Vaccicheck

RE: Vaccicheck

Glenn Hodgson — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 19:39:05 GMT

I'll dig out lecture somepoint as our team will want to see it if making the lepto change in policy.

RE: Vaccicheck

Glenn Hodgson — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 19:37:51 GMT

Re leptospirosis.

I understand that protection that wanes fairly soon from 12 months, but still possible to boost for a year following with single jag for upto a year after becoming overdue. Is of course off license.

No reference. He seemed clever and was on the committee is all I've got.

RE: Vaccicheck

Lucy Fleming — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 19:14:36 GMT

[quote user="Glenn Hodgson"]He also told us effertive to single boost leptospirosis up to 1 year late. Only restart course it >2 years from last vaccine. [/quote]

That's interesting, did he have a source for that? My understanding was that duration of immunity from lepto vaccination was relatively poor. Does that not impact on needing to restart the vaccination if overdue?

RE: Vaccicheck

Glenn Hodgson — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 19:06:06 GMT

At North American vet Congress I burnt an hour of my life on this. one of the vaccine guide team gave thr lecture, with sponsorship from vaccicheck/cvc. He spoke sense. Main weakness is not clear how often to test.

Good news > new vaccine guidelines March/April will have a section on this. Ideal.

Cvc will do vaccicheck for £6 as an external lab. Just post em and don't get your hands dirty for that price unless you are doing loads. I arrange and RVN bleed appt one week then physical + Li + kc +/- dhp depending on result the following week.

He also told us effertive to single boost leptospirosis up to 1 year late. Only restart course it >2 years from last vaccine.

RE: Vaccicheck

ih220 — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:27:23 GMT

My memory of a CPD course about this was that the titres are more useful for some of the vaccine components than others, because cell-mediated immunity is more important for some of them, but I can't remember which ones were which!

RE: Vaccicheck

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:58:03 GMT

[quote user="Lucy Travers"] I think it's a waste of money and a risk, yet said client won't have it any other way and won't listen, one of those[/quote]'A fool and his money are soon parted'. So take their money act on the results but make a note in the clinical records that it is against your better judgement if you don't give a vaccine.

RE: Vaccicheck

Lucy Travers — Mon, 27 Feb 2017 20:34:59 GMT

I am using the vaccicheck tests for a client and I really don't believe they are accurate. They are time consuming to perform and rely on the users ability to differentiate a grey-scale. The results are very variable. I think it's a waste of money and a risk, yet said client won't have it any other way and won't listen, one of those!

RE: Vaccicheck

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:33:08 GMT

I was wondering about kennel cough transmission the other day as I saw seven dogs pile out if a dog walkers van . Must be ideal environment , all barking slobbering and whining in an enclosed space.

RE: Vaccicheck

Sarah Keir — Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:26:07 GMT

Thank you!

RE: Vaccicheck

Andrea Lynch — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 19:10:37 GMT

Re finding the documents, it is under member-only content at the bottom of the vaccination position statement page, which the link (https://www.bsava.com/Resources/Veterinary-resources/Position-statements/Vaccination) takes you to.

As Richard says, there are limitations to serological testing, as outlined in the document under the section "What are the limitations to using these tests?".

Relevant peer-reviewed publications comparing in-house tests are also outlined in the document, but as that info is in the public domain I can post them here, if anyone is keen:

DiGangi BA, Gray LK, Levy JK et al. (2011) Detection of protective antibody titers against feline panleukopaenia virus, feline herpesvirus-1, and feline calicivrus in shelter cats using a point-of-care ELISA. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 13, 912-918

Gray LK, Crawford PC, Levy JK et al. (2012) Comparison of two assays for the detection of antibodies against canine parvovirus and canine distemper virus in dogs admitted to a Florida animal shelter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 240, 1084-1087

Litster AL, Pressler B, Volpe A et al. (2012) Accuracy of a point-of-care ELISA test kit for predicting the presence of protective canine parvovirus and canine distemper virus antibody concentrations in dogs. The Veterinary Journal 193, 363-366

Mende K, Stuetzer B, Truyen U et al. (2014) Evaluation of an in-house dot enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect antibodies against feline panleukopaenia virus. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 16, 805-811

There are also references to unpublished data on the VacciCheck website, again in the public domain, so:

Mazar SS, Dubovi EJ, Lavi Y et al. (2009a) Sensitivity-specificity-accuracy and difference between positive and negative mean results of the ImmunoComb™ Canine VacciCheck antibody test kit for canine distemper, parvo and adenovirus. [Unpublished data]

Mazar SS, Dubovi EJ, Lavi Y et al. (2009b) Sensitivity-specificity-accuracy and difference between positive and negative mean results of the ImmunoComb™ Feline VacciCheck antibody test kit for feline calicivirus, rhinotracheitis and panleukopaenia. [Unpublished data]

There may well be more, but happy reading!!!

RE: Vaccicheck

Richard Carter — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:07:05 GMT

and again you are only testing exposure, not immunity. It makes no measure of cellular aspect, memory T cells etc

RE: Vaccicheck

Sarah Keir — Thu, 26 Jan 2017 21:10:58 GMT

OK, I've found the section under WSAVA and AAHA vaccine guidelines. Now need to see what evidence for the Vaccicheck itself as it is an ELISA test whereas the vaccine testing gold standards are Virus neutralisation or HIT.

RE: Vaccicheck

Sarah Keir — Thu, 26 Jan 2017 19:18:08 GMT

Interesting but I can't find the guide to pros and cons of serological testing - am I being blind?

I am finding a huge hole in the information in this area and what is available is poor quality and biased but being funded but the manufacturers of these test kits or the vaccine companies themselves.

RE: Vaccicheck

Andrea Lynch — Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:45:30 GMT

A summary of the four most recent sets of vaccination guidelines, as well as a guide to the pros and cons of serological testing for owners and vets, and an update on vaccination in the shelter environment are all available on the BSAVA members resources section if anyone's still looking.

https://www.bsava.com/Resources/Veterinary-resources/Position-statements/Vaccination

RE: Vaccicheck

Anthony Todd — Sat, 21 Jan 2017 12:18:15 GMT

[quote user="Glenn Hodgson"]We are currently reviewing vaccine/Vaccicheck offerings at the practice.[/quote]

When pretesting [maternal antibody etc.] was fashionable in the parvo epidemic we sent samples of the same blood to various labs and got staggeringly different titres from the various labs, as much as 4 or 5 dilutions, from memory, as well as some being at major variance from Glasgow, considered the bench mark.

I hope Vaccichek's results are accurate.

PS. Has the "over-vaccination" controversy been proved or disproved?

RE: Vaccicheck

Anthony Todd — Sat, 21 Jan 2017 11:27:20 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]I thought all vaccines had to pass challenge studies? I appreciate they are done with small numbers of dogs, but the work has been done.[/quote]

Beware that some vaccines are only "challenged" against the vaccine virus and not street virus for starters, so you could vaccinate a dog with rinderpest virus, calling it parvo and retest against the same virus. [totally ineffective against street challenge] and get a "satisfactory" result.....

RE: Vaccicheck

Bob Russell — Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:12:11 GMT

We have had a significant increase in KC cases in the last couple of months or so. For a few years cases have been sporadic and fairly mild.

The nastiest KC's might be worth considering distemper as a differential!

Despite being interested in the new Merial dog vaccine it is disappointing to find the small boosters are L3 only and there is no Pi fraction available except in the full booster.

Will therefore make life complicated by continuing to use Versican PiL4 for the interim boosters.

RE: Vaccicheck

grumpyoldman — Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:45:41 GMT

Every 3 years . If they think lepto maybe a potential problem , working terriers etc , every 6 months. Been doing that since 2005. Parvo ever present in unvaccinated puppies and municipal kennels. At the same incidence/frequency it always was. Its more about bad people being skanky poor environments stress and intercurrent parasites/Bacterial loads . We are getting some very nasty kennel coughs progressing to polyserositis vasculitis pleurisy etc so considering going annual with the PI3 again, as that seems to be the problem or trigger factor rather than BB .Difficult to get it (PI3)on its own though.

RE: Vaccicheck

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 20 Jan 2017 10:49:55 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I think the idea that compulsory microchipping was for animal welfare is fanciful. I suspect it is more about trying to identify the people making vast sums from puppy dealing and paying no tax![/quote]It is to identify the owners of aggressive dangerous dogs in order to prosecute them. The problem is that the owners of those dogs are the ones who won't have them chipped anyway so it is rather self-defeating and responsible dog owners end up with the expense of chipping. Clearly it is a good idea they should have them chipped but it is another example of misguided legislation.

In answer to Sarah's question my answer is no. But I agree with Michael only would stick with the full booster every 3 years lepto only annually in between protocol.

RE: Vaccicheck

Bob Russell — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:22:23 GMT

I think the idea that compulsory microchipping was for animal welfare is fanciful. I suspect it is more about trying to identify the people making vast sums from puppy dealing and paying no tax!

The PETS travel rules were for human health reasons not the travelling pet. I doubt the government gives a toss about animal welfare!

Too cynical?

RE: Vaccicheck

Michael Woodhouse — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:50:45 GMT

I thought all vaccines had to pass challenge studies? I appreciate they are done with small numbers of dogs, but the work has been done.

My worry with any of these alternative tests would be no work exists (that I am aware of) showing a level of antibody to be protective. Therefore a test that generates a meaningless result is a pointless test. I've explained that to a few people and they've always seen sense and got on with the vaccine.

Over-vaccination doesn't exist in this country (they do very different things in America). My dogs get a full booster every year, and I wouldn't dream of doing less.

I've seen the consequences of under vaccination too many times (lots of lepto in older dogs vaccinated as puppies, and parvo). Simply there is no doubt in my mind that the vaccine eventually goes on to lead to a susceptible animal.

Not having the booster invalidates some insurance policies. It's a basic component of good management, I'd rather see that made compulsory than microchipping.

RE: Vaccicheck

Sarah Keir — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:46:03 GMT

Anyone got any information about VacciCheck?

Is the test it's self any good?

Is it any better or worse than what external labs (e.g. IDEXX) offer?

Are titres (against distempter, hepatitis and parvovirus) protective? WSAVA seems to suggest they are.

RE: Vaccicheck

Bob Russell — Fri, 09 Sep 2016 17:34:41 GMT

I have little difficulty persuading or justifying regular vaccination in line with WSAVA guidelines. Full boosters every 3-4 years and Lepto annually.

It is what I do with my dogs and happily do this irrespective of the data sheets as long as it is a half decent vaccine.

RE: Vaccicheck

Richard Carter — Fri, 09 Sep 2016 15:59:08 GMT

also what repeatability/ reliability do you set by the standard of the test. My feeling is that if it was worth the effort, other manufacturers would have produced similar and as you say - it only tests the circulating antibody level which is not known to have any correlation to immunity - merely exposure to previous disease or vaccine.

RE: Vaccicheck

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 09 Sep 2016 15:33:16 GMT

[quote user="Glenn Hodgson"]My understanding, which may well be dated, is that titre results may not be correlated closely enough to immunity to give me comfort not to vaccinate a dog for a further year. [/quote]Your understanding may be dated but so is the technology. AFAIA most of these test procedures still use Haemagglutination Inhibition (HI) technology which may not give a true representation of the protective level of immunity when compared to the Neutralising antibody (Nt) test and many dogs would probably fail a challenge study. Sadly many vaccine companies use the HI test to licence their products and conveniently turn a blind eye to the results of Nt testing.

I am happy to be corrected if this is no longer the case.