Vancouver Feline Hospital - Cat Veterinary Clinic

Cynics will ask these questions for each vaccine -

• What research has been done?
• Who did the research and wrote the papers?
• In what context is the data - is it relevant to the population we are concerned about?
• Has the data been distorted or misinterpreted?
• What evidence is there for vaccine-related benefits?
• What evidence is there for vaccine-related harms?
• Is this evidence rigorously scientific or anecdotal? Are we comparing apples to pears or do we have an arena for discussion?
• Is extrapolation from human to other species valid?
• - For the vaccine being considered, how many individuals received the vaccine, what percentage of the population did they represent and how many of these individuals experienced an adverse reaction, what was the actual or perceived risk (disease prevalence) and was this reduced by giving the vaccine?
• - For a particular vaccine, is the strain used relevant to the population or individual at risk, is the individual at risk, what chance does the vaccinated individual have of contracting disease if challenged, and who does this vaccine protect (if we don't give the vaccine to many individuals do we place the population at risk)?
  

It may be humanly impossible to be truly unbiased. The proponents of either viewpoint in a debate can easily bias their literature reviews and facts to demonstrate their beliefs. Human nature goes along with the last thing heard, the best meal provided or whatever tenuous perception makes us consider this as a good thing. I don't have the time to ferret out all this literature, read it and critically evaluate it. I have to read reviews, use common sense, sometimes just wing it on belief. Listen to people I respect and carefully consider other viewpoints without attaining a post-graduate degree in their disciplines.

Some clients look at me as if I am crazy when I mention vaccine controversy in felines, but many are aware of the human controversy. The concerns that we are giving human babies vaccinations too often and with too many antigens at one time thus causing diseases such as autism, cancers, diabetes, SIDS, and so on has been well publicized. Rigorous research debunks many of these claims, but the myths remain. The canine controversy also involves concerns that giving a lot of vaccines at once may result in immune suppression or autoimmune haemolytic anaemia. The cat controversy is a little different in origin. It began when a new feline problem emerged in the eighties - about 1 in 10000 cats developed aggressive cancers called fibrosarcomas, most of them between the shoulder blades. That is where veterinarians gave a lot of their injections, including vaccines, under the skin between the shoulder blades. By the mid-nineties, research into determining the cause of these sarcomas was under way, and many held the theory that vaccines were the culprits. Veterinarians changed the way they vaccinated cats; by developing non-adjuvanted and recombinant vaccines, by changing the injection site, by habitually documenting injection sites and adverse reactions and by participating in world-wide studies of this horrible cancer.

Today, we know that fibrosarcomas may not be vaccine related, but related to any event that causes chronic inflammation in feline tissue; these sarcomas can occur unrelated to any other event; and in other species. We do not know the predisposing factors that underlie the development of these tumours.

In general, veterinarians are minimising products that once placed in a cat can cause an inflammatory reaction - any long-acting (depot-type) injection, non-absorbable suture material, and so on. At present, no specific brand of vaccine seems to be associated with sarcomas.

Remember that the average household, in today's very polluted environments, expose the cat to more carcinogens and toxins in its lifetime than ever before. The cumulative effect of inhaled and ingested (because the cat licks itself clean) toxins may be the leading cause of chronic pancreatic and liver disease, and intestinal cancers - or maybe veterinarians are just better at diagnosing these things now so it appears as if there is an increase in these diseases in the urban population. Our pets are indicators of human disease - meaning that in their short lives they fall victim to environmentally related diseases that may affect the human population in the same environment.

The good thing that has arisen is the debate and awareness that not every vaccine is essential for every individual. In future, serology titres may be helpful. Current studies do not go beyond challenge after 3 years 1 . At present, there is no standardisation of titres and certain diagnostic tests used in evaluating the need and response to vaccines (meaning the same blood can be sent to 3 different laboratories and yield 3 different results and the veterinarian has no way of knowing which is the true result). Vancouver Feline Hospital is exploring using the Immunocomb series (used in the referenced article). There is also no true evidence that alternative modalities can replace vaccination in preventing these diseases. Some diseases, and rabies is one of them, give us little choice - the consequences of an unvaccinated pet transmitting rabies to human contacts are unforgivably lethal.

Each vaccine is discussed - I do give my opinion, but you, the owner, makes the choice.

1. Rabies
2. FVRCP (Feline Herpes/viral rhinotracheitis, Calici, Panleukopenia/parvo) plus Chlamydia - also called Feline ThreeWay Vaccine
3. FeLV (Feline Leukaemia)
4. FIV (Feline Immunodeficiency Virus)
5. FIP (Feline Infectious Peritonitis)
6. Ringworm
7. Bordetella bronchiseptica

References:

1. Lappin, M.R. et al; (2002) ; Use of serologic tests to predict resistance to FHV-1, FCV, and FPV in cats. JAVMA, 220(1) , pp 38-42
2. AAFP vaccination guidelines
3. CVMA vaccination guidelines