Vets Following The 3 Yearly Vacc Program

[stormie]

Is the 3 year vaccine an anuual vaccine re-labeled or a higher strength vaccine??? I don't like the idea of giving a big hit of vaccine to last 3 years if it equals the same amount of vaccine exposure as 3 annual shots.

To my knowledge it is a higher strength vaccine. I don't like nor agree with it. But Staranais and others would know more of it than I.

The registered 3yearly contains a newer strain of parvo. Yes, there are a higher amount of virus particles in the triennial but after speaking with a good vet friend who now works closely with the company who makes the 3 yearly, we were assured that the extra virus particles aren't a significant amount and is not the equivalent of giving 3 annual vaccines.

We have made the switch from using the annual vaccines triennially, to using the registered vaccine. Obviously those who still wish to use the annual are more than welcome to, but by using the registered one, we're covered and so are the clients for things like boarding and training schools. Everyone's happy

I wonder why there are more virus particles in the registered triennial vaccine for what reason...........they are not confident that an annual vaccine will be effective for 3 years???. justification to increase the price???, or perhaps was necessary for a triennial vaccine to be officially registered???.

Something there with the triennial doesn't quite fit with me

Fiona

But how do we know whether the increase in particles in significant? 1 million virus particles might be bugger all in the scheme of virus particles.

This is the difference between Intervet's Annual and their Triennial. Note that the virus's with increased particles are different strains so possibly the later strains need a higher number of particles to be effective?

Annual:

Companion® C3

Parvo: CPV 780916: 10 to the power of 5 particles

Distemper: Lederle ATCC VR-128: 10 to the power of 3 particles

Hepatitis: Manhattan: 10 to power of 4 particles

Trienniel:

Nobivac® DHP

Parvo: C-154: 10 to the power of 7 particles

Distemper: Onderstepoort: 10 to the power of 4 particles

Hepatitis: Manhattan LPV3: 10 to the power of 4 particles

In terms of the price difference, really, it's not that significant is it? It costs us about $8 more to buy per vaccine than the annuals, which after gst and mark up etc, becomes about $12 extra for the client. $12 extra for 3 years coverage surely isn't worth complaining about is it? Considering by using it you're saving yourself anything from about $65 - $85 a year, depending on what your vet charges?

Then of course there's the fact that the company is now going to be selling a vaccine every 3 years as opposed to annually, so really, with only such a small price increase, they're probably losing money!

To have a drug registered like this costs a LOT of money. They would have had to do 3 year long trials to get that registration. Which means colonies of dogs used, including 'control' dogs. Control dogs would have had to live in a completely pathogen free environment for the period of the trial, no human contact etc. Then they're all exposed to the virus, both the vaccinated once and the control dogs. The control dogs would mostly have got parvo and died.

So I'm really torn about wanting more vaccines registered for triennial use. Obviously it would be great for our dogs, but knowing the process that goes on in order to gain the registration, well, I'm not sure I'm keen on that.

As for the new protocols, we need everyone to step up and take not of them, not just vets. The AVA is pretty cagey about the issue and have not yet given a definite go ahead to use annuals on a 3 yearly basis. No one is going to offer support to a vet if they give an annual to a dog and it gets parvo a couple of years later. The AVA just says MAY last longer.

Kennels need to take them up as well as training clubs. Because until then, it's pointless vets giving annuals triennially because people are only going to have to come back for another shot anyway when their boarding kennel says no.

Edited September 13, 2010 by stormie

[Staranais]

What if I refused to allow my Vet to give annual boosters to my dog (who was previously vaccinated with the "12 month" vaccine) and a couple of years went by. I then went in and asked my Vet to give my dog a 12 month booster. From what you've said in an earlier post, are you saying that because the manufacturer's label says "annually" that the Vet could somehow carry the risk of a liable suit should something go wrong, because the Vet was not vaccinating the dog in accordance with the label? IE Gave the booster on the 3rd (or whatever) year rather than the following consecutive year.

I just can't see how this could be the case if it was the owner who had refused the vaccine on an annual basis.

Oh I get it, sorry. No, you're right I think. So long as the vet recommends the "right" frequency, if you choose to turn down the advice, it's not their issue if the dog gets sick, because you turned the advice down.

Also, what law suit if the Vet refused to vaccinate (booster) the dog at the client's request?

Over here at least, it's not a law suit thing per se, it's a vet council thing (they can impose penalties on you too). My understanding is, if the vet uses the drug off label, and the dog then got sick from parvo, then the client could complain to the vet council & you would then be called to account for why you used the drug off label. You'd get off if the council agreed what you did was reasonable & good practice, you'd get in trouble if they decided what you did was unreasonable or bad practice. This is the same no matter whether the client originally wanted the dog boosted annually or not.

As for the new vaccine, I don't really know what's in it, Stormie seems to know much more than I do about it. I do know that many studies show that the "old style" modified live vaccines seem to give long lasting immunity, so I would suspect that the increased titre of the "new vaccine" is just a point of difference to try to persuade you to buy it instead of using the old annual vaccine less often. But I have no evidence for that - it's just conjecture & I could be dead wrong. And like Stormie says, it does cost a lot to register a drug, so IMO the company is justified in increasing the price to cover the testing. Plus, I agree with her, that the tests used to register new drugs aren't very nice for the animals used, so I too am in two minds about the issue.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Staranais

[OSoSwift]

Unfortunately my vet makes it more expensive to get the triennial and 12 monthly kennel cough than to do it yearly because they don't want people to move to the three yearly vacc regime. The told me that themselves. Mostly money talks so they make it more expensive, doesn't help people like me though that will take their dog for a yearly check up regardless of wether they need a vaccination and do the right thing.

[malsrock]

Unfortunately my vet makes it more expensive to get the triennial and 12 monthly kennel cough than to do it yearly because they don't want people to move to the three yearly vacc regime. The told me that themselves. Mostly money talks so they make it more expensive, doesn't help people like me though that will take their dog for a yearly check up regardless of wether they need a vaccination and do the right thing.

Yes, there definitely is a commercial issue that could be a consideration for some vets as to their recommendations. I know several people who have told me that if the triennial became main stream, they would drop the annual check up altogther, other than the dog becomming ill, would visit the vet on a 3 yearly basis only. Not everyone is concerned with kennel cough and having their dog's temperature taken and their mouth looked at which apart from the annual vaccination is all that is checked basically. From a vets perspective financially, a triennial does have the potential to create a commercial loss.

I guess a vet pushing to retain annual's as their protocol, you would have to consider if their motives are more commercially based.

Fiona

[stormie]

We have been in our clinic just over 12months now and adopted the new protocol when we came here. So it will be interesting to see what this coming year is like, but we're only getting busier so I can't see us suffering much of a loss so far

I've said this before but I think the fact that you have a vet being open and up front with clients, earns you more clients. People aren't afraid to come to you thinking they're gonna be ripped off so they are more likely to come up for littler things for peace of mind. And then they tell their friends about you and you end up with a larger client base.

[malsrock]

Is the 3 year vaccine an anuual vaccine re-labeled or a higher strength vaccine??? I don't like the idea of giving a big hit of vaccine to last 3 years if it equals the same amount of vaccine exposure as 3 annual shots.

To my knowledge it is a higher strength vaccine. I don't like nor agree with it. But Staranais and others would know more of it than I.

The registered 3yearly contains a newer strain of parvo. Yes, there are a higher amount of virus particles in the triennial but after speaking with a good vet friend who now works closely with the company who makes the 3 yearly, we were assured that the extra virus particles aren't a significant amount and is not the equivalent of giving 3 annual vaccines.

We have made the switch from using the annual vaccines triennially, to using the registered vaccine. Obviously those who still wish to use the annual are more than welcome to, but by using the registered one, we're covered and so are the clients for things like boarding and training schools. Everyone's happy

I wonder why there are more virus particles in the registered triennial vaccine for what reason...........they are not confident that an annual vaccine will be effective for 3 years???. justification to increase the price???, or perhaps was necessary for a triennial vaccine to be officially registered???.

Something there with the triennial doesn't quite fit with me

Fiona ;)

But how do we know whether the increase in particles in significant? 1 million virus particles might be bugger all in the scheme of virus particles.

This is the difference between Intervet's Annual and their Triennial. Note that the virus's with increased particles are different strains so possibly the later strains need a higher number of particles to be effective?

Annual:

Companion® C3

Parvo: CPV 780916: 10 to the power of 5 particles

Distemper: Lederle ATCC VR-128: 10 to the power of 3 particles

Hepatitis: Manhattan: 10 to power of 4 particles

Trienniel:

Nobivac® DHP

Parvo: C-154: 10 to the power of 7 particles

Distemper: Onderstepoort: 10 to the power of 4 particles

Hepatitis: Manhattan LPV3: 10 to the power of 4 particles

In terms of the price difference, really, it's not that significant is it? It costs us about $8 more to buy per vaccine than the annuals, which after gst and mark up etc, becomes about $12 extra for the client. $12 extra for 3 years coverage surely isn't worth complaining about is it? Considering by using it you're saving yourself anything from about $65 - $85 a year, depending on what your vet charges?

Then of course there's the fact that the company is now going to be selling a vaccine every 3 years as opposed to annually, so really, with only such a small price increase, they're probably losing money!

To have a drug registered like this costs a LOT of money. They would have had to do 3 year long trials to get that registration. Which means colonies of dogs used, including 'control' dogs. Control dogs would have had to live in a completely pathogen free environment for the period of the trial, no human contact etc. Then they're all exposed to the virus, both the vaccinated once and the control dogs. The control dogs would mostly have got parvo and died.

So I'm really torn about wanting more vaccines registered for triennial use. Obviously it would be great for our dogs, but knowing the process that goes on in order to gain the registration, well, I'm not sure I'm keen on that.

As for the new protocols, we need everyone to step up and take not of them, not just vets. The AVA is pretty cagey about the issue and have not yet given a definite go ahead to use annuals on a 3 yearly basis. No one is going to offer support to a vet if they give an annual to a dog and it gets parvo a couple of years later. The AVA just says MAY last longer.

Kennels need to take them up as well as training clubs. Because until then, it's pointless vets giving annuals triennially because people are only going to have to come back for another shot anyway when their boarding kennel says no.

Thanks for the info Stormie, much appreciated ;)

My concern with the registered triennial was to ensure that the vaccination wasn't a "hot shot" lacing my dog with a big dose on the basis that a heavy dose of vaccine will last longer because the triennial protocol I didn't understand it meaning double dosing for a longer interval between vaccinations which the registered triennial does give that impression. I would like to know why the registered triennial is a different formulation with a higher particle percentage for what reason given that the same companies annual formulation is different???. Personally, I wouldn't do a registered triennial yet, until these questions could be answered as an altered formulation doesn't make sense to me, neither does the registered triennial having a different parvo strain added.........what???, their annual is then not providing proper protection

Fiona ;)

[Everythings Shiny]

My concern with the registered triennial was to ensure that the vaccination wasn't a "hot shot" lacing my dog with a big dose on the basis that a heavy dose of vaccine will last longer because the triennial protocol I didn't understand it meaning double dosing for a longer interval between vaccinations which the registered triennial does give that impression. I would like to know why the registered triennial is a different formulation with a higher particle percentage for what reason given that the same companies annual formulation is different???. Personally, I wouldn't do a registered triennial yet, until these questions could be answered as an altered formulation doesn't make sense to me, neither does the registered triennial having a different parvo strain added.........what???, their annual is then not providing proper protection

Fiona

Thats a concern of mine personally as well.

After the discussion on another thread - I went back to my bosses and asked them about this 3 year vaccine.

One of the bosses who I know for a fact isn't as much worried about the financial side of this (of course he wants a profitable business but...), rather the animal welfare side (esp in our area - lots of govt housing commission people with tight budgets + extremely high parvo area), said he didn't want to use the new vaccine until it had been out in the market for a while - esp to see the rates of dogs catching diseases like parvo whilst still under the three year vacc cover.

Now this vet was away when the last thread was up and I spoke to the others about it, so his views are a little different to theirs, my other bosses were concerned with people not bringing their pets in for health checks yearly - even with reminders to ask them too - this particular boss said that that is a particular concern in this area as a lot of the clients here 'have a dog for the sake of owning a dog' - now thats not saying they are all like that - just a majority - which is a a little sad.

Now what this boss said to me today was that if these particular people (not the people who treat their dogs the way they should be, the people who have them for the sake of having them that is) get a three year vaccine - even with reminders for bringing them in for an annual health check - nine times out of ten they won't because 'the dog is fine, doesn't need a vacc or anything'. But on the other hand you have the owners who have dogs for the right reasons - they should have access to the 3 year vacc if they want it. So they bosses have a big decision to make - we don't want two sets of protocols - we have to have one to go by otherwise their is too much confusion. I'm pretty sure we'll stick to the annual vacc for now - not my call either way - and i KNOW there are people here going to chew me out over this (again *sigh* - no more nasty pm's please, really isn't called for!)

I'm hoping in a couple of years that when the dogs that got the three year vacc originally are showing no signs of illness etc (I mean parvo etc) that maybe we'll go that way, but myself personally, I always avoid new medical treatments as you never truly know the long term side effects - could this vaccine cause cancers in 10 - 15 years (long time for a dog I know but my last three kelpies hit around the 20 year old mark).

Another thing in this area I work in is we have a HIGH parvo strain - to the point even dogs with high antibody levels are catching it. How could we suggest these dogs who get the three year vacc should be okay for the three years - it's a new drug - yes there have been clinical trials etc, but not on such a high risk area, which to me as a vet nurse (esp in my area) and a dog owner, worries me a little.

Thats my two cents

[Guest Tess32]

I've had some personal dealings with Nobivac, they do seem genuinely interested in how dogs react.

I had my puppy titre tested after the 2nd Nobivac shot and he came back with very low immunity to parvo. The vet contacted nobivac and they rang me themselves and offered to pay for another titre test in a week or so to make sure, as they were convinced it was a timing issue and he just needed the full 14 days to seroconvert.

They were right, and my free titre test on the 15th day did show adequate immunity, and they also rang back a few months later to check he was fine.

[stormie]

Is the 3 year vaccine an anuual vaccine re-labeled or a higher strength vaccine??? I don't like the idea of giving a big hit of vaccine to last 3 years if it equals the same amount of vaccine exposure as 3 annual shots.

To my knowledge it is a higher strength vaccine. I don't like nor agree with it. But Staranais and others would know more of it than I.

The registered 3yearly contains a newer strain of parvo. Yes, there are a higher amount of virus particles in the triennial but after speaking with a good vet friend who now works closely with the company who makes the 3 yearly, we were assured that the extra virus particles aren't a significant amount and is not the equivalent of giving 3 annual vaccines.

We have made the switch from using the annual vaccines triennially, to using the registered vaccine. Obviously those who still wish to use the annual are more than welcome to, but by using the registered one, we're covered and so are the clients for things like boarding and training schools. Everyone's happy

I wonder why there are more virus particles in the registered triennial vaccine for what reason...........they are not confident that an annual vaccine will be effective for 3 years???. justification to increase the price???, or perhaps was necessary for a triennial vaccine to be officially registered???.

Something there with the triennial doesn't quite fit with me

Fiona

But how do we know whether the increase in particles in significant? 1 million virus particles might be bugger all in the scheme of virus particles.

This is the difference between Intervet's Annual and their Triennial. Note that the virus's with increased particles are different strains so possibly the later strains need a higher number of particles to be effective?

Annual:

Companion® C3

Parvo: CPV 780916: 10 to the power of 5 particles

Distemper: Lederle ATCC VR-128: 10 to the power of 3 particles

Hepatitis: Manhattan: 10 to power of 4 particles

Trienniel:

Nobivac® DHP

Parvo: C-154: 10 to the power of 7 particles

Distemper: Onderstepoort: 10 to the power of 4 particles

Hepatitis: Manhattan LPV3: 10 to the power of 4 particles

In terms of the price difference, really, it's not that significant is it? It costs us about $8 more to buy per vaccine than the annuals, which after gst and mark up etc, becomes about $12 extra for the client. $12 extra for 3 years coverage surely isn't worth complaining about is it? Considering by using it you're saving yourself anything from about $65 - $85 a year, depending on what your vet charges?

Then of course there's the fact that the company is now going to be selling a vaccine every 3 years as opposed to annually, so really, with only such a small price increase, they're probably losing money!

To have a drug registered like this costs a LOT of money. They would have had to do 3 year long trials to get that registration. Which means colonies of dogs used, including 'control' dogs. Control dogs would have had to live in a completely pathogen free environment for the period of the trial, no human contact etc. Then they're all exposed to the virus, both the vaccinated once and the control dogs. The control dogs would mostly have got parvo and died.

So I'm really torn about wanting more vaccines registered for triennial use. Obviously it would be great for our dogs, but knowing the process that goes on in order to gain the registration, well, I'm not sure I'm keen on that.

As for the new protocols, we need everyone to step up and take not of them, not just vets. The AVA is pretty cagey about the issue and have not yet given a definite go ahead to use annuals on a 3 yearly basis. No one is going to offer support to a vet if they give an annual to a dog and it gets parvo a couple of years later. The AVA just says MAY last longer.

Kennels need to take them up as well as training clubs. Because until then, it's pointless vets giving annuals triennially because people are only going to have to come back for another shot anyway when their boarding kennel says no.

Thanks for the info Stormie, much appreciated

My concern with the registered triennial was to ensure that the vaccination wasn't a "hot shot" lacing my dog with a big dose on the basis that a heavy dose of vaccine will last longer because the triennial protocol I didn't understand it meaning double dosing for a longer interval between vaccinations which the registered triennial does give that impression. I would like to know why the registered triennial is a different formulation with a higher particle percentage for what reason given that the same companies annual formulation is different???. Personally, I wouldn't do a registered triennial yet, until these questions could be answered as an altered formulation doesn't make sense to me, neither does the registered triennial having a different parvo strain added.........what???, their annual is then not providing proper protection

Fiona

Yep I totally understand and these were our concerns at first too. We were thinking that the triennial was the equivalent of giving 3 annuals in one shot, which defeated the purpose of doing the minimal vaccine.

As to why they have different strains in their vaccines, I'm not sure. All I can think of is that the registered vaccine, being newer, has later discovered strains of the viruses which may not have been formulated into a vaccine back when they registered their annual vaccine. Perhaps it's too expensive for them to change their annual to the strains that are in the trinniel?

As to why there are a higher number of particles, again I can't answer that for sure, but as I said, I'm guessing it may just be something to do with the fact it's a different strain of the virus in the vaccine and in order to get adequate titre levels, that was the amount of particles required. Again, I'm not a scientist but I'm not sure how significant the amount of virus particles are, whether 1million is all that much of a difference to 2million etc. Perhaps when a dog encounters the real virus in the environment, it may be 10 to the power or 10particles, so maybe what's in the vaccine isn't that many? Again, I don't know.

I totally understand not wanting to use it because as I said, these were our concerns as well. But we had to weigh up both sides, that is, the risk of using an annual off label when we have little to know support, plus the fact boarding most local kennels would not accept the annual vaccine on a triennial basis. So until we get more definitive answers and support from the AVA, we've moved over to the triennial for most, unless of course they still want the annual, or even to titre test.

[frufru]

Thanks so much to the people contributing to this thread - it is one of the most informative I have seen for ages and answers a lot of questions for me.