Bravecto Plus contains fluralaner (280 mg/ml), an ectoparasiticide which provides systemic activity against ticks (lxodes ricinus) and fleas (Ctenocephalides felis), and moxidectin (14 mg/ml), an endoparasiticide which provides systemic activity against a range of internal worms, including heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis), intestinal roundworm and hookworm.
Bravecto Plus is applied topically using the "Twist'n'Use" pipette. Once applied, the product kills ticks and fleas for 12 weeks, while also treating intestinal roundworm and hookworm and preventing heartworm disease for eight weeks.
Bravecto Plus can also be used as part of a treatment strategy for flea allergy dermatitis.
Bravecto was first launched in 2014 as a chewable tablet for dogs. In 2016 Bravecto spot-on was launched as a topical solution for dogs and cats. More than 80 million doses of Bravecto have been sold in 72 countries since 2014.
Amanda Melvin, marketing manager, at MSD Animal Health, said: "We are pleased to introduce the latest innovation in feline parasite protection to the Bravecto family."
For more information, refer to the summary of product characteristics or contact your MSD account manager.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that in 2018, when Dr Dyson was employed as Head of Clinical Orthopaedics at the Animal Health Trust (AHT), she completed a research project: ‘Influence of rider: horse body weight ratios on equine welfare and performance – a pilot study’, for which she had previously been given the go-ahead by the AHT’s Clinical Research Ethics Committee. The results of the study were then submitted to the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications and Research for publication.
After peer-reviewing the project paper at the request of Journal Editor Karen Overall, Dr Matthew Parker, a Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Pharmacology at the University of Portsmouth, was concerned by the lack of a Home Office licence and asked for details of the licence or an explanation of why the project didn’t need one, and for the paper to be re-submitted.
In reply, Dr Dyson then emailed Ms Overall saying: “We have a former Home Office Inspector on our AHT Ethical Committee and two current licence holders (Named Veterinary Surgeons) who are fully conversant with the current legislation ... I also sought informal advice from a current Inspector. All were fully aware of the protocols to be employed and gave me assurance that in their opinion Home Office approval would not be required”.
Ms Overall then asked Dr Dyson to obtain a letter from the Home Office to support this position.
On 24 December 2018, Dr Dyson sent Ms Overall a letter purportedly from a Home Office Inspector called Dr Butler who, she explained, had advised her during the planning phase of the project. In the letter, the fictitious Dr Butler confirmed that their advice was sought for the project and that in their opinion, a Home Office Licence was not required.
Ms Overall then sent the letter to Dr Parker for further review, who decided to contact Dr Martin Whiting, Head of Operations at the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) to ask if he knew of Dr Butler.
Dr Whiting confirmed that the Home Office had no record of employing a Dr Butler as an Inspector and that they were in the process of making further inquiries into the matter.
After Dr Whiting’s reply was forwarded to Dr Dyson, she replied to him saying that she thought the studies’ procedures did not meet the criteria for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), but that this was questioned by peer reviewers.
She said that her decision to send Dr Butler’s letter was one that she would ‘eternally regret’ and that she was ‘an inherently honest person’.
She explained that she was under a huge amount of pressure in her personal and professional life and that she was ‘fully aware that [she] acted completely inappropriately and she requested the incident be overlooked’.
In March 2019, Dr Dyson sent a letter to William Reynolds, Head of the Home Office ASRU, in which she expressed remorse for writing the letter. Mr Reynolds subsequently raised a concern with the RCVS about Dr Dyson’s alleged behaviour.
Dr Jane Downes, who chaired the Disciplinary Committee, and spoke on its behalf, said: “The Committee heard from Dr Dyson that she had no recollection of several events detailed in the charge, including writing the letter from Dr Butler and sending the email to Ms Overall which contained Dr Butler’s letter. She accepted that the letter was dishonest and that it should not have been sent. However, she also claimed that, as she could not remember writing the letter, she did not act dishonestly.
The Committee heard testimonials from several witnesses who held Dr Dyson in high regard, including colleagues from the AHT, who attested to her integrity.
However, there were many dubious claims made by Dr Dyson throughout the hearing, including that the Home Office Inspector that she referenced as ‘my friendly inspector’ was someone who could have given informed consent to a project as Dr Dyson confirmed that she had met the individual briefly, around two and a half years ago at a drinks reception.
In reaching its decisions, the Committee considered Dr Dyson’s previously impeccable character, the written and verbal testimonies from witnesses. They also considered that during the hearing, Dr Dyson explained that at the time she fabricated the letter, she was under a lot of work and personal pressures, including managing a workload amidst colleagues’ resigning or going on maternity leave and it being the anniversary of her dog having to be humanely destroyed.
However, it did not accept Dr Dyson’s claims that she had amnesia at this time, and considered that she had not owned up to her wrongdoing until it was discovered. Although Dr Dyson maintained her actions were not pre-meditated, the Committee considered that, in the case of the forged letter, a certain amount of planning and careful thought was involved. The Committee believed that Dr Dyson knew what she was doing at the time, but acknowledged she may subsequently have blanked out what she did.
The Committee found all but one of the allegations proved and confirmed that it “was satisfied that the writing and sending of that letter was the culmination of a course of dishonest conduct.”
Committee Chair Dr Downes said: “In assessing [the evidence of] Dr Dyson the Committee took into account the difficulty faced by any Respondent appearing before their Regulator and also the various interruptions occasioned by issues which had to be dealt with during her evidence. Whilst [Dr Dyson is] undoubtedly highly qualified and highly respected, the Committee nevertheless considered her evidence lacked credibility and was not reliable.”
The Committee found that Dr Dyson’s conduct had breached parts of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Dr Downes continued: “The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and [was] not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon Dr Dyson and discredit upon the profession.
"For whatever reason, Dr Dyson chose not to respond to Ms Overall’s email on 30th November 2018 in an honest and straightforward way. Instead, she lied about the makeup of the AHT Ethical Committee in order to cloak her response with authority.
"She also lied about having received advice from a current Inspector for the same reason. In the Committee’s view, she made a conscious decision to provide a dishonest response. She no doubt believed that would be the end of the matter.
"When that did not work, she lied further in the email to her co-author, Andrew Hemmings, claiming to have a letter from her friendly Inspector. When that too did not work, she impersonated a Home Office Inspector in creating the ‘Dr Butler letter’.
"She then added a false declaration to the manuscript, which she subsequently submitted to the Journal along with an email containing yet further lies. That was all done in a blatant and wilful attempt to deceive Ms Overall ... into believing the contents of the correspondence to be true, that confirmation a Home Office Licence was not required had been obtained and all was therefore well with the submitted manuscript.
"There was no rush, or urgency to have the paper published and the actions were not done in a moment of panic. No doubt she had not planned the entire course of events in advance, but instead reacted to each new obstacle that came her way, but her overall course of dishonest conduct spanned over three weeks.
“The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Dyson of any decision to remove her from the Register but had to weigh her interests with those of the public.
"In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, as detailed above, Dr Dyson’s undoubted distinguished international career and reputation and the need to act proportionally.
"However, for all the reasons given above, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register."
The VMD's ruling sets a chilling precedent for the curtailment of free speech by a Government body.
The ruling came to light after VetSurgeon.org published an independent video news report relating to the launch of Bravecto Injectable, a new yearly flea treatment for dogs.
The film was neither paid for nor commissioned by the manufacturer, and nor did the maker exercise editorial control over its content.
The film was clearly labelled for and aimed at veterinary professionals, and its intent was not to promote the sale or supply of a prescription medicine, but rather to inform vets and nurses about the new product, albeit in an enthusiastic manner.
It was therefore not an advertisement, but journalism.
The Dictatorship nevertheless argued that it defines any social media content that mentions the brand name of a prescription veterinary medicine and which does not give a balanced overview of all the other treatment options for a given condition, as an advertisement.
This, it said, is regardless of whether content is created by the manufacturer or supplier of drug to promote sales of their product, or any member of the public or journalist who just wants to talk about or report on a prescription medicine publicly without any intent to promote sales.
The Dictatorship's position is that any such content can only appear in spaces dedicated to the appropriate audiences.
Notwithstanding the fact that all of VetSurgeon.org's social media channels are dedicated to the appropriate audiences, it leaves us in the almost laughable position where, according to the VMD, the BBC is allowed to report about powerful prescription medicines for humans in a way that inevitably promotes their supply, but VetSurgeon.org cannot report the launch of ... wait for it ... a flea treatment.
However the VMD then shared its incontinent interpretation of the law in a series of emails in which it was unable to provide a consistent definition of where it would allow content about prescription veterinary medicines to be published.
It first claimed (without any supporting evidence of any law to this effect), that:
"... it would need to be on a closed page which only followers could view would require active confirmation of the follower’s professional status before allowing access."
However, it swiftly backtracked, presumably realising that this definition would require Vet Times to remove most of its content from public view, including actual advertisements for veterinary prescription medicines published by the manufacturer.
When pressed, the VMD changed tack to a rather looser definition:
"Regulation 11(3) of the VMR does allow you to advertise POM-V products at vets and vet nurses, however to ensure this wouldn’t also be considered as advertising to the general public, it would need to be in a closed space, separate from the general public and directed at veterinary healthcare professionals. For example, on a website, or closed social media group."
However, it then presumably realised that Vet Times would still have to remove most of its content because it is not a closed space, and loosened its definition further still.
"Please note that, where an advertisement for POM-V or POM-VPS veterinary medicine appears in a space dedicated to the appropriate audiences this would not be a breach of Regulation 11(1)(a) due to Regulation 11(3) and Regulation 11(5)."
Clearly the Dictatorship was making it up as it went along.
Nevertheless, it threatened VetSurgeon.org that it would contact TikTok and demand removal of the film.
So what does this matter?
Two reasons.
Firstly, it may just be a report about a flea treatment, but there is an important principle at stake here: it is simply not acceptable for the Government to censor free speech about medicines by journalists or members of the public.
This, you would think, is so blatantly obvious that it calls into question the overall competence of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.
Secondly, the ruling also demonstrates the VMD's backward-looking, Canute-like view of the world we now live in.
People talk and social media is awash with information about prescription veterinary medicines; just try typing 'Bravecto Injectable' into TikTok.
As we all know much of what you find online is false.
Fighting misinformation online is an unwinnable fight.
So perhaps instead, the VMD should promote the dissemination of accurate information in order to counter the misinformation.
Bear in mind, it is only the VMD's interpretation of the law which dictates that a manufacturer cannot publish information which mentions a brand name or give a balanced overview of all treatment options because it would promote the supply or prescription of a veterinary medicine.
It could equally well be argued that manufacturers publishing strictly factual information, ie devoid of hyperbole, would NOT be intended to promote the supply or prescription, but instead to counter false information and provide owners with information which time-poor vets are not always able to.
That would be a more pragmatic approach which would do far more good than trying to censor independent journalists and the public.
The first change has been made to paragraph 1.6 which now advises general practitioners to check whether the vet they are referring a case to is on the RCVS Specialist or Advanced Practitioner list, explaining the difference to the client and what sets them apart from other vets who might be prepared to accept a referral.
Also, practitioners who accept a referral should provide information to the referrer about the experience and status of those likely to be responsible for the case.
The guidance about conflicts of interest in paragraph 1.7 has also been amended such that referring surgeons should tell clients if they are referring their case to a practice owned by the same group.
There is new guidance about how vets and nurses talk about referral practitioners, with the new advice being to focus on accepted terms such as 'RCVS Specialist' and 'RCVS Advanced Practitioner', and avoid more general terms like 'referral surgeon' or 'consultant' to avoid confusion or implying that individuals hold more qualifications than they do.
Lastly, there is new guidance that vets may only use the name 'Specialist' in the name of their practice where there is genuine and meaningful involvement, and oversight, in case management by at least one RCVS specialist in all disciplines where any clinical services are offered under the business name.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/code-of-professional-conduct-for-veterinary-surgeons/supporting-guidance/referrals-and-second-opinions/
Dechra says the combination of triamcinolone acetonide and salicylic acid works to provide effective symptomatic treatment, particularly for certain types of otitis externa that are not caused by a bacterial or yeast infection, such as flare ups caused by allergies.
Dechra Brand Manager Carol Morgan said: "Otitis externa is a condition that causes inflammation of the external ear canal and it can have a debilitating effect on cats and dogs.
"Recicort is a moderately potent steroid with an anti-inflammatory and vasoconstrictive action that works by suppressing the inflammatory response and the symptoms of various disorders often associated with itching. It doesn’t contain an antibiotic or antimycotic so it won’t contribute to antimicrobial resistance either.
"This prescription-only treatment is an important addition to our dermatology portfolio for veterinary professionals who are looking for a suite of highly effective and cost effective treatments."
Recicort is available in 20 ml bottles. For more information visit: www.dechra.co.uk
Mrs Grecko faced two charges.
The first was that she got a nurse colleague to order griseofulvin, a prescription-only antifungal medication, knowing that it was for human use, rather than legitimate veterinary use.
It was also alleged that she then caused a student veterinary nurse to record the order in the name of another veterinary surgeon, who was not involved in the order or prescription of the medication, and falsely record that it was for Mrs Grecko’s dog.
The second charge was that she had acted dishonestly and misleadingly, as the medication was, in fact, intended for use by her husband.
At the outset of the hearing, Mrs Grecko admitted she had asked her RVN colleague to order the medication and for her SVN colleague to record that the medication was for her dog and that doing this was dishonest and misleading.
Mrs Grecko accepted that these admitted charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
She denied asking an SVN to record it under the name of another veterinary surgeon.
However, the Committee heard from two eye-witnesses who testified consistently that Mrs Grecko had told her SVN colleague to record the medication under another vet's name, and from another witness who testified that Mrs Grecko had made a similar admission.
It therefore found it proven that she had asked her SVN colleague to make a false record, that it was dishonest and misleading, and that together, the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee considered that Mrs Grecko’s conduct had breached her obligations as a veterinary surgeon to respect the proper protections that were in place for the control of prescription-only medications.
"She had committed a serious abuse of her position in using the fact that she could obtain medications by virtue of her profession to circumvent the protections.
"She had been prepared to involve others in the course of the conduct.
"In addition, Mrs Grecko had been prepared to engage in an attempt to conceal her actions and falsify the clinical records in the process.
“Although it was acknowledged that Mrs Grecko may have been subject to some conflicting demands, being affected by her husband’s interests and may have felt a pressure to act, the Committee considered that she had completely failed to acknowledge and respect her overriding professional responsibilities.”
The Committee considered that the offence was a serious one, taking into account the abuse of position and pre-meditated and dishonest conduct.
The Committee also took into account previous adverse findings against Mrs Grecko from 2011, which involved misconduct of a very similar nature, which meant that they could not accept her argument that she had learnt her lesson, and also meant that, in the Committee’s judgement, she presented a significant risk of further repeated errors of judgement and dishonest conduct.
Mr Morris added: “Further, the Committee considered that members of the public would be very concerned to learn that, having once been reprimanded for her previous dishonest conduct, Mrs Grecko had repeated her behaviour.
“It [the Committee] concluded that this rendered Mrs Grecko’s disgraceful conduct in a professional respect incompatible with continued registration and no lesser sanction than removal from the Register would be sufficient to protect the wider public interest in maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper professional standards.”
Mrs Grecko now has 28 days from being informed of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
VetSurgeon.org has seen copies of correspondence from IVC which claims that its Pet Health Club has built up goodwill amongst the group's customers, and that the use of the term by other practices risks confusing the public and taking unfair advantage of the reputation built up by IVC.
One wonders which bright spark at IVC thought this was a good idea.
Bullying small independent businesses is not a great look, particularly in a caring profession such as this.
Besides which, where is the evidence that other practices using the term 'Pet Health Club' has any impact on IVC's business whatsoever?
After all, pet health plans, or clubs, are inexorably linked to the practice providing the subscription services they offer.
Nobody goes online looking for which practice offers the best pet health club, like they were choosing between the Hurlingham and the Groucho. It's something offered to the existing clients of a practice.
So there is literally zero chance of confusion over who is providing the service.
And on what planet does IVC think a client of another practice might be presented with an option to join a pet health club and think: "Oh this is that wonderfully smashy nicey club I have seen elsewhere. I must join it."
Ironically, given the CMA investigation, IVC's Pet Health Club website is opaque about which practice group (or practice) provides its own service.
How it is therefore possible to argue that it has built up a reputation is also unclear.
Finally, if you Google "Pet Health Club", you'll see that IVC already dominates the search results in a way that makes it vanishingly unlikely that its service is going to be confused with anyone else's.
This would all be laughable, except it's not if you're one of the 20 or 30 practices that VetSurgeon.org hears have been on the receiving end of a threatening letter.
Natalie Morris-Webb MRCVS from Malthouse Veterinary Group, one of the affected practices, said: “I was stunned to receive a letter from IVC claiming that our Pet Health Club, which we launched in 2017, is an infringement under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and that we’re using a registered word mark without the consent of the proprietor.
“It’s a ubiquitous term that lots of practices use and it quickly became apparent that these letters have been sent out far and wide.
"There are practices that have been using the term for well over 10 years and to rebrand will be very expensive and time-consuming for what are mostly small businesses.
“We’ve had some conversation with IVC’s representatives to discuss how else we can resolve the situation and whether such a heavy-handed approach is really necessary, because surely IVC don’t want a legal spat with so many independent businesses.
“It’s also very worrying to receive aggressive legal threats from a huge organisation, so it was reassuring to hear from other practices that are facing the same dilemma, and we want to extend our support to others in the same position.
"We’ve therefore launched We Are Spartacus where any practices that are affected can register their details.
"We can then work together and decide how to move forward as a collective."
Hopefully, there will be no need.
Hopefully, someone higher up the chain at IVC will stop this madness, admit that it called this one wrong and immediately write to the businesses it has already contacted, apologise profusely and withdraw its threat.
But if the company persists and wins it'll probably be a pyrrhic victory.
After all, pet health plans have largely been sold on the back of routine flea, worm and tick control, the need for which is starting to be questioned by the profession, particularly in the light of research pointing to the possible harm to other species, but also because of the greater focus on the cost of veterinary care.
Filavac is licensed for use in rabbits within the UK and provides 12 month's duration of immunity, allowing it to fit into annual vaccination and healthcare plans.
Filavac can be administered from 10 weeks of age with a seven-day onset of immunity. It is presented in 5 x 0.5ml single dose packs.
Nicki Glen, marketing project manager for Filavac at Ceva Animal Health said: "Rabbits are increasingly popular as household pets and should therefore become an important focus for veterinary practices.
"We are delighted to have taken on the exclusive distribution of Filavac to provide veterinary practices with a competitively-priced and convenient vaccination for both RHDV 1 and 2."
For further information, contact your local Ceva Animal Health territory.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against a Hampshire-based veterinary surgeon who first registered in 1950, following his undertakings firstly to request removal from the RCVS Register and secondly never apply to be restored to it.
At yesterday's hearing, William Bamber Cartmell of Wickham, near Fareham, was due to face seven heads of charge containing "serious allegations" relating to his provision of expert evidence in a case involving the RSPCA; his certification, following clinical examination, of the health of two horses for a prospective purchaser; and his clinical competence during treatment of a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel called Milly.
However, before the Committee considered any of the facts behind these charges - all of which Mr Cartmell denied - the College submitted an application suggesting that they should be adjourned, providing that Mr Cartmell agreed to the three undertakings (the third being not to act as an expert witness in litigation in future). The College also suggested that, should Mr Cartmell subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Committee should resume its consideration of the charges, along with his breach of the undertakings.
The Committee was advised that none of the complainants in the case - which could have exceeded four weeks and incurred considerable costs - dissented from the proposed course of action. It also heard that Mr Cartmell had recently retired from his practice, which was now closed and his clients dispersed to other practices. In over 60 years of practising, there had been no adverse disciplinary findings against him.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "Having carefully considered the matters put before us, we have concluded that it would not be in the public interest to refuse the College's application and proceed with this case.
"We are satisfied that the undertakings offered by the Respondent protect the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession. [These undertakings also] go beyond any sanction that this Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing where any of the heads of charge were found proven.
"We do not consider that it would be proportionate for either party to incur the substantial costs of a contested hearing. We have also paid particular regard to the age of the Respondent and to his length of service without any adverse findings having been made against him."
In the trial, published in the Equine Veterinary Journal, synovitis was induced in the right intercarpal joint of 24 horses by intra‐articular injection of 0.5 ng lipopolysaccharide (LPS) of Escherichia coli. After intra‐articular challenge, the nutraceuticals resulted in significantly lower synovial fluid TP, TNCC and PGE 2 compared with placebo, leading the authors to conclude that: "The preventive administration of these nutraceuticals showed anti‐inflammatory effects in this validated synovitis model."
Dr Maarten Oosterlinck DVM, PhD, Dipl. ECVS, one of the authors of the study, said: "Nutraceuticals are often used in the management of osteoarthritis, which is a common cause of chronic lameness in horses but their 'curative' efficacy remains controversial and the quality of the relevant studies is generally low. We set out to evaluate ArtiTec in a well-designed and controlled study. Our research shows that ArtiTec significantly decreased joint inflammation and could be useful in preventing the onset of arthritis."
Cavalor also points to a further field trial of the product by vets in Belgium which showed that it improved lameness in 74% of cases.²
ArtiTec contains glucosamine, MSM, chondroitin, hyaluronic acid, blackcurrant extract, feverfew and pineapple, turmeric root and Boswellia Serrata.
Lieselot Hamerlinck, managing partner at Cavalor said: "Joint supplements account for 34% of the equine supplement market so we know how important these products are to horse owners. Cavalor ArtiTec is the result of an extensive research and development programme and its anti-inflammatory effect has been documented in both scientific studies and a field trial. It can also be used in combination with our other joint supplements, Arti Matrix and Arti Base."
For more information, contact Zebra Products on 01352 763350.
References
In what researchers say was the largest study of its type to date, dogs with Cushing’s syndrome were identified from the electronic patient records of practices participating in the UK VetCompass programme during 2016.
Both pre-existing and incident cases of Cushing’s syndrome during 2016 were included to estimate the one-year period prevalence.
Available demographic data for study dogs included date of birth, sex, neuter status, breed and mean lifetime bodyweight above 18 months.
Multivariable binary logistic regression modelling was used to assess the associations between risk factors and Cushing’s syndrome.
Dr Imogen Schofield, corresponding author for the paper, said: “A total of 1527 Cushing’s syndrome cases were identified in this study, from a population of 905,544 dogs in 2016.
"The estimated one-year period prevalence for Cushing’s syndrome in dogs was 0.17% (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.07).
“The findings of this study provide evidence from primary-care clinical records on the epidemiology of Cushing’s syndrome which can help primary-care veterinarians during diagnosis.
"Seven breeds were associated with increased odds of Cushing’s syndrome; the Bichon frise (OR=6.17, 95% CI 4.22 to 9.00), Border terrier (5.40, 95% CI 3.66 to 7.97), miniature schnauzer (3.05, 95% CI 1.67 to 5.57), Lhasa apso (2.52, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.28), Yorkshire terrier (1.82, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.70), Staffordshire bull terrier (1.52, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.13) and Jack Russell terrier (1.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.08).
"Four breeds were at decreased odds of Cushing’s syndrome: the Golden retriever (0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.98), Labrador retriever (0.3, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.54), Border collie (0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.78) and cocker spaniel (0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.90), which could help vets in practice lower their index of suspicion for Cushing’s syndrome for these breeds.
"Dogs with a bodyweight higher than their breed-sex mean had 1.44 times the odds of Cushing’s syndrome than those within their breed mean (95% CI 1.17 to 1.78), suggesting either overweight dogs or larger examples of the breed are at increased risk of this condition, or that dogs with Cushing’s syndrome gain weight.”
Nicola Di Girolamo, Editor of JSAP, said: “When we look at risk factor analysis in previous studies, the generalisability of their findings to the general population of dogs in the UK have typically been limited due to studying dogs from referral populations or due to a lack of multivariable analysis.
"The findings of this study help to address that knowledge gap, supporting some of the risk factors previously reported, and by identifying novel associations, such as that in the Border terrier.
"Awareness of breeds with high or low risk could help to enhance the index of suspicion for veterinary surgeons working in primary-care practice where Cushing’s syndrome is predominantly diagnosed and managed.”
Reference
Photo: BSAVA
Lowestoft vet Frank Eric Ainsworth MRCVS has received a severe reprimand and warning as to future conduct from the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.
The charge against Mr Ainsworth was that in July 2013, he failed to provide adequate care to Ash, a dog presented to him whilst he was working as a locum at Pinebank Veterinary Surgery in Kent.
Specifically, the charge was that having diagnosed Ash with heatstroke, Mr Ainsworth failed to admit the dog to the practice for urgent treatment, failed to transfer the dog to another practice, failed to suggest euthanasia, and failed to offer the owner, Mr McMahon, adequate treatment advice.
On presentation to Mr Ainsworth at Pinebank between 7am and 8am, Ash was collapsed and his symptoms included diarrhoea, vomiting, lethargy and a high temperature.
On being told that Ash had heatstroke and was unlikely to survive, Mr McMahon asked Mr Ainsworth whether anything could be done to save him, but was told the practice did not have the necessary treatment facilities. Mr McMahon was advised to take Ash home and use cold running water, ice packs and fans to reduce his temperature.
After Mr McMahon took Ash home and showered him in cold water, his wife telephoned Pinebank to complain. The practice receptionist, Ms Baldock, confirmed to her that there was nothing they could do.
Mrs McMahon asked if her husband could take Ash to Pinebank's out-of-hours service provider, but was told this was not an option.
Eventually, Mr McMahon took Ash to an alternative practice, Sandhole Vets, where the dog was treated by the practice owner, Mr Johnson. Mr McMahon was told that Ash was unlikely to survive and that, if there was no improvement, he should consider euthanasia. Around 45 minutes after the treatment was started, Ash suffered seizures and died shortly thereafter.
Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he did not think Pinebank had adequate facilities to treat a dog of Ash's size for heatstroke and was unaware that it had a hosepipe and watering can. In addition, he did not believe it would be practical and effective to reduce Ash's temperature with wet towels and considered that the main priority of reducing the temperature would be best done at home.
Mr Ainsworth told the Committee that he intended to make enquiries about referring Ash to another practice once his temperature had been reduced at home. He was about to search the internet for alternative practices when he overheard his colleague's phone conversation with Mrs McMahon and assumed that Ash had been taken to another practice.
Mr Ainsworth accepted that he did not discuss euthanasia with Mr McMahon, which he said he would have done at a later stage if Ash's condition did not improve. He also accepted that he made no further enquiries of Ms Baldock and did not telephone Mr McMahon to check if Ash had gone to another practice.
Before reaching its decision the Committee considered, in detail, the testimony of a number of witnesses and experts for both the College and Mr Ainsworth. It rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that his treatment plan was to follow up his investigations into Ash's case or contact Mr McMahon by telephone. It concluded that, if such a plan had been in place, he would have informed Mr McMahon of his intentions.
The Committee also rejected Mr Ainsworth's evidence that he had overheard the conversation between Ms Baldock and Mrs McMahon. It said it was not credible that, if he had heard the call, that he would not have made further enquiries.
The Committee found the charges proven. For example, it concluded that Mr Ainsworth should have made further enquiries about the treatment facilities available at the practice for cooling Ash and, if he felt that they were inadequate, should have advised Mr McMahon to take the dog to another practice. It also felt it was inappropriate for Mr Ainsworth to have sent Ash home to the care of his owners while in a critical condition without first seeking the option of referral.
Furthermore, the Committee felt that Mr Ainsworth should have given Mr McMahon the full range of treatment options available, including oxygen and fluids as Ash was in a collapsed state, before he left the practice, as well as discussing euthanasia.
However, the Committee did accept, on the basis of Mr Ainsworth's clinical records, that he had given advice to Mr McMahon on how Ash could be cooled down at home, although it felt the advice could have been more detailed.
In deciding its sanction for Mr Ainsworth the Committee accepted that his actions were not motivated by indifference to animal welfare but that, on this occasion, there was a serious lapse of judgment.
The Committee also considered that this was a single incident on Mr Ainsworth's first day at the practice and that he had been confronted with an emergency situation before the practice had opened. It accepted that Mr Ainsworth had an unblemished career over the past 38 years and that he had produced character references from other veterinary surgeons attesting his integrity, skill and conscientiousness.
Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has concluded that the sanction proportionate to Mr Ainsworth's conduct is one of severe reprimand and warning as to his future conduct."
She added: "The Committee considers that veterinary surgeons are required to be proactive in their duty of care and refer cases when they do not have the ability to deal with cases appropriately."
The Committee also recommended that Mr Ainsworth should undertake, in the next 12 months, continuing professional development with an emphasis on emergency and critical care and client communication.
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The study, Understanding How Dogs Age: Longitudinal Analysis of Markers of Inflammation, Immune Function, and Oxidative Stress, was published this week in the Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences1. It followed 80 dogs for over 10 years, from adulthood till end of life, measuring a number of parameters to track their aging process.
Findings included:
Mars says it is the largest prospective study to investigate aging in dogs and offers new insight into the ways in which we may be able to support dogs in their old age.
Janet Alexander, Senior Research Scientist at the Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrition and lead author of the study said: "We now know that dogs suffer from low level inflammation and cellular damage as they get older, similar to humans. The study identified multiple targets for potential therapeutic intervention to defend against or delay the impact of aging and the new insights can help us to provide more effective life stage support."
Mars has also released the results of its Aging Pets Ownership Survey2, conducted last month, which found that:
230 vets took part in the survey1.
75% reported that they see rabbits affected by dental disease regularly.
GI stasis came in second place at 54%, followed by obesity at 52%.
They were followed by respiratory tract infections (21%) mobility disorders (19%), urinary disease (10%) and pododermatitis (10%).
Purina says the three most common diseases are all intrinsically linked to the feeding of poor-quality diets and despite substantial improvements in nutritional knowledge among rabbit owners, 57% of rabbits are still being fed inappropriately.
Claire Hamblion, Supreme’s Marketing Director said: “Owners want to do the right thing, but all too often lack of awareness about nutrition leads to poor health and wellbeing.
"The great news is that progress is being made.
"Well over half of UK rabbit owners now take their pet to the vet at least once a year2, and 79% of vets say that nutritional knowledge among rabbit owners has significantly improved.
"We’re keen to build on this and are proud to offer not just high-quality species-specific nutrition but a range of educational materials as well as free samples to help veterinary teams engage with owners”.
Pfizer Animal Health has announced that its Dental Leadership programme is now available on-line at www.dental-leadership.co.uk.
The course is offered under the 'Pfizer Academy' umbrella and has previously been available in hard copy for over five years. Almost 1000 vets and nurses have tackled the course since inception and it is anticipated that the on-line version will prove to be equally successful.
Annelies Hall is the AntirobeTM Product Manager at Pfizer Animal Health. She said: "High quality CPD can sometimes be difficult to fit into a busy schedule. We recognised that the open learning format was attractive to vets and nurses because it was flexible and could be fitted around a demanding job. The teaching of dentistry to students has become much higher profile lately but many older graduates feel it is an area where they can learn more, and due to the prevalence of dental disease, can immediately put their learning into action."
A separate course is available for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses and the course contributes 10 hours of CPD time. Learning is assessed through an on-line multiple choice examination and a certificate can be printed off when the pass mark is achieved. The course was developed by Pfizer Animal Health in association with Norman Johnston BVM&S, Dipl.AVDC, Dipl.EVDC, MRCVS, American & European Specialist in Veterinary Dentistry and covers topics such as anatomy, preventative treatment, periodontal disease, the dental workplace, equipment, radiography, economics and marketing veterinary dentistry.
Lisa Milella, President of the British Veterinary Dental Association said: "Dentistry is one of the most important aspects of veterinary healthcare alongside vaccination and medical care. Dental procedures should contribute 25% of the daily operating list in every small animal practice but unfortunately less than 5% of clients realise that their pet has a problem, leaving the onus on their veterinary practice to pro-actively identify dental disease."
The course is free of charge and those wishing to enrol are asked to visit www.dental-leadership.co.uk. For any further enquiries call 0870 0056554. The dental leadership website also contains details of the 2009 Pfizer Dental Bursary for veterinary nurses wishing to study for the BVNA Certificate in Dentistry.
Virtual Recall's products include vaccination, neutering, appointment and healthcheck reminders, customer feedback, telemedicine and post operation surveys, and healthcare advice communications.
Jamie Brannan, Senior Vice President UK, Ireland and Nordics said: "This is an exciting opportunity for Zoetis to add a new solution for veterinarians with an innovative service that will support clinics in increasing their level of compliance, education and engagement at the pet owner level.
"As we expand our comprehensive offering across the continuum of care for veterinary clinics, Virtual Recall will enhance the level of pet owner services that can be offered to their pet owner customers in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
“Our studies have shown that veterinary customers are keen to reduce administrative workload and find new ways to engage with pet owners. We believe that Virtual Recall will achieve that, helping to educate and improve pet owner compliance and adding financial benefits to the veterinary practice.”
Jamie Crittall, Co-founder, Virtual Recall said: “As a company we’ve always been restless – constantly looking at new ways and developing new technologies in which we can drive animal healthcare compliance. Zoetis’ thoroughly well-earned reputation for always putting their customers first – wanting them to thrive and be successful – combined with a commitment to enhance the lives of people and animals, is infectious. It is a very exciting new chapter for Virtual Recall and fellow co-founder Charlie Barton and I are thrilled to continue at the helm."
The Daily Mail has today published an interview with the 'nurse' who worked undercover at Medivet for tonight's Panorama documentary: It shouldn't happen at a vets (tonight, BBC1 9pm).
Looks like the communications departments at the RCVS, BVA and BSAVA will be run off their feet today. So far, the following radio stations and newspapers have run stories:
BBC Online has published a longer trailer for the programme here.BBC Radio 4 Today - interview with the mole, followed by Sandy Trees (in the recording of the entire programme, it starts at 1:09:05 on the iPlayer timeline)BBC Radio 5 live - interview with Jacquie Molyneux (not available on iPlayer)BBC Radio Tees - 7:50am interview with Bill Reilly (BVA)BBC Radio Somerset - 8:00am interview with Bill Reilly (BVA)BBC Radio Shropshire - 8:40am interview with Bill Reilly (BVA)Aberdeen Press & JournalBBC TwitterChina News (in Chinese)BBC Radio 2 - Jeremy Vine interviews Steve Leonard (starts at 1:10:56 on the iPlayer timeline. Continues through at least a couple of songs. At one point, Jeremy Vine says there are lots of reports coming into the show of good vets too!).dogmagazine.netThe Guardian (TV Review)
I'll be updating the list of news reports over the course of the day.
And reaction to the story elsewhere on the Internet ...
UK Labradoodle forumDigital SpyYahoo AnswersPet forumshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31MgikMLneU (well worth watching, this one).Horse & Hound forums
Incidentally, in case anyone is asked for an interview, BVA has produced an advice sheet on the subject for its members, plus a briefing document. The association has also published a response to the Daily Mail story on its website.
IDEXX Laboratories has unveiled the Angio Detect Test, a world-first diagnostic test which allows veterinary surgeons to detect the lungworm Angiostrongylus vasorum in clinic, with almost immediate results.
Until now, vets have had to rely on the Baermann method to detect A. vasorum, which can present with varied and confusing clinical symptoms. However, the Baermann test has had limited use because it requires faecal samples from the same dog to be collected on three successive days, and the results can be compromised by the intermittent shedding of larvae. IDEXX says this leads many experts to believe that A. vasorum is widely under-diagnosed.
The Angio Detect Test works by detecting an A. vasorum specific antigen in the animal's blood. The test can be used in-clinic using a serum or plasma sample and returns results within 15 minutes. Depending on results, you can offer a licensed treatment or talk about a preventative treatment regime and refer the client to a source of further information, such as lungworm.co.uk.
IDEXX suggests that because the test is inexpensive, it can be used for the diagnosis of A. vasorum suspect dogs and in those with non-specific signs. Indeed, in market research1, 94% of veterinary surgeons said they would use the test in dogs presenting with A. vasorum signs.
In endemic areas, it can be considered as an additional pre-surgical measure to avoid complications associated with coagulopathy.
This test comes at a time when concern about A. vasorum has been growing. A survey of 150 veterinary practices across the UK in January 2013 recorded a total of 952 suspected cases (157 laboratory confirmed), with 81 deaths thought to have been caused by the parasite2. The Angio Detect Test should help to improve the picture, as confirmed cases are logged onto incidence maps so vets can check prevalence in their area.
Ian Wright from the European Scientific Counsel Companion Animal Parasites (ESCCAP) said: "In recent years, there has been spread of the A. vasorum parasite across the UK with cases now being reported as far north as Scotland. It was initially thought this may be due to increased reporting rather than genuine spread, but this pattern in the UK has been mirrored in many other countries and would appear to represent a true emergence of disease. Although the cause of this spread is not known for certain, increasing slug and snail numbers combined with increased pet movement and urbanisation of foxes are all likely to have played a significant part. These factors make A. vasorum a year round rather than seasonal threat.
"Any new diagnostic test that can quickly confirm a case of lungworm is a fantastic development and will help save dogs' lives and give us even greater insight into the extent of the spread of the parasite."
Graham Bilbrough, veterinary surgeon and European medical affairs manager for IDEXX Laboratories, said: "Up until now, testing methods have been time consuming to the client and costly, so the launch of the Angio Detect Test, together with recognition of clinical signs and early treatment will really help to prevent A. vasorum related fatalities in dogs. We also know that some dogs have subclinical angiostrongylosis, and this new test will help uncover this hidden problem before the surgical blade makes a cut. Difficulties in diagnosis have also meant that the full prevalence of A. vasorum in the UK has been relatively unknown. This test will allow veterinary surgeons to quickly identify the parasite and treat it if found. They shouldn't forget that other dogs in the household and the area are also at particular risk from the parasite."
The Angio Detect Test is available now in the UK, and will be launched in other European countries later this year. For more information on the test, visit www.idexx.co.uk/angio or speak to your IDEXX sales representative. For further information and free CPD on A. vasorum and other parasites, visit www.jungleforvets.co.uk or speak to your Bayer territory manager.
The College says that until now, veterinary research has largely ignored lipomas because they are rarely referred for specialist treatment.
For the study, the RVC identified 2765 lipoma cases from a population of 384,284 dogs in its VetCompass Programme (which collects anonymised clinical data on dogs under primary veterinary care in the UK) in 2013.
The study found that 1 in 50 dogs are affected by lipomas each year and that Springer Spaniels, Dobermann Pinschers, Weimaraners and Labrador Retrievers are the most susceptible to lipomas (5-8% prevalence).
The study also found:
At least one lipoma was diagnosed in 1.94% of dogs during the single year of the study.
Individual dogs with an adult bodyweight that was equal or higher than their breed/sex average had 1.96 times the odds of lipoma.
As dogs age, their odds of getting lipoma increase. Dogs aged between 9-12 years were over 17 times more likely to be diagnosed with lipoma compared to dogs aged 3-6 years old.
Neutered dogs had higher risk.
Insured dogs had 1.78 times the odds of diagnosis.
Purebred dogs had 1.16 times the odds compared with crossbred dogs.
Dr Lynda Rutherford, Clinician and Lecturer in Small Animal Surgery at the RVC, said: "This paper has supported the theory that lipomas are more common in older, overweight dogs.
"This information is useful as it can be discussed with owners and used as another reason to keep pet dog’s weight under control. It also provides a useful insight into how common lipomas are within the UK dog population."
O'NEILL, D. G., CORAH, C. H., CHURCH, D. B., BRODBELT, D. C. & RUTHERFORD, L. 2018. Lipoma in dogs under primary veterinary care in the UK: prevalence and breed associations. Canine Genetics and Epidemiology, 5, 9. https://cgejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40575-018-0065-9
Virbac says phenobarbital is the only medication licensed to treat both idiopathic and structural epilepsy, and that it provides clinical improvement in 85% of cases.1
Epirepress is offered in the conventional 60mg tablet strength, which can be split into two or four so dosing can be tailored to the needs of individual patients.
EpiRepress is the first epilepsy treatment to be offered in easy-to-dispense boxes of 30 tablets, removing the need for the practice team to count out tablets from larger pots – a process which can now be done without the need to handle individual tablets. Virbac says the smaller box size also makes the purchase price more manageable for clients.
Virbac has produced a range of client and marketing materials to support the use of EpiRepress, including an epilepsy diary, a folder to keep the diary and extra materials in one safe place, and a diagnostic and treatment poster for practices.
Virbac Product Manager Sarah Dixon MRCVS said: "The prevalence of canine epilepsy means that most practices are seeing at least one case a week.2 Phenobarbital is the mainstay treatment for canine epilepsy and, in developing our product, we wanted to offer practices and owners an easier, more accurate and more cost-effective solution.1 EpiRepress, with its divisible 60mg tablets and smaller box size, is the result and we are delighted to be able to launch it.
"We are focused on supporting practices and owners with compliance so have also developed a novel practice support package for EpiRepress. It offers the latest guidance to both vet practices and pet owners on the diagnosis, treatment and management of this challenging disease."
The first charge was that in April 2016, having examined a horse named Alfie on behalf of his owner, Mr Villar gave an opinion to the potential buyers but failed to make it clear that he had not undertaken a pre-purchase examination; failed to declare to the buyer that he had a conflict of interest with regard to the owner; and, failed to explain the pre-purchase examination process to the buyers.
The second charge was that, in July 2016, during a telephone conversation with the buyer, Mr Villar was dishonest and failed to provide clear and accurate information because he told the buyers that he had only been asked to trot Alfie to check he was sound when he had, in fact, carried out a more substantial examination.
The third charge was that Mr Villar had offered to either the owner or the buyer, or both, that he would prepare a veterinary insurance certificate in relation to Alfie when he knew he did not have sufficient records (eg the microchip or passport number) to do so.
The fourth charge was that Mr Villar failed to respond adequately to communications from the buyers about Alfie.
The Committee found that Mr Villar had not in fact carried out a pre purchase examination (“PPE”) and referred to guidance from the British Equine Veterinary Association which identified that pre-purchase examinations are carried out on behalf of buyers. It noted that in this case, Mr Villar had undertaken an examination on behalf of the owner. Accordingly, it did not find that Mr Villar had failed to explain the PPE process to the potential buyers.
However, the Committee did find that Mr Villar had failed to declare that he had a conflict of interest in regards to Alfie’s owner. The Committee said that Mr Villar should have told the buyer that he had been acting on behalf of the owner and was not a neutral party in the potential sale.
The Committee found all aspects of the second charge not proven, on the basis that it was not satisfied so as to be sure that Mr Villar had told the potential buyers that he had only been asked to trot Alfie and check that he was sound.
The Committee found all aspects of the third charge proven on the basis that, in an email sent to the College in March 2016, Mr Villar admitted that he did not have the sufficient records to prepare a veterinary insurance certificate.
The Committee found the fourth charge not proven on the basis that the buyers were not his clients. The Committee therefore concluded that he had no obligation to respond to them, and indeed could not do so in certain respects in order to preserve the confidentiality of his client.
The Committee then determined that the charges found proven, when taken individually or in combination, did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The following mitigating factors were present in this case: the circumstances of the incident, the fact that there was no premeditation, the fact that he was requested by his client to advance an opinion to [the buyers] concerning Alfie and that his ill judgement was on the spur of the moment and the fact that he had no financial gain. These are all important factors. Likewise, the fact that he did not know that the [buyers] regarded him as their pre-purchase examination vet is an important matter.
"The respondent’s conduct was clearly against the principles of behaviour articulated by Mr Morley [who acted as an expert witness for the College] in his expert report and in his evidence. Nevertheless, the Committee does not find that in the particular circumstances of this case, namely being asked to speak to a potential purchaser without warning and without being made aware of the contractual arrangements which had been made between the respondent and [the owner], the respondent should not properly be the subject of a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
NexGard Combo is a systemic isoxazoline-based endectocide designed specifically for cats which contains esafoxolaner, eprinomectin and praziquantel.
The new product provides one month’s protection against fleas and five week's protection against the most common tick on cats, Ixodes ricinus. It also treats the roundworms, Toxocara cati and Toxascaris leonina, hookworms, tapeworms and ear mites, against the last of which Nexgard Combo provides 97.2 to 99.9% efficacy following one treatment1.
NexGard Combo can be used in kittens from eight weeks of age and 0.8 kg in weight, making it suitable for most kittens at first vaccination. It is available in two pack sizes: small, for kittens weighing 0.8 - 2.5kg and large, for adult cats weighing 2.5 - 7.5kg. For cats weighing 7.5kg or over, an appropriate combination of applicators should be used.
Jackie Sterratt, senior brand manager at Boehringer Ingelheim, said: “We’re excited to add to the successful NexGard range and to help vets treat more cats. We know only one in two cats is treated for fleas2 and cats are only wormed on average three times per year3 despite all cats being at risk of fleas and most cats requiring monthly roundworming treatment2, 3, so there is a big opportunity to increase treatment rates and compliance. As the only product on the market to treat fleas, ticks, ear mites, roundworms and tapeworms, NexGard Combo offers a simple solution for cats at risk of multiple parasites."
To support the launch Boehringer has produced a marketing package which includes a kitten support pack, client leaflets, dispensing envelope and parasite risk checker.
For further information, contact your local Boehringer Ingelheim territory manager or phone 01344 746957 (UK) or 01 291 3985 (Ireland).
Vetemex has a 56-day broached shelf life and uses benzyl alcohol as the excipient, rather than metacresol.
Virbac points to a study in which benzyl alcohol achieved a 78% reduction in pain score immediately post-injection, and a 53% reduction in pain score in the 2-minute period post-injection, compared to Metacresol1.
Vetemex is presented in a 20ml bottle and is available from the veterinary wholesalers now.
Claire Lewis, Product Manager at Virbac said: "Vetemex is a valuable addition to the already extensive Virbac portfolio. We are pleased to be able to offer vets this new, and more comfortable to administer, antiemetic option."
For more information on Vetemex, speak to your Virbac Territory Manager.
Mr Cortes had pleaded guilty to the offences in January 2017 at Cardiff Crown Court. In February 2017, he was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for two years with a requirement to complete unpaid work and rehabilitation activity and a victim surcharge. Following Mr Cortes’ conviction the matters were referred to the RCVS and Mr Cortes was subsequently referred to the Disciplinary Committee.
Mr Cortes did not attend at the Disciplinary Committee hearing and was not represented. The Disciplinary Committee, being satisfied that Mr Cortes had been served with the Notice of Inquiry and having considered and taken into account a number of separate factors, decided that it would be in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in his absence.
The Committee considered whether Mr Cortes’ convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s possession of this material which has led to his convictions was so reprehensible as to merit the description disgraceful. It considers that by possessing this material, the respondent has brought disgrace on the profession and will have undermined confidence in it. It therefore finds that the convictions have rendered the respondent unfit to practise veterinary surgery."
In considering the sanction the Committee decided that removing Mr Cortes from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the only available option. Ms Karve added: "The Committee has determined that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession. It therefore directs the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name… from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons."
The robot is used to show how well potential new products or prototypes are performing when it comes to plaque removal.
Built using a scan of a real canine mouth and jaw, the 3D-printed model replicates the normal mastication action of a dog and the pressures it might exert on a dental chew. This, the company says, allows it to test the effectiveness of different product materials and shapes more rapidly and then refine its products at a much earlier stage in the research and development process.
Dr Phil McGenity, Global Pet Oral Care Technical Leader, Mars Petcare said the robot allows them to observe the effects of a dental chew much more easily than in a real dog: "Typically, it’s very difficult to look inside the mouth of a dog while it's chewing, but this robot allows us to assess products more rapidly than we’ve ever been able to in the past. It means we can continually improve the texture and materials in our products."
Mars uses the robot to compare different textures and shapes of products by analysing how much plaque is removed from the robot’s teeth.
Phil said: "We apply a plaque mimic to the surface of the teeth, so we can observe how effectively different prototypes or textures remove this mimic. We take before and after images and, using computer analysis, we can accurately determine what percentage of plaque has been removed.
"This robot has been extremely beneficial for us, to see just how visible the effects of our products, such as DentaStix Daily Oral Care, are."
Veterinary dentist John Robinson said: "One of the key benefits of the chewing robot is it allows a preliminary testing stage before you move into clinical trials. Clinical trials are lengthy and expensive, but the chewing robot means the product can be refined and improved to ensure optimum effectiveness.
"Then you can move into the full clinical trial knowing it has already had extensive texture and plaque removal analysis."
He added: "New research developments such as the chewing robot are vital to improving home dental care in dogs and giving vets the confidence to recommend dental chews to dog owners. Although brushing is regarded as the gold standard, vets need to work more closely with owners to improve homecare via the use of dental products."
Mars Petcare has produced a short report explaining each stage its product development and testing. You can download the report on the WALTHAM website: https://www.waltham.com/waltham-research/oral-health-research/oral-health-r-d/