WELCOME TO DOGLOGIC HEALTH CENTER
Search Doglogic

VACCINES INFO: SELECTED SOURCES

   Note: This document describes our current vaccination protocol.  The listing includes vaccines, schedules, vaccination sites and lists
references for our choices of frequency and schedule.  This document
should not be construed as recommendations to practicing veterinarians
as to what to do in their individual practices.  This document is here
for your information to let you know what we are doing and recommending
for our own clients.  Each of you should weigh the data and evidence
carefully and make recommendations to your own clients that are
determined by your interpretation of available scientific information,
individual patient needs, and your personal practice philosophy.
 

     Recently, vaccine schedules and frequency of vaccination of dogs
and cats has become a topic of considerable debate (Calawerts & Dumke
1997, Coyne et al. 1995, Ford 1997, Mansfield 1996, Pedersen 1996,
Schultz 1997, Smith 1995).  Recognizing that vaccination of dogs and
cats is an important part of maintaining a healthy pet, but also
realizing that all vaccines are not necessary or even effective, an
updated approach to vaccination is proposed for the TAMU Small Animal
Clinic.

    1.  All puppies and kittens under 16 weeks of age will receive a
series of vaccinations starting at approximately 6 weeks of age and
continuing at 3 week intervals until the animal is 16 weeks of age.
Puppies will receive the modified live combination vaccine containing
distemper, adenovirus 2, parainfluenza and parvo virus.  Kittens will
receive the modified live combination vaccine containing feline viral
rhinotracheitis (herpes), calici, and panleukopenia virus.   These
vaccines will be given in the subcutaneous tissue between the shoulder
blades, except when intranasal vaccine is used for feline vaccination.
If a killed vaccine is substituted for the modified live vaccine, the
vaccine will be administered in the subcutaneous tissue of the lower
aspect of the right shoulder. Healthy, adult cats and dogs will receive
annual boosters the first two years of their life.  Thereafter, unless
circumstances dictate otherwise, the booster vaccinations for DA2PP and
FVRCP will be given every 3 years (AAFP guidelines 1997, Carmichael
1997, Olson et al. 1997, Schultz 1997, Scott & Geissinger 1997)

2.  All puppies and kittens will receive a rabies vaccination at 12
weeks of age (or as soon thereafter as possible) as recommended by Texas
law.  Rabies vaccines will be given in the subcutaneous tissue of the
right thigh, as recommended by the AVMA and the task force on feline
vaccine associated sarcomas.  Texas Law requires that we administer a
three year vaccine (we use Imrab/Rhone Merieux) annually.

3.  Due to the relatively mild disease caused by corona virus in dogs
and the very infrequent outbreaks observed in this area, corona vaccine
will not be routinely administered.  The vaccine will be administered
upon request if the reasons for the request are justified.  Situations
where client animals will likely be required or will request corona
vaccination of their dogs include animals that are kenneled frequently,
living in a kennel situation, or in frequent contact with young or
stressed animals (dog shows, breeding facilities, etc.).  However, there
are no studies that show that use of the vaccine reduces morbidity or
mortality (Mansfield 1996).

4.  Leptospirosis bacterins are currently available for two serovars: L.
canicola and L. icterohaemorrhagiae.  In this hospital, and in the
current literature, Leptospirosis in dogs caused by these serovars is
quite uncommon (Heath & Johnson 1994, Wohl 1996).  When cases of
Leptospirosis are diagnosed, they are most commonly caused by one of the
large animal serovars (L. pomona, L. grippotyphosa, L. hardjo,
etc.)(Wohl 1996).  The bacterin is immunosuppressive in young dogs
(12-16 weeks of age or less) and is not recommended for use in this age
of puppy (Appel 1997).  The duration of immunity of this bacterin is
controversial, but is believed to be less than 8 months (Appel 1997).
Thus, Leptospirosis bacterin will not be given to puppies under 16 weeks
of age.  For dogs that are in a relatively high risk environment
(outdoor, rural, roaming, kenneled or show dogs) we will have the
vaccine available for annual use.  However, the bacterin will not be
routinely given to all dogs.

5.  Bordetella vaccine, in combination with parainfluenza virus vaccine
(Intratrac II) will continue to be available for use in animals that
will be in high risk environments (dogs to be kenneled, show dogs,
breeding dogs, etc.) and will be given semi-annually via the intranasal
route.  The intranasal route is the most effective means of preventing
kennel cough because it also stimulates mucosal immunity (Appel 1997).

6.  Lyme vaccine for dogs will be available for use on a case-by-case
basis.  Since Lyme disease is not prevalent in this area, and
controversy continues to exist about the Lyme vaccines (in efficacy,
potential secondary side effects (Lyme nephritis/poly arthritis) and
titer interference) (Boynton 1997, Littman 1997), the vaccine will not
be routinely given.  For individuals traveling to regions of the country
where Lyme disease is common and who wish to afford a measure of
protection against the disease, the vaccine can be administered on an
annual basis.

7.  Feline leukemia virus vaccine (Solvay's FeVaxsyn) will be
recommended for all cats that are indoor/outdoor, strictly outdoor, or
living in environments that have constant or potential exposure.  Prior
to vaccination of kittens or cats, a FeLV test will be strongly
recommended.  Kittens will receive two consecutive vaccinations at
approximately 12 and 16 weeks of age.  Adults that are receiving their
first vaccination will also be administered a series of two vaccines
approximately 3 weeks apart.  All FeLV vaccines will be given in the
subcutaneous tissue of the left thigh.  Cats that are strictly indoors
will be vaccinated at owner request.  The American Association of Feline
Practitioners recommends, for the time being, annual revaccination for
FeLV; however, a recent study (Hofmannlehmann et al 1995) showed a
greater than 3 year duration of immunity with the FeLV vaccine in
challenge studies.  Thus, the recommendation of the AAFP may be
reassessed soon.  We will continue to monitor current information about
the FeLV vaccines available and make changes in our vaccine or protocol
if necessary.

8.  The feline chlamydia vaccine will not be routinely used due to the
fact that chlamydia is a rare disease in the general population (< 5% of
all feline URT infections), vaccination may be associated with side
effects, and the disease when it does occur is usually a mild upper
respiratory or ocular infection that is readily treatable.  The
situation where this vaccine is most useful is for cats in high risk
environments, who owners would like to reduce the incidence and severity
of outbreaks (catteries, kennels, multiple cat households with many
roaming or new members).  Because the duration of immunity of this
vaccine is not well known, and because it is a bacterial origin vaccine,
it will be given on an annual basis.

9.  The feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) vaccine is not available in
this hospital and will not be given.  Until there is solid evidence that
the vaccine does what it claims to do (reduce the incidence of FIP in
high risk environments) and does this with out creating the possibility
of vaccine enhanced disease, this vaccine will not be given.

10.  Vaccination schedules for healthy, adult animals (> 2 years old)
who have had their puppy or kitten series and annual vaccinations since
then will be as follows:

     a.  Rabies vaccine: annually, SC, right thigh
     b.  DA2PP: every three years, SC, shoulder region
     c.  FVRCP: every three years, SC, shoulder region (or IN)
     d.  FeLV: every three years, SC, left thigh
     e.  Bordetella/Parainfluenza: every 6 months, IN

11.  All cat owners will be advised of the risks of vaccine induced
sarcomas and instructed on how to watch their cats for lumps and what to
do if they are found, e.g. any lump found at a vaccine site that is not
gone 4-6 weeks after the vaccination should be removed and examined
histologically.  All dog owners will be advised of the risks of site
reactions to vaccines and to the risk of increased incidence of immune
mediated disease following vaccination.

Selected References

American Association of Feline Practitioners (1997) Feline Vaccination
Guidelines.  January, 1997.

Appel, M.J.G.  (1997) Forty Years of Canine Vaccination.   Presented at
the 1st International Veterinary Vaccines and Diagnostics Conference,
Madison, WI.

Boynton, E.P. (1997) Lyme Disease Update: To Vaccinate or Not To
Vaccinate.  Presented at the University of Minnesota Annual Veterinary
Conference, October.

Calawerts, V. & Dumke, H.  (1997) New Concepts in Vaccination Protocols.
Society of Veterinary Hospital Pharmacists 16(1): 1-3.

Carmichael, L.E.  (1997) Canine Viral Vaccines at a Turning Point: A
Personal Perspective.  Presented at the 1st International Veterinary
Vaccines and Diagnostics Conference, Madison, WI.

Ford, R.B. (1997) Vaccination Standards in the 21st Century: Paradigm
Shift or Paradigm Rift?  Presented at the 1st International Veterinary
Vaccines and Diagnostics Conference, Madison, WI.

Heath, S.E. & Johnson, R.  (1994) Leptospirosis.  J Am. Vet. Med.
Assoc.  205(11): 1518-1522.

Hofmannlehmann R., Holznagel, E., Aubert A., et al. (1995) Recombinant
FeLV Vaccine: Long Term Protection and Effect on Course and Outcome of
FIV Infection.  Vet Immunol Immunopath  46(1-2):127-137.

Littman, M.P.  (1997) Lyme Disease: To Vaccinate or Not To Vaccinate?
Proc. 15th Annual ACVIM Forum.  Pp. 515-517.
 

Mansfield, P.D.  (1996) Vaccination of Dogs and Cats in Veterinary
Teaching Hospitals of North America.  J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.  208(8):
1242-1246.

Olsen, C.W. (1997) Vaccination of Cats Against Emerging and Re-emerging
Zoonotic Pathogens.  Presented at the 1st International Veterinary
Vaccines and Diagnostics Conference, Madison, WI.

Olson, P., Klingborn, B., Bonnett, B., et al.  (1997) Distemper Titer
Study in Sweden, 1995-1996.  Proc. 15th Annual ACVIM Forum.  Abstract
178.

Pedersen, N.C.  (1996) Perspectives on Small Animal Vaccination.  Proc.
of the Annual Meeting of the American Animal Hospital Association. Pp
145-156.

Scott, F.W. & Geissinger C.  (1997) Duration of Immunity in Cats
Vaccinated With an Inactivated Feline Panleukopenia, Herpesvirus and
Calicivirus Vaccine.  Feline Pract. 25(4):12-19.

Smith, C.A. (1995) Are We Vaccinating Too Much?  J. Am. Vet. Med.
Assoc.  207(4):421-426.

Wohl, J.S.  (1996) Canine Leptospirosis.  Comp. Cont. Ed. Pract. Vet.
(Sm. Anim) 18(11): 1215-1225.

_________________________________________
TAMSU Vaccination Guidelines

Texas A&M University

WHAT IS THE EFFICACY OF CURRENT VACCINES?
Ronald D. Schultz, Ph.D., Dipl. ACVM (honorary)

    Unfortunately neither the maximum nor minimum duration of protective
immunity of most vaccines is known. Many vaccinated animals are never
challenged because the pathogens are not present in the animal's
environment. Every vaccine appears to be 100% efficacious when there is
no challenge!

    In a random survey of serum samples collected in the early 1990s
from about 100 dogs presented to several clinics for their first
revaccinations, I found more than one-third of the dogs did not have
detectable antibody to CPV-2. The reasons the dogs didn't have antibody
were 1) Some pups were vaccinated before maternal antibody had
disappeared [at that time many vaccines were ineffective in immunizing
pups younger than 18 to 20 weeks of age with high titers of maternally
derived antibody], 2) some pups were vaccinated with a commercial
product that was later shown not to effectively induce an antibody
response to CPV-2, and 3) a small percentage had not been vaccinated
previously with CPV-2. The dogs without antibody did not develop canine
parvoviral infection or disease during the year. Thus, the animals
appeared totally protected, even though they had not been effectively
immunized. We must assume that they didn't develop disease or become
infected because they were not exposed to the virus. The negative
serologic findings show that the dogs hadn't been infected with the
virus during a period of being completely susceptible to CPV-2. These
results demonstrate that many pet dogs are never exposed to CPV-2, a
highly infectious, often deadly, and extremely environmentally stable
virus of dogs, similar in stability to feline parvo virus. As an example
of its stability we recently tested some MLV CPV-2 vaccines that sat in
a refrigerator for 10 years, and it was demonstrated that the virus was
still infectious and able to immunize puppies (L.J. Larson et al:
Unpublished data, 1997).

    Another reason we don't know the real efficacy and duration of
immunity of current vaccines is that animals are rarely, if ever,
experimentally challenged one year or more after vaccination.
Furthermore, no studies are reported in the literature that compare dogs
vaccinated as pups and then vaccinated annually for three years with
dogs vaccinated only as pups to determine resistance to challenge
infection or disease. Studies to determine whether annual vaccination is
needed for protection are rare for any canine or feline vaccine. The
exception is rabies, for which minimum duration of immunity studies have
demonstrated (because they are required for licensing by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture [USDA]) that protective immunity is present in
a similar percentage of dogs whether three years after rabies
vaccination or one year after vaccination. Certain one-year rabies
products have become three-year products by extending the interval of
time before challenge studies were done. Until 1995, the USDA did not
require minimum duration of immunity studies for any vaccine other than
rabies, so the recommendation for annual vaccination is not based on one
year's being the duration of immunity.

    The one-year recommendation was not determined by any scientifically
validated studies nor will one find in the literature publications that
demonstrate a need for annual vaccination with many of the products in
use. Furthermore, we do not know if there would be any difference in
immunity between animals that are vaccinated annually or animals
vaccinated only once every three years when challenged. We do know that
many animals, when revaccinated with viral vaccines, do not show a
four-fold or greater increase (the minimum change required for
significance) in their antibody titers (unpublished observations from my
studies with viruses such as CDV, CPV-2, CAV-2, FPLV, and FCV). For
example, in a study we performed with 106 dogs that had been vaccinated
for CPV-2 within the last one to four years, only one dog had a
significant increase (four-fold) in its CPV-2 antibody titer, and that
dog had a very low titer (1:40) before vaccination. Therefore,
revaccination frequently doesn't lead to an enhanced antibody response,
because the vaccine virus is neutralized before it can reach the memory
B or T cells.

    An important question to ask yourself is: "What do we do to ensure
that children who are vaccinated at an early age, usually less than 6
years of age, still have immunity at 20, 40, 60, or 90 years of age?"
Nothing! We don't measure titers in people, and we don't routinely
vaccinate adults. We rely on the memory cells of the immune system.
Since vaccines for people are similar in many ways to canine or feline
vaccines, since the immune system of a person is similar to that of an
animal, and since immunity persists for the life of a person (average
70+/- years), then why wouldn't immunity from canine or feline vaccines
persist for 10 to 15 years? The answer is that many canine and feline
vaccines do provide the same lifelong immunity. However, just as there
are certain human vaccines that provide short-term immunity (e.g. Vibrio
cholera vaccine) there are certain canine vaccines (e.g. leptospira) and
feline vaccines (e.g. chlamydia) with only short-term immunity.

    Very recently it was reported that dogs vaccinated with CDV at an
early age then moved to a country free of distemper had CDV antibody
titers as long as 10 years later. Similar observations had been made
previously, but the dogs were not in a distemper-free environment. My
own observations and those of Dr. Leland Carmichael show that dogs not
only have CDV antibody but are completely protected from infection when
challenged five to seven years after vaccination. CDV antibody titer
correlates directly with protection in these studies, and dogs with
virus neutralization titers of > 1:20 had sterile immunity (were
protected from infection).

    Therefore, when dogs with immunity to CDV are challenged with
virulent virus one year after vaccination, more than 90% of the dogs
have protective levels of antibody, and if the dogs were challenged
seven years after vaccination, greater than 90% would still be immune
based on protective titers (R.D. Schultz: Unpublished data, 1984).

    If cats were challenged with feline herpes virus one year after
vaccination we might expect protection from disease in about 65 to 70%
of the cats. And if challenged three years after vaccination, 50 to 60%
of the cats likely would be protected. This level of protection in cats
is based on limited observations in a cattery and is not based on
scientifically controlled studies. However, challenge information will
soon be available on cats vaccinated more than seven years earlier from
a study by Dr. Fred Scott. Dr. Scott recently documented the duration of
immunity to several feline viruses, as determined by the presence of
antibody. In his study kittens were given two doses of killed vaccines
containing FPLV, feline herpes virus, and FCV. These cats, raised in an
isolated environment, have had antibody titers to the three vaccines
that have persisted for at least six years. These results demonstrate
that even when killed vaccines are used, the immune system continues to
be stimulated in the absence of infection and that memory cells as well
as certain effector B and T cells are present for at least six years.
Furthermore, these cats, because they have memory cells as well as
effector T helper and B cells, would be expected to resist challenge to
virus as effectively as cats that had been vaccinated annually. What is
remarkable about these studies is that a killed vaccine generally
produces a shorter duration of immunity than does an MLV vaccine.

    The duration of immunity study in cats should demonstrate that even
killed vaccines provide immunity far beyond the one year currently
recommended for revaccination. How do I know this is the case before the
challenge studies are performed? Because we know there is a direct
correlation between antibody titer and protection from infection with
FPLV and FCV. Protective antibody titers for FPLV are > 1:100, and the
cats in this study have maintained titers higher than 1:1,000 for seven
years. And protection from FCV can be demonstrated in cats with titers
less than those in the cats in this study.

    Local (mucosal) antibody and T and B memory cells will be more
important than systemic antibody to protect against herpes virus
infection and disease, so systemic titers do not correlate with
protection. However, since this disease most often occurs in young cats
with poorly developed immune systems and there is an age-related
increased resistance in older animals, it may be that the 7-year-old non
vaccinated control cats will not even develop significant disease and
that the vaccinates will have memory cells, so they should have even
greater protection.

    Similarly, I have found that adult dogs vaccinated twice with an MLV
CPV-2 vaccine one to four years earlier as pups were completely immune
when naturally challenged with CPV-2 virus. The exposure occurred during
a severe outbreak of CPV-2 disease that lasted six months and killed a
high percentage of pups less than 12 weeks of age (R.D. Schultz:
Unpublished data, 1989). The adult dogs did not become sick and did not
have evidence of infection, so the dogs had maintained sterile immunity
for up to four years after vaccination. This is not to suggest that
adult vaccinated dogs do not become infected or diseased when exposed to
pathogens such as CPV-2 or CDV at a later age but that those few adult
animals that do may become infected and diseased whether or not they
have been revaccinated annually. The adult animals that become diseased
may have a compromised immune system or for various reasons may have
failed to develop immunity even after multiple vaccinations.

    Annual vaccination for diseases caused by CDV, CPV-2, FPLV, and FeLV
has not been shown to provide a level of immunity any different from the
immunity in an animal vaccinated and immunized at an early age and
challenged years later.

Vet Med 93[3]:233-254 Mar'98 45 Refs
Ronald D. Schultz, PhD, Dipl. ACVM (honorary)
Department of Pathobiological Sciences
School of Veterinary Medicine
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, WI 53706
    __________________________

Reprinted with permission

Current and Future Canine and Feline Vaccination Programs

<<Vet Med 93[3]:233-254 Mar'98 45 Refs
Ronald D. Schultz, PhD, Dipl. ACVM (honorary)
Department of Pathobiological Sciences
School of Veterinary Medicine
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, WI 53706

Reprinted with permission
c1998 Veterinary Medicine Publishing Group
15333 W. 95th St., Lenexa, KS 66219;
(800) 255-6864; www.vetmedpub.com.

    Important questions have been raised about companion-animal vaccines
and vaccination protocols that have existed for many years and provide a
substantial source of veterinary practice income. One controversial
topic is: "Are we vaccinating too often?" Related issues include
vaccine-induced disease and administration of vaccines that may be of
limited or no value. Responses to these issues are complex and
debatable. Conventional wisdom suggests that vaccination should be
performed as often as believed needed and as often as the manufacturer
of the vaccine recommends. Research may well demonstrate that most
well-cared-for pets are vaccinated too often, while other animals are
not vaccinated often enough. Vaccines may cause disease, but such
reactions are generally uncommon. However, vaccine-induced diseases
appear to be more common in certain breeds and in specific families,
suggesting a genetic predisposition to adverse reactions. Clearly,
certain vaccines being used are unnecessary, and animals receive
vaccines that they don't need. However, it is possible that some
vaccines should be administered more often or at an earlier age than the
manufacturer recommends in animals that may benefit.

    There are no standard answers nor consensus on the issues noted
above. Instead of a single vaccination program for most or all animals,
programs should be tailored for each individual patient and client
situation. Vaccination is a medical decision that should entail the same
considerations and reasoning skills required when selecting an
appropriate medical treatment or a specific surgical procedure.

    Vaccination should not be considered an innocuous procedure, since
vaccines may have harmful consequences to patients as well as owners.
The patient receives no benefit and may be placed at serious risk when
an unnecessary vaccine is given. The owner also risks economic and
emotional hardship in exchange for a questionable benefit. Fortunately,
with notable exceptions, veterinary vaccines are generally safe and
effective. Vaccines have been reasonably priced in the United States,
considering the benefit provided by certain vaccines of preventing
serious diseases or death in most animals. However, many of the newer
vaccines (Lyme disease, feline leukemia, feline infectious peritonitis
[FIP], ringworm) do not have this same benefit since they are designed
to prevent diseases that don't occur in a high percentage of
unvaccinated animals or that aren't associated with high mortality or
morbidity as are infections with canine distemper virus (CDV), canine
parvovirus type 2 (CPV-2), and feline panleukopenia virus (FPLV).

    In this article, I discuss questions frequently asked when designing
vaccination programs for dogs or cats. The responses to these questions
will differ depending on who answers the questions and the lifestyle of
the pet. With this caveat, I offer the following views and
recommendations, ones that are based on my experience as well as the
collective experience and expertise of certain of my colleagues, namely
Drs. Max Appel, Leland Carmichael, Fred Scott, and Larry Swango. My
recommendations are based on research results (some published, others
not), clinical observations, and my overall experience in infectious
diseases and immunology for the past 30 years. I do not expect every
recommendation I make to be acceptable to all who read this article; not
even my colleagues cited above agree on everything discussed, because a
researcher's expectations, interpretation of results, and personal
experiences vary widely.

    However, for those awaiting the study that will definitively answer
many of the questions posed here, that study will never be done, can
never be done, and should never be done. This is like looking for the
silver bullet that will prevent or cure cancer; there is no silver
bullet.
 
 
 

REFERENCES:

  1. Smith, C.A.: Current concepts-Are we vaccinating too much? JAVMA
207(4):421-425 1995.

      2. Veterinary Vaccines and Diagnostics (R.D. Schultz, ed.).
Academic Press, San Diego, Calif., 1998 (In press).

      3. Tizard, I: Risks associated with use of live vaccines. JAVMA
196:1851-1858; 1990.

      4. Schultz, R.D.: Current canine vaccination programs: Results of
a questionnaire. Cornell Vet. 68 (7):62-69; 1978.

      5. Phillips, T.R., Schultz, R.D.: Canine and feline vaccines.
Kirk's Current Veterinary Therapy XI (R.W. Kirk; J.D. Bonagura, eds.).
W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa., 1992; pp 202-206.

      6. Phillips, T.R. et al: Effects of vaccines on the canine immune
system. Can. J. Vet. Res. 53:154-160; 1989.

      7. Schultz, R.D.: Ambient temperature affects canine immune
response. Norden News 59(1):36; 1984.

      8. Schultz, R.D.: Theory and practice of immunization. Current
Veterinary Therapy VII (R.W. Kirk, ed.). W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia,
Pa. 1980, pp 1248-1251.

      9. Schultz, R.D.; Scott, F.W.: Canine and feline immunization.
Vet. Clin. North Am. 8(4):755-768; 1978.

      10. Larson, L.J.; Schultz, R.D.: Comparison of selected canine
vaccines for their ability to induce protective immunity against CPV-2
infection. AJVR 58(4):360-363; 1997.

      11. Schultz, R.D.: Emerging issues: Vaccination strategies for
canine viral enteritis. Proc. Infect. Gastroenteritis Symp., Veterinary
Learning Systems, Lawrenceville, NJ., 1995; pp 19-24.

      12. Schultz, R.D.; Larson, L.J.: Case Report: The New Generation
Parvo virus Vaccines. Schering-Plough Animal Health, Union, NJ., 1996.

      13. Carmichael, L.E.: Canine viral vaccines at a turning point-A
personal perspective. Veterinary Vaccines and Diagnostics (R.D. Schultz,
ed.). Academic Press, San Diego, Calif., 1998 (In press).

      14. Schultz, R.D. et al: Canine vaccines and immunity. Current
Veterinary Therapy VI (R.W. Kirk, ed.). W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia,
Pa., 1977; pp 1271-1275.

      15. Pollock, R.V.H.; Carmichael, L.E.: Canine viral enteritis.
Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat (C.E. Greene, ed.). W.B.
Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa., 1990; pp 268-287.

      16. Burtonboy, S. et al: Performance of a high titer attenuated
canine parvo virus vaccine in pups with maternally derived antibody.
Vet. Rec. 128:377-381; 1991.

      17. Larson, L.J.; Schultz, R.D.: High-titer canine parvo virus
vaccine: Serologic response and challenge-of-immunity study. Vet. Med.
91(3):210-218; 1996.

      18. Scott, F.W.: Personal communication, Department of
Microbiology, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., 1994.

      19. Rude, T. et al: Measles vaccination: A different perspective.
DVM Newsmagazine 20(1):51; 1989.

      20. Hoover, E.A. et al: Feline leukemia virus infection: Age
related variation in response of cats to experimental infection. J Natl.
Cancer lust. 57:365-370; 1976.

      21. Theilen, G.H.; Madewell, B.R.: Leukemia-sarcoma complex.
Veterinary Cancer Medicine (G.H. Theilen; B.R. Madewell, eds.). Lea &
Febiger, Philadelphia, Pa., 1979; pp 208-241.

      22. Carmichael, L.E.: Personal communication, James A. Baker
Institute for Animal Health, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., 1995.

      23. Olson, P. et al: Duration of antibodies elicited by canine
distemper virus vaccinations in dogs. Vet. Rec. 20(27):654-655. 1997.

      24. Gorham, J.R.: Duration of vaccination immunity and the
influence on subsequent prophylaxis. JAVMA 149:699-704; 1966

      25. Prydie, J.: Persistence of antibodies following vaccination
against canine distemper and effect of revaccination. Vet. Rec.
78:486-488; 1966.

      26. Scott, F.W.; Geissinger, C.: Duration of immunity in cats
vaccinated with an inactivated feline panleukopenia, herpes virus, and
calici virus vaccine. Feline Pract. 25(4):12-19; 1997.

      27. Ayres, J.: Personal communication, Brookings, S.D., March
1997.

      28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: Vaccine
side effects, adverse reactions, contraindications, and
precautions-Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices (ACIP). MMWR 45:1-35; 1996.

      29. Hogenesch, H. et al: Vaccine induced auto immunity in the dog.
Veterinary Vaccines and Diagnostics (R.D. Schultz, ed.). Academic Press,
San Diego, Calif., 1998 (In press).

      30. Duval, D.; Giger, U.: Vaccine induced immune mediated
hemolytic anemia in the dog. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 10:290-295; 1996.

      31. Hendrick, M.J.; Goldschmidt, M.H.: Do injection site reactions
induce fibrosarcomas in cats? (letter) JAVMA 199(8):968; 1991.

      32. Esplin, D.G. et al: Post vaccination sarcomas in cats. JAVMA
202:1245-1247; 1993.

      33. Kass, P.H. et al: Epidemiologic evidence for a causal relation
between vaccination and fibrosarcoma tumorigenesis in cats. JAVMA
203:396-405; 1993.

      34. Macy, D.W. et al: Postvaccinal reactions associated with three
rabies and three leukemia virus vaccines in cats. Proc. 14th Annul Vet.
Cancer Soc. Conf, Veterinary Cancer Society, Townsend, Tenn., 1994; pp
90-91.

      35. Phillips, T.R.; Schultz, R.D.: Failure of vaccine or virulent
strains of canine parvo virus to induce immunosuppressive effects on the
immune system of the dog. Viral Immunol. 1:135-144. 1987.

      36. Appel, M.J.G.: Reversion to virulence of attenuated canine
distemper virus in vivo and in vitro. J. Gen. Virol. 41:385-390; 1978.

      37. Wilbur, L.A. et al: Abortion and death in pregnant bitches
associated with a canine vaccine contaminated with blue tongue virus.
JAVMA 204: 1762-1765; 1994.

      38. Wilson, R.B. et al: A neurologic syndrome associated with use
of a canine coronavirus-parvovirus vaccine in dogs. Compend. Cont. Ed.
8:117-124; 1986.

      39. Carmichael, L.E.: Vaccines for dogs. Veterinary Vaccinology
(P.P. Pastoret et al, eds.). Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 1997;
pp 327-331.

      40. Appel, MJG.: Does canine coronaries augment the effects of
subsequent parvo virus infection? Vet. Med. 83(4):360-366; 1988.

      41. Larson, L.J.; Schultz, R.D.: Efficacy of immunity induced by
canine coronaries (CCV) vaccines compared against immunity after natural
infection with CCV (Abst.). Conf Res. Work Anim. Dis. 77:64; 1996.

      42. Swango, L.J.: Personal communication, Department of
Pathobiology, Auburn University, Auburn University, Ala., 1996.

      43. Hilleman, M.R.: DNA vectors precedents and safety. DNA
Vaccines: A New Era in Vaccinology (M.A. Liu et al, eds.). Ann. N Y.
Acad. Sci. 772:1-14; 1995.

      44. Liu, M.A.: Overview of DNA vaccines. DNA Vaccines: A New Era
in Vaccinology (M.A. Liu et al, eds.). Ann. N Y. Acad. Sci. 772:15-20;
1995.

      45. Donnelly J.J. et al: DNA vaccines. Annul Rev. Immunol.
15:617-648; 1997.

    __________________________
Current and Future Canine and Feline Vaccination Programs
Vet Med 93[3]:233-254 Mar'98 45 Refs
Ronald D. Schultz, Ph.D., Dipl. ACVM (honorary)
Reprinted with permission