knew anything about vac. :rolleyes:

   

   

I'm not sure I would remember what happened 9 years ago :) but the simple answer is don't let your cover lapse :)

Oh I've got a good memory and both vacs are on his vac card. ;-)

>but the simple answer is don't let your cover lapse 

  Like I said 'he came to us' i.e. change of ownership and he had no vac card and an unknown vac history. I had no control over what vac he had before we got him, Isabel

Then, given that it was 9 years ago, before owners were so stressed about vaccination issues and the sense of risk had a difference emphasis I would imagine your vet just went through the routine to get him covered :)

But it still doesn't answer the question - why does a vet have to go through a routine to cover him by vac twice if it is not necessary? :-)

The daughter of some friends of ours qualified as a vet last year and she is of the opinion that vaccines are most vet practices 'bread and butter'!

Which is also what I believe :)

>are most vet practices 'bread and butter'!

I expect they are :) along with all the other regular procedures and treatments such as neutering, flea treatments, worming etc. but I don't see why it matters as long as our dogs benefit from these things.  If the vets didn't have a business we would not have vets and where would our animals be then?

I don't see why a dog should ever be given a double dose of anything when it isn't necessary.  Can't see how you feel this is acceptable Isabel. :(

Perhaps because, given it was nine years ago, he did not think there was any alternative to given the usual first vaccination routine.

I'm sure vets have always been aware that one dose is sufficient for parvo, distemper and hepatitis once maternal antibodies are no longer present.

I have no idea how much interest they took in the recommended routines in those days and I don't know myself whether it is necessary in adults, perhaps they have a different response level certainly I understand old dogs do not respond to boosters with as many antibodies.  Why don't you ask intervet as to what they actually specify when they say one or two injections will be necessary?

I have no idea how much interest they took in the recommended routines in those days

Doesn't say much about the vets in the days of yore does it ? :-D

Perhaps it says something about their sense of proportion in the old days :)