Eprinex Multi contains eprinomectin and is effective against the adult stages of the major gutworm species affecting sheep and goats, and the lungworm Dictyocaulus filaria.
Merial highlights two studies which show how treatment can overcome the productivity impact of a parasite burden. In the first, dairy ewes showed a significant increase in milk yield following treatment with Eprinex Multi compared to untreated animals.1
The second study, which looked at interactions between nutrition and gastrointestinal parasites in French dairy goats concluded that subclinical parasite infections induced a persistent decrease in milk yield, ranging from 2.5 to 10%.2
Sioned Timothy, Technical Manager, UK & ROI, Merial Animal Health said: "Merial recognises the need for sustainable, effective disease prevention strategies both to optimise the health and welfare of livestock, and to protect their productivity.
"The small dairy ruminant sector in the UK is small but growing: the registration of Eprinex Multi allows us to communicate and work with this industry to promote best practice in parasite control.
"Eprinex Multi brings a new active ingredient to the sheep and goat wormer market and provides vets and farmers with an additional tool to use alongside good management practices, as part of an integrated parasite control strategy.
"It has the advantage of zero milk withhold, which allows dairy animals to be treated at the optimal time without the concern of lost milk.
"Merial values this very important sector of the livestock industry and is excited to offer this new development to the marketplace. Eprinex Pour On has proven itself in the cattle sector over the last two decades, and the registration of Eprinex Multi with indications for use in goats and sheep alongside cattle offers new opportunities for managing animal health, welfare and production.
References
The aim of the webinar is to help bring everyone together to support one another and review how the profession can continue to protect animal health and welfare whilst also helping to slow the pandemic.
Subjects covered will include:
The webinar starts at noon tomorrow. It runs for one hour and there will be time for questions. The webinar will be recorded, so those who miss it will be able to watch it later.
https://www.thewebinarvet.com/webinar/covid-19-and-the-veterinary-profession
The survey was conducted after it was found that only 10% of job adverts on VetSurgeon.org and 16% on VetNurse.co.uk include an indication of the salary. By contrast, a quick analysis of the adverts on other leading job boards for professionals found that 66% of jobs advertised for doctors include salary details, 87% for human nurses, 64% for architects and 92% for computer programmers.
The survey received 1,147 responses: 524 from veterinary surgeons and 622 from veterinary nurses.
When asked how they would likely react to job advertisements seen online or in print:
61.5% of vets said they would read adverts which display a salary first (before those that don't)
51.5% of vets said they would respond to adverts which display the salary first (before those that don't).
21.9% of vets said they would ignore ads that don't show a salary.
Only 30.3% said they would consider the job adverts equally, regardless of whether or not they displayed a salary.
Respondents were then asked what impression it gave them if a practice advertised a job without stating a salary. 57% of vets said 'negative', 41.4% said 'neutral' and 1.3% said 'positive'.
The final question asked how annoying it is to read job adverts which only describe a salary using words like 'competitive' or 'generous'.
9.5% of vets said: 'Not at all annoying"
37.7% said 'Mildly irritating'
52.7% said 'Very annoying. It's a waste of my time to ring and find my definition of 'competitive' is not the same as the advertiser's.'
Interestingly, veterinary nurses were even more salary conscious, being much more likely to prioritise adverts which give salary details and ignore those that don't (full results of the nurse survey here).
The bottom line is that if you spend £99 to advertise a job on VetSurgeon and you don't advertise the salary, you're effectively throwing away £22 there and then. Might as well just set fire to a £20 note. Even if you think that is a price worth paying (and let's not forget that it'll be a considerably more expensive mistake if you advertise elsewhere), you then have to think of the monetary value of having sent someone away with a negative impression of your practice, or worse still if you described the salary as 'competitive' or 'generous'.
It is worth highlighting that on VetSurgeon and VetNurse, employers are invited to advertise the 'Minimum Offer', described to jobseekers as the starting point for discussions, or a salary range. Both are designed to give jobseekers something to go on, whilst still allowing room for negotiation.
To help employers get the most out of their recruitment adverts on VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk, we're sharing a special training video, which you can watch below. If nothing else, a quick reminder of what you need to include in the advert:
Prevomax 10 mg/ml uses benzyl alcohol as a preservative, as opposed to the other injectable formulation of maropitant (Cerenia) which uses metacresol as the preservative.
Dechra says benzyl alcohol causes less injection site pain than metacresol.
Prevomax comes in a 20 ml bottle and has a 56-day broached shelf life.
Dechra Brand Manager Claire Morgan said: "We are delighted to launch Prevomax to the UK and IE market.
"Human clinical studies have shown that an injection containing benzyl alcohol causes less pain than an injection preserved with metacresol.
"Prevomax is particularly useful for the treatment and prevention of nausea induced by chemotherapy and for treatment of vomiting, in combination with other supportive measures."
Dechra is inviting veterinary professionals to share their experience of using Prevomax for a chance to win a £100 Amazon gift card.
Entries must be received by February 28 2018 and should be submitted at www.dechra.co.uk/prevomax
The company points to a study which showed that cats treated Bravecto Plus showed no visible signs of mites at 14 days and 100% efficacy was confirmed at 28 days1. This, says the company, means that Bravecto Plus now gives 12 week control of fleas and ticks, eight week prevention of heartworm disease, treatment of roundworm and hookworm, and treatment of ear mites.
Hannah Newbury, Companion Animal Technical Lead at MSD Animal Health said: "With 1 in 4 cats in the Big Flea Project study having fleas2, we can conclude that pet owner compliance to parasite prevention is currently poor.
"This new licence is an important development for vets and cat owners, offering greater convenience, while helping improve flea and tick compliance. Bravecto Plus builds on the qualities of Bravecto and offers vets and cat owners another tool in the fight against an even broader range of potentially harmful parasites.
"Research by MSD Animal Health shows that 82% of cat owners believe that the ideal flea and tick treatment lasts longer than 2 months3 and vets can offer their cat owners this and more with BRAVECTO PLUS due to its 12 week duration of activity4.
For further information contact your MSD Animal Health Account Manager.
With regard to all types of complementary and alternative medicine, the statement says that the College expects MsRCVS to offer treatments that "are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles."
The new position statement states very clearly that homeopathy falls below this benchmark: "Homeopathy exists without a recognised body of evidence for its use. Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles."
The full statement reads:
RCVS POSITION ON COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINES"We have recently been asked questions about complementary and alternative medicines and treatments in general and homeopathy in particular.
"We would like to highlight our commitment to promoting the advancement of veterinary medicine upon sound scientific principles and to re-iterate the fundamental obligation upon our members as practitioners within a science-based profession which is to make animal welfare their first consideration.
"In fulfilling this obligation, we expect that treatments offered by veterinary surgeons are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles. Veterinary surgeons should not make unproven claims about any treatments, including prophylactic treatments.
"Homeopathy exists without a recognised body of evidence for its use. Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles. In order to protect animal welfare, we regard such treatments as being complementary rather than alternative to treatments for which there is a recognised evidence base or which are based in sound scientific principles. It is vital to protect the welfare of animals committed to the care of the veterinary profession and the public’s confidence in the profession that any treatments not underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles do not delay or replace those that do."
RCVS President Professor Stephen May said: "It is fair to say that debates on either side of this issue have been passionate and this too has been reflected in the debates that we have had amongst Council members as to how to best articulate the College’s position on complementary and alternative medicines.
"What we have is a statement that reinforces the evidence-based and sound scientific foundations of our profession and our commitment to put animal health and welfare at the forefront of all we do.
"I am very pleased that the overwhelming majority of Council members agreed with this statement and that the College has a firm and clear position on this important topic."
In a statement issued this morning, the College explained that a review carried out after tea yesterday afternoon concluded that in the post pandemic world, most of its staff will continue to work from home. The need for office space is therefore limited to three meeting rooms and a kitchenette.
VetSurgeon.org understands that as a result, negotiations are already well advanced between the College and the owners of Ugland House in the Cayman Islands (pictured right) over the sale of one floor of the building, which is also home to 20,000 companies based on the tax-efficient island.
RCVS spokesperson Flora Olip said: “This move makes all sorts of sense. It represents a considerable cost-saving over our London premises and it puts the College at the very centre of the global veterinary community.
RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett was last seen browsing the beachwear section of www.harrods.com.
Alabama rot, properly known as Cutaneous and Renal Glomerular Vasculopathy (CRGV) first emerged in Alabama in the 1980s, hence the nickname. The lack of understanding on how it spreads or can be stopped has led to high fatality rates for dogs who develop it.
The reason for its sudden appearance in the UK six years ago also remains a mystery.
The disease causes small clots in blood vessels, which eventually result in skin ulcers, tissue damage, and kidney failure in many cases.
Many theories have been put forward about the cause; anything from E. coli-produced toxins to parasites and bacteria. However, without knowing the exact source it is impossible to develop an effective cure.
The treatment offered by QMHA is known as Therapeutic Plasma Exchange (TPE) or ‘plasmapheresis.’ This method involves filtering all the patient’s blood so that toxic substances, including whatever causes CRGV, are removed. Once filtered, the blood is returned to the patient.
The development of this treatment was made possible by the discovery of the similarities between Alabama Rot in dogs and thrombotic microangiopathy in humans, which is also treated with plasma exchange.
The QMHA academics reported that two out of six dogs who underwent plasmapheresis made a full recovery.
The full findings of the research have been published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science1.
Dr Stefano Cortellini, an author of the study and Lecturer in Emergency and Critical Care at the RVC, said: "Despite the fact that only a third of dogs treated with TPE recovered from their disease, this is the first time that dogs so severely affected by CRGV have been reported to survive and so we remain optimistic that TPE may play an important role in the treatment of this deadly disease."
Reference
Metacam is the first NSAID to be licensed for use in guinea pigs, and with it come the first guidelines for appropriate pain relief in this species.
Molly Varga, BVetMed DZooMed MRCVS, RCVS Specialist in Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, said: "Guinea pigs have evolved to hide pain and once obvious signs are visible it often indicates that the animal is no longer coping and its welfare has potentially been compromised. Appropriate pain management in guinea pigs is therefore vital, particularly after soft tissue surgery and regardless of whether signs of pain are visible, to ensure an enhanced recovery and optimal welfare."
Boehringer says that although signs of pain can be difficult to identify in guinea pigs, there are a few which indicate that the patient needs assessment and treatment:
Grinding teeth (a slow steady grind of the molars, different from chattering)
Reluctant to move or walk
Shivers or quivers, can sometimes see rippling along the body
Sits hunched, with hair spiky
Whimpers
Loss of appetite
Breathing may be heavy and laboured
The company adds that as the only licensed NSAID for use in guinea pigs, Metacam 0.5 mg/ml oral suspension should be considered for use in all soft-tissue surgery cases in this species.
Alongside the launch of the new indication, Boehringer has produced:
An interactive online dosage calculator to help with quick dose calculations. The company says higher doses can be used based on clinical judgement, allowing for tailoring of doses to individual cases.
A dosing dish and syringe to help owners administer Metacam at home.
A series of expert short videos, supported and narrated by Zoo and Wildlife Medicine specialist Molly Varga. The video series includes a guide to recognising pain in guinea pigs, dosing regimes and an owner video for accurately administrating Metacam at home.
The dosage calculator and the expert videos are available at https://www.boehringer-academy.co.uk. The dosing dish and syringe can be ordered directly from your Boehringer Territory Manager.
So, after months of speculation, the Panorama documentary: It shouldn't happen at a vets' finally aired last night. Early reaction from most of the profession seems to be one of mild relief that by focussing so heavily on Medivet, the documentary has left everyone else more or less unscathed.
There's also a great deal of sympathy for those hard-working and professional vets and nurses who work at Medivet. They're the biggest losers in all of this, tarred by the indefensible behaviour of a very small number of colleagues, and by the very nature of most of the filming in the documentary (give me a fish-eye lapel camera, and I could make even Mother Theresa look like a crack dealer).
But can everyone else really sit back, think 'not my problem', 'sensationalist rubbish', or 'it'll blow over in a week' and move on?
If you consider only the more headline-grabbing elements of the documentary, any of those would be a reasonable position to take. But look beyond 'Vet Makes Fraudulent Insurance Claim', and it seems the producers might accidentally have hit upon some big challenges facing the profession. Might now be a good moment to reflect on and debate some of these issues?
The first story covered by the documentary was that of an owner who'd found their cat 'weeing blood', taken it to Medivet and been quoted £815.05 for a bank of tests. They'd left in disgust, and visited another practice. This one gave a diagnosis without tests, the bill for which came to 75 quid, including £28 worth of food.
Veterinary costs were a recurring theme throughout the documentary. At the start, Jeremy Vine pointed out the £20,000 lifetime cost of owning a dog, and the £15,000 cost of owning a cat. He said vet bills have trebled in a decade. Mid-way through the programme, the voice-over read: "Veterinary medicine is increasingly high tech, and increasingly expensive. The new generation of vets is taught that working up to an accurate diagnosis may involve extensive tests. More veterinary work means more costs. And later in the documentary, Alex Lee, the reporter, was said to have found evidence of two clients that had spent over £100,000 on their pets over a ten year period.
At the end of it all, the real issue is not about the disparity between one vet's bill and another's, but whether the profession is becoming over-qualified or over-equipped for the job, and consequently at risk of pricing itself out of the market.
Commenting on state-of-the-art care, Professor Innes from the University of Liverpool said in the programme: "We would never push clients into procedures that are unnecessary, but if people want to access the best healthcare for their pet, that's up to them."
Surely every pet owner wants to access the best healthcare for their pet? Of course, Professor Innes is right, there is a market for complex procedures and diagnostic tests. But there's a very fine line between 'pushing' a client into a procedure, and recommending a procedure (to someone who feels emotionally duty-bound to do the best for their cherished pet).
For me, it was ironically one of the Medivet staff who seemed to hit the nail on the head when she said: "The 'Medivet Way' is to work it up to find out why straight away, so... And people can't afford it now really, you know."
Is the word 'Medivet' in her quote interchangeable with a growing list of practices? Does something need to give? Is it time to call a halt to the development of increasingly complex procedures and diagnostic tests developed to save the life of what is, after all, just a cat or a dog?
Or is it a question of veterinary surgeons ceasing to recommend any particular treatment above a certain cost, and instead simply laying out the options available to the client: "Mrs Jones, you've got three options here. Option one is my best guess, and I might be wrong. Option two is my best guess plus these tests, which will help confirm whether I am right and will cost x. Option three is referral to the world's leading expert, who is based in Dallas, but that'll give time for the MRI on board the specially chartered 747". I'm being flippant, but my point is a serious one: as more expensive treatment and diagnostic options become available, so it becomes ever riskier recommending them, rather than simply informing the owner of their choices.
The next story was an important one too. It was the one where a student nurse and the unqualified reporter were tasked with catheterising a dog unsupervised. They struggled. As did the dog. Thanks to the hidden camera, and the reporter interjecting: 'What a nightmare', it made for dramatic TV. But as many have commented in the VetSurgeon forums, a difficult to catheterise dog is not exactly out of the ordinary. And who thinks this was the first time the procedure has been done by lay staff?
More interesting was the polar opposite interpretations of the law on this issue expressed by Medivet on the one hand, and Professor Sandy Trees for the RCVS on the other. In response to the question of whether a trainee should be placing a catheter, Jeremy Vine read from a statement in which Medivet insisted that everything it allows its trainees to do is legal, and that there was no definitive list of procedures that could be carried out by trainees. Two minutes later, and we had Professor Trees appearing to contradict Medivet's statement.
Then we see the reporter and a student nurse taking a blood sample from a cat, before the arrival of a vet. Medivet says: "This procedure was completely legal, normal and was carried out at the direction of a vet. This means that the vet does not have to be present at the time. [The tasks] were not illegal. The trainee veterinary nurses were properly trained and experienced. RCVS inspectors have never raised this as an issue, and it is common practice." But when Jeremy Vine then asked Professor Trees: "Would it be OK for a student veterinary nurse to take a blood sample before a vet arrived into the practice", the answer is no. When pressed: "So supervision means that the vet has to be in the building", Professor Trees hesitates before delivering his more ambiguous reply: 'I would say so, yes'.
How on earth did that happen? How did one of the biggest veterinary groups come to be at loggerheads with the regulator on TV? Remember that Medivet would have had some time to prepare its response, and presumably had it checked by a team of lawyers first. Professor Trees may or may not have had the luxury of as much warning. Still, if el Presidente himself cannot give more than a personal opinion in answer to such an important question, something is amiss. After all, people's careers are at stake here.
The issue here is whether regulation needs to become more prescriptive. For example, is it fair that the responsibility for defining precisely what is 'minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity)', and therefore able to be performed by a qualified veterinary nurse, currently rests with the individual veterinary surgeon. And if it comes to it, the only way the veterinary surgeon is going to know whether he or she made the right call is if and when it comes to be tested in court.
Talk about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Surely it is time now, particularly in the (like it or not) increasingly corporate and less personally accountable world we live in, for the profession and everyone in it to have clearer leadership in terms of what is and what is not acceptable.
I won't dwell on any of the other stories covered by the documentary, because I don't think any of them are individually revealing of very much.
A student nurse struck a dog. 'Walloped' according to the reporter; 'smacked' according to an onlooker. There's a difference. Either way, a difficult one to defend.
Then a member of staff (and I couldn't work out whether it was the vet or the nursing assistant) started playing with an anaesthetised kitten as if it were a puppet. That was damning for the lack of humanity it showed.
Next we saw a new grad trying to intubate a cat. For some reason, it didn't go as smoothly as it should. Some speculation in the VetSurgeon forums as to whether she applied the local anaesthetic correctly or not, but the cat was fine. Mistakes happen.
Next we saw a dog that had a condition which made it susceptible to cuts. A 'new girl' says she thinks she must have accidentally cut its pad as she closed the kennel door. Not the end of the world, except we then see the staff plotting to tell the owner that it happened before the dog arrived at the practice, and that they would need £13 worth of Fuciderm. Again, it isn't what you would call the crime of the century. But it was nevertheless a damning piece of film for the lack of honesty shown by the staff.
Then we had the case of the dodgy insurance claims, where the practice allegedly split what should have been one claim into three 'by accident', so that they could effectively increase the total amount the owner would be able to claim. Difficult to get really het up about this one. I mean, I know it's wrong. But it wasn't exactly in the same league as Lord Brocket taking the oxyacetylene torch to his car collection. And as far as I could see, the unwitting beneficiaries of this one were the dog and its owner. No, the real problem was that in the same breath as Medivet proclaimed its innocence, its employee was there in technicolor explaining exactly how and why the deed was done.
Guy Carter, one of the Medivet partners was next on the rack. The Panorama reporter alleged that he instructed staff to bill a client for a monitor that wasn't used. The company says it was. So it's their word against hers. Unfortunately, the company's word wasn't looking that good by this stage in the proceedings.
As I said earlier, these things don't individually tell anyone much. But collectively, I wonder whether they don't highlight another important issue, which is the apparent 'disconnect' (hate using the word like that, just can't think of a better alternative at this time of night) between what the public wants (i.e. a close, trusting relationship with an accountable James Herriot-type-figure, personified in the film by Bob Stevenson), and what the corporates can realistically deliver.
I was chatting about this with a locum vet this afternoon. His experience is that in small practices where the owner is present, there is always a better atmosphere. Staff take more pride in their work, and deliver a higher standard of care than in the corporates.
Isn't that really what the documentary showed? Yes, they were especially excruciating examples of how people behave when they don't have a real sense of ownership in a business. But isn't a lower, less personal standard of care an inevitable consequence of corporatisation?
Incidentally, my apologies for labelling Medivet a corporate rather than a partnership, but like it or not, that's the public perception of a chain.
Finally, the star of the show made his grand entrance. Kfir Segev, charged with recommending £2200 worth of MRI scan for a dog that was obviously dying. Now that is despicable. He's found guilty of unprofessional conduct, and struck off. I suppose 'vet commits fraud, is found out and punished' is not the stuff of which great documentaries are made, so Panorama tried to make something of the fact that he continued to work for 28 days whilst deciding whether to exercise his right to appeal. And? Perhaps sensing they still had a bit of a non-story on their hands, they tried to make an issue out of the fact that he'd continued to work as a practice manager after being struck off. It was all a bit lame, really.
Still, not as lame as the finale, which was the 'revelation' that Medivet collected blood from rescue dogs, in return for donations of food and supplies. Panorama claimed the blood was sold at a profit. Medivet claimed it is subsidised. Does anyone actually care either way?
Since the documentary was broadcast last night, Medivet has issued a further statement in which it does the honourable thing, and takes responsibility for everything it needed to. Medivet will recover from this. If the professionalism of the response is anything to go by, it will emerge stronger. Still, the big questions remain. How to address the spiralling costs that accompany the latest advances. Can the profession afford, any longer, to leave so much to the discretion of the individual, or is it time to demand a more prescriptive regulatory environment? And finally, how can the corporates deliver the kind of service that the public seems to want? Doubtless there will be some who'd like them to fail in this regard. But as we've just seen, it does nobody any favours if they are allowed to do so in a way that threatens to bring the whole profession into disrepute.
Osteopen (pentosan polysulphate sodium) is a semi-synthetic polymer which Chanelle says has anti-inflammatory properties which particularly benefit the cartilage and other components of synovial joints.
The company also says pentosan polysulphate sodium is capable of modifying the metabolism of the joint structures, leading to the production of the lubricating synovial fluid which in turn reduces pain and helps regenerate damaged joint components.
Chanelle advises that normally, a course of four subcutaneous injections is given with 5-7 days between each injection, with beneficial effects normally noticed after the second or third injection and the improvement usually continuing until after the last injection is given. The beneficial effects are usually maintained for a few months after the fourth injection. If some deterioration is noted in future, the course can be repeated, up to three times in a 12 month period.
Chanelle’s Head of Sales and Marketing Killian Gaffney said: "Osteopen is a very significant product launch for Chanelle to the UK and Irish markets, and the product will be the first alternative pentosan polysulphate sodium available."
He added: "The launch of Osteopen offers choice to the practitioner backed up by a thorough support package featuring vet and owner brochures, posters, pens and notepads."
Eurican Herpes is used to vaccinate pregnant bitches to prevent mortality, clinical signs and lesions in puppies from canine herpes virus infections acquired in the first few days of life, through passive immunity. It is the only canine herpes vaccine.
Humphrey Grimmett, Business Head for the pet prescription portfolio at Boehringer Ingelheim said: “We do understand how disruptive and frustrating it is when vaccines such as Eurican Herpes aren’t available to veterinary practices.
“We would like to reassure veterinary practices that we are doing everything we can behind the scenes to re-establish supply of Eurican Herpes, and we thank them for their support and patience.”
For further information, contact Boehringer’s Technical Services Team on 01344 746957 or email vetenquiries@boehringer-ingelheim.com.
The first survey, which was conducted by CM Research, found that male veterinary surgeons get paid more across all levels and roles
Based on 2016-17 salary data collected from 810 vets across the UK, the survey showed that while the average female partner earns £51,315, her male equivalent earns a pre-tax equivalent salary of £69,755 - a difference of £18,440 (36% more).
The survey also found that female full time vets earn an average £41,152 per year while their male colleagues earn £46,921 - a difference of almost £6,000 or 12%.
On average, female part time vets were found to be earning £1,707 less than their male equivalents - around 6%.
Female veterinary nurses also earn less than their male peers, with average salaries of £19,594 being almost £3,000 less than male nurses - a 13% difference.
The second survey was conducted by The Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS). It looked at data from 700 vets and 630 veterinary nurses in the UK and found a 19% difference between male and female veterinary surgeons' annual salaries, with men earning a median salary of £50,750 compared with women at £40,960.
When analysed by hourly rates (but not accounting for period qualified) rates for women were 18.6% lower (male vets had a median hourly rate of pay of £27.90, compared with £22.72 for females).
When salaries were examined by period qualified, a more complex picture emerged. While male full-time salaries are consistently higher, the differences are more pronounced at senior level.
For example, among vets qualified for up to 10 years hourly rates are broadly comparable. But there is a significant difference among vets qualified for 11 years or more, when the median hourly rate for female vets is £28.22 compared with £35.27 for male vets - a 20% difference.
Peter Brown, SPVS president elect said: "The picture would seem to reflect that seen in other professions where women start out on an equal footing with men, but fall behind as they get older. Unless we address those broader issues which militate against women’s career advancement, there is a risk that significant differences will persist."
Adele Waters, Editor of Vet Record said: "These findings clearly show that inequality is a reality for many women working in the veterinary profession day in and day out.
"If male vets get paid more, it follows that they are valued more highly, but why? There is no evidence to justify such a pay differential and there is a legal reason to remove it. The Equality Act 2010 says men and women in the same employment must receive equal pay for equal work."
"There is growing scrutiny on the gender pay divide across all employment sectors in the UK - and rightly so. Vet businesses must act now to resolve these unfair pay differentials so that future generations of veterinary professionals do not face discrimination."
The BVA says the results echo findings from its own surveys. Senior vice president, Gudrun Ravetz described it as "a cause for concern", urging more openness and transparency around pay and calling for "a system based on objective criteria, to ensure equal pay for equal value."
Coincidentally, Gudrun's comments come only four days after VetSurgeon Jobs and VetNurse Jobs announced a new move designed to bring greater transparency concerning salaries: allowing and encouraging veterinary employers to display the salary and benefits they offer as an integral part of their recruitment advertisements.
Photo: Portrait Of Male And Female Vets In Surgery. Shutterstock / Monkey Business Images.
Laxatract is indicated for the treatment of constipation and symptomatic treatment of diseases which require facilitated defecation such as partial obstructions.
The recommended dosage is 400 mg lactulose per kg bodyweight per day, which corresponds to 0.6 ml veterinary medicinal product per kg body weight per day. Approximately two to three days of treatment may be necessary before a treatment effect occurs (preferably divided into 2-3 doses over the day).
Laxatract is available in a 50 ml bottle complete with a 5 ml syringe for easy administration. It can be mixed with food or given directly into the mouth.
Dechra Brand Manager Carol Morgan said: "Cats and dogs may need to be treated for constipation for a number of reasons including intestinal atony after surgery, hairballs, or massive intestinal contents and Laxatract provides a safe and effective solution to facilitate that.
"Laxatract can also be used when facilitated defecation is required such as partial obstructions due to tumours and fractures, rectal diverticulum, proctitis and poisoning."
For more information visit: https://www.dechra.co.uk/new-from-dechra.
Daniella, a small animal and exotics vet who works at Parkvets in Kent and also chairs the BVA Ethics and Welfare Advisory Panel, phoned in to Nigel Farage's LBC radio show to point out, amongst other things, a predicted 300% shortfall in veterinary surgeons when we leave the EU.
A video of the skirmish went viral on Twitter, viewed 438,000 times at the time of writing. You can see the full video of the discussion below (starts at 1:22.08)
The company says that although some UK insurers are continuing to offer protection to existing policy holders, Agria is one of the few insurers to offer lifetime veterinary fee cover to new customers.
Insurance will be available to owners who have an exemption certificate.
Vicki Wentworth, Managing Director at Agria Pet Insurance, said: “We know that the last few months have been particularly difficult for owners of American XLBully dogs, and we are pleased to be able to reassure them that we can provide lifetime veterinary fee cover for their dog, so we can support them in prioritising their pet’s welfare”.
The company says that although it can provide cover for veterinary fees, it can't cover third party liability.
Agria is advising owners to contact an organisation such as Dogs Trust which can provide third party cover.
Following a trial at Newcastle Crown Court in April 2014, Mr Thompson - who according to the Guardian had at one point been tipped for the job of Chief Veterinary Officer - was convicted of the manslaughter of David Kochs at Mr Thompson’s flat during a crystal-meth-fuelled 'extreme' sadomasochistic gay sex session. He was also convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm (also on Mr Kochs) and possession of methylamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug, both offences occurring on the same night. Mr Thompson was subsequently sentenced to a total of fifteen years’ imprisonment.
Whilst the RCVS opened a case against Mr Thompson in February 2014, it only received confirmation from the Supreme Court of the final conclusion of his subsequent (and ultimately unsuccessful) appeals against his conviction and sentencing in October 2015. The Disciplinary Committee therefore served a Notice of Inquiry on Mr Thompson in November 2015.
Mr Thompson admitted the convictions but did not attend the hearing, due to his current imprisonment, nor was he represented at it; he also declined the opportunity to attend by video link. After due consideration, the Committee decided that the Notice of Inquiry had been properly served and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in Mr Thompson’s absence.
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Thompson had been convicted of the three offences listed in the charges and concluded that he was not fit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, its chairman Professor Alistair Barr said: “[We are] satisfied that the type and nature of [Mr Thompson’s] criminal conduct falls seriously below the standard expected of a member of the profession. [We have] noted that Mr Thompson recognises the disrepute his actions have brought on the profession ... and consider that [his] conduct is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
“In the circumstances, [we have] concluded that, in the public interest, there is only one proportionate sanction that could be imposed, namely the removal of Mr Thompson’s name from the Register.”
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
Duncan, an 85kg miniature horse, was first admitted to the Philip Leverhulme Equine Hospital in July this year for investigation of severe hind limb lameness. A CT scan revealed that Duncan had dislocated the left hip joint and damaged it irreparably.
Equine surgical specialist Dave Stack said: "Treatment options for this problem are very limited, especially with extensive damage to the head of the femur.
"I discussed Duncan’s predicament with two small animal surgical specialists, Professor Rob Pettitt and Andy Tomlinson, who agreed that performing a total hip replacement offered Duncan the best chance for recovery."
The procedure had been attempted in small ponies before, however, all known previous attempts had failed. The surgery required careful preparation and the combined knowledge of specialists in both small animal and equine surgery, as well as colleagues from the anaesthesia and internal medicine departments.
Working together, the teams were able to replace Duncan's left hip using implants designed for use in large dogs.
Equine Surgical Resident, Matthew Cullen said: “Although always complex, hip replacements are relatively common in dogs, so the experience of the small animal surgeons was absolutely vital as Duncan presented a highly unique challenge.
"Despite that he has made an excellent recovery and was able to walk and trot almost normally at his last check up!”
Duncan was hospitalised for over three weeks and required round-the-clock supervision in the first few days after surgery. As he grew stronger, physiotherapy formed a large part of the postoperative care to help him get back on his feet.
Rob Pettitt, Professor of Small Animal Orthopaedics at the University’s Small Animal Teaching Hospital, said: "The opportunity to provide Duncan with a normal life using a procedure that we perform regularly in dogs but that has never been successful longer term in equids was a unique experience. Our role as surgeons was just a small part of the huge teamwork that has resulted in this successful outcome."
Dave Stack added: “I would like to express my gratitude to all who contributed to the success of Duncan’s recovery, not least Rob Michael of Thompson House Equine Clinic, Duncan’s vet at home, whose care of him has been invaluable. I am thrilled that Duncan will live a comfortable life and delighted that Duncan’s owners have the opportunity to continue to spoil him for many years to come."
Moxiclear contains moxidectin and imidacloprid.
In dogs, Moxiclear can be used for the treatment and prevention of flea infestations and as part of a treatment plan for flea allergic dermatitis. It is also indicated for lungworm, ear mites, sarcoptes mites, biting lice, round worm, hookworm, whipworm, skinworm, and prevents heartworm.
In cats, Moxiclear can be used for the treatment and prevention of flea infestation and flea allergic dermatitis, as well as ear mite infestations. It is also indicated for notoedric mange, gastrointestinal nematodes; whipworm, roundworm and hookworm, and for the prevention of heartworm disease.
In ferrets, Moxiclear can be used to treat and prevent flea infestation, and prevent heartworm.
Moxiclear is available for 4kg-40kg dogs, with four pipette fill sizes. Small cats and ferrets weighing less than 4kg are catered for with a 0.4ml pipette. Large cats weighing 4-8kg can be treated with the Moxiclear 0.8ml pipette.
Lorron Bright, Norbrook Product Manager, said: "Moxiclear offers good value, broad-spectrum parasite control for dogs, cats and ferrets. This latest launch provides our customers with an excellent value, alternative choice for a imidacloprid/moxidectin product."
Richard Palmer, Norbrook Global Head of Sales and Marketing, said: "Moxiclear spot-on is the 11th product we have launched in the past three years. Six of the new products are in the companion animal sector as we continue to strengthen our foothold in the growing global companion animal market. Norbrook is committed to delivering a strong new product pipeline, along with our multi-year £50 million investment programme."
In its statement, the company blamed the situation on the poor performance of 24 practices it bought in the Netherlands, and its new farm and equine divisions.
CVS says that another important factor has been employment costs, in particular the increase in market rates for locum veterinary surgeons and nurses on which it remains heavily reliant.
The company also blames its financial performance on the poor support of pharmaceutical companies, which it says it is continuing to push for transparent and 'appropriate' pricing.
Aside from trying to drive down the costs of drugs, the company says it has introduced 'additional procedures' designed to reduce the cost of employing locums, although it didn't specify what these are.
The group is also reevaluating its pipeline of acquisitions, in particular the multiples it is prepared to pay.
At the time of writing, the CVS share price had dropped over 28% to 465p overnight and 70% since the share price peaked at 1477p in November 2017.
In the game of acquisitions musical chairs, did the music just stop?
Full trading statement.
The RCVS has responded to the outcry sparked by the Disciplinary Committee striking off a veterinary surgeon that delayed an out-of-hours home visit to a dog that had been run over by its owner, a farmer.
The RCVS response addresses three main issues raised by the case:
However, the College has not yet responded to many of the other issues being debated, including:
For the full response, visit: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-events/news/response-to-feedback-on-recent-disciplinary-hearing/
The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) has given VetSurgeon the data on which these stories were based.
In the 3.5 years since the vaccine was authorised, the incidence of suspected adverse animal reactions has been 0.064%. In other words, for every 10,000 doses sold, the VMD has received reports of 6 suspected adverse reactions. This incidence is considered 'rare', according to the following convention:
The VMD reports that amongst the 40+ authorised dog vaccines in the UK, the incidence of suspected adverse reactions ranges from 0.002% (classified 'very rare') to 0.3% (classified 'uncommon')
However, the VMD is at pains to stress that suspected adverse reaction reports should not be used to compare the relative safety of products. They are, after all, only 'suspected' adverse reactions. The reliability of suspected adverse reaction reports is further complicated by the fact that vaccination against leptospirosis rarely occurs in isolation, making it very difficult to interpret which adverse reactions are attributable to Leptospira vaccines.
Many vaccines providing protection against leptospirosis also contain components for prevention of other diseases, such as distemper, parainfluenza and parvovirus. In addition, many dogs are vaccinated concurrently against other diseases, such as kennel cough and/or rabies, and other products (e.g. flea and worm treatments) may be administered at the same visit. Therefore the clinical signs observed may be related to any of the products used or they may be unrelated.
The VMD says the majority of the most commonly reported suspected adverse reactions to Nobivac L4 are linked to allergic type reactions which are well-recognised potential side effects of any vaccine, and are presented on the product literature.
As to the newspaper claim that: "The World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) is urging owners not to use Nobivac L4 vaccine on puppies under 12 weeks old.", the WSAVA denied this in the strongest possible terms, saying: "This statement is blatantly untrue. The WSAVA would never ‘urge owners’ and would never make recommendations about individual named commercial products."
In a statement issued in response to the newspaper story, MSD said: "Nothing is more important to MSD Animal Health than the safety and efficacy of our products, and the health and well-being of animals.
"Nobivac L4 was launched in 2013 across Europe to prevent dogs from contracting Leptospirosis which is a serious zoonotic disease. It is one of the most widely used vaccines for dogs with several million doses being used annually to successfully prevent infection in dogs."
"As a responsible animal health company, we take every adverse reaction report seriously and investigate thoroughly. Whenever possible, we work with the pet owner and attending veterinary surgeon to assemble as much clinical information as we can to help determine the cause of a pet’s health issue, and whether or not the product may have been involved .
"We report findings to governing regulatory agencies around the world (based on a country’s respective laws and policies), so that they can make a fully informed, scientific assessment about the safety of the product. We do this so that accurate safety and efficacy information is available for veterinary surgeons prescribing our products."
In a parting shot, the WSAVA said: "The WSAVA guidelines are publicly available on-line and this journalist has clearly not undertaken adequate research before publishing this article."
See: www.wsava.org/educational/vaccination-guidelines-group
The company points to research which shows that most dogs and cats whose congestive heart failure is well controlled by medication will have a stable sleeping respiratory rate of less than 30 breaths per minute1,2.
Vetoquinol says SRR is a sensitive indicator of pulmonary oedema or pulmonary effusion which can occur as heart failure patients deteriorate, and that monitoring of SRR is a useful biomarker for veterinary surgeons, allowing you to track progression of congestive heart failure and to detect stability during treatment.
The company also says SRR is most easily detected by the owner when the pet is asleep: using the app to count and record SRR gives clients a good indication of when to seek veterinary intervention and generates data that helps veterinary teams seeking to minimise unnecessary face-to-face contact but still provide emergency care.
While an SRR in the reference range does not exclude heart disease, it reduces the probability that the patient is suffering from left sided heart failure, so may also be a useful measure for remote triage as part of a wider assessment. Other causes of elevated SRR include pain, pneumonia, stress and heatstroke.
Helen Hunter, Product Manager at Vetoquinol and part of the team that developed the app said: "Being able to monitor patients with congestive heart failure is important at any time but during lockdown, with some routine checks having to be postponed, having a means of remote monitoring is more important than ever.
"This tool will help veterinary professionals make the judgement call about whether the pet needs to be seen, especially when the results are provided in the context of monitoring that has taken place over time, providing an assessment of what is normal for that patient."
To complement the addition of the new tool, the site has also launched a webinar delivered by RCVS Recognised Specialist in Cardiology, Dave Dickson of Heart Vets. The presentation discusses the ‘10 Golden Rules of Congestive Heart Failure' and covers topics including the importance of clear radiography and why a cough is not diagnostic of CHF.
Dave said: "Sleeping respiratory rate is one of the most useful ways to monitor an animal in CHF or to look for signs of CHF developing. By encouraging pet owners to monitor and track the dog's sleeping respiratory rate at home, owners can provide vets with a valuable insight into the success of the current treatment regime. The UpLife app is free and will be really helpful to vets and pet owners, both now during lockdown and in the future."
The app can be accessed at www.uplife.uk/srr and it can be communicated to clients at the point when their pet is diagnosed, or shared with clients whose pets already have a diagnosis and are under treatment.
For further information, contact your Vetoquinol Territory Manager, email uk_marketing@vetoquinol.com, or call 01280 814500.
Do you have a question about SRR? Come and ask Dave and other cardiology experts in the VetSurgeon.org Cardiology Expert Forum.
The organisations say that the RCVS position is that it expects veterinary surgeons to offer treatments "underpinned by a recognised evidence base".
However, what the RCVS position statement actually says is: "we expect that treatments offered by veterinary surgeons are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles".
As yet, neither the Faculty of Homeopathy nor the BAHVS have explained which sound scientific principles homeopathy may be based on.
The Faculty of Homeopathy and the BAHVS go on to say that misinformation concerning the efficacy of homeopathy has been promulgated by a small minority opposed to homeopathy.
However, a survey carried out by VetSurgeon.org and Alex Gough MRCVS, Head of Medicine Referrals at Bath Veterinary Group in 2013 found that 83% of veterinary surgeons opposed homeopathy, 78% to the degree that they felt it should not be practised under the the professional title of MRCVS.
The BAHVS response claims there is quality evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy, in direct contradiction to the many and various bodies and studies that have concluded the reverse, including the NHS, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and more recently, the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), an organisation representing the 29 national academies in Europe including the Royal Society, which recently declared in a statement that: "homeopathy is implausible" and "there is no rigorous evidence to substantiate the use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine."
The BAHVS claims there is growing interest in homeopathy from animal owners, "as they see conventional medicines regularly failing or producing adverse side-effects". It says: "this is especially true in livestock farming where there is a drive to reduce the dependence on antibiotics in light of concerns about antimicrobial resistance".
However, the recent EASAC statement specifically singled out the use of homeopathy in farm animals, saying that the lack of evidence is: "particularly worrying when such products are used in preference to evidence-based medicinal products to treat livestock infections."
The BAHVS response says that if the RCVS were to apply the same evidential criteria it is using for homeopathy to all treatments, there would be far fewer clinical options available to the profession; that the RCVS is limiting veterinary surgeons' clinical freedom. However, it doesn't substantiate this claim with examples of any clinical treatments used by veterinary surgeons which are not based on scientific principles and which would be limited if the same evidential standards applied.
VetSurgeon.org supports the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine.
Photo: Multicolored homeopathy tubes isolated on a white background. Lush. Shutterstock.
The research, which was conducted by a team at the Royal Veterinary College led by Professor Holger Volk and Dr Benjamin Andreas Berk alongside canine behaviour and welfare scientist Dr Rowena Packer, tested the effects of an MCT oil supplement on seizure frequency in dogs with drug-resistant epilepsy.
For the double-blinded study, 28 epileptic dogs received MCT oil for three months and a placebo oil for three months.
The researchers say that overall, dogs had significantly fewer seizures during the MCT phase compared the placebo phase, and an improved owner-reported quality of life. New therapies are urgently needed to improve the quality of life of affected dogs and their owners and the results of this study offer a promising addition to other methods commonly used to treat canine epilepsy.
Dr Rowena Packer, BBSRC Research Fellow at the Royal Veterinary College, said: “Epilepsy is often a challenging and distressing condition for dog owners to manage, particularly when dogs don’t respond to anti-seizure medications in the way their owner and vet might have expected or hoped. Historically, diet has not been considered a key part of epilepsy management, but along with other recent findings, these results indicate that nutrition likely plays an important role in seizure control.
"Our novel findings indicate that a relatively small change to the diet of dogs’ with hard-to-treat epilepsy can potentially reduce the number of seizures they have, while also improving their medication side effects and overall quality of life. MCT oil offers a promising addition to the wider epilepsy management tool-kit."