I’ve nearing the end of my series on vaccination (at least one more topic to come), but I’ll change it up here with some short information about treatment, specifically the treatment of Lyme disease.

One challenge we have with infectious diseases of animals is determining optimal durations of treatment. We tend to have very little data, but often well ingrained positions, dogma or habits. Most likely, we overtreat. Durations that are used for treatment of many infectious diseases are longer than are used in comparable diseases in humans and are hard to justify based on any other principles or data. We’re making progress in some areas (e.g. decreasing duration of treatment of bacterial cystitis, guided by our ISCAID guidelines) but we still have a long way to go.

A lot of duration recommendations are from expert opinion. That’s not inherently bad (since you have to start somewhere and in the absence of data, a good, unbiased expert can help). But, we should aim higher. Ideally, we’d start with expert opinion when needed, then backfill it with data to find out what the optimal duration is and make necessary changes.

That doesn’t happen very often. There are lots of reasons for that, including lack of funding for proper trials, a pretty small pool of us interested in infectious diseases and reluctance to change. We’re often comfortable with what we are doing and don’t want to change, even when we we’re doing isn’t evidence based.

Lyme disease is a great example of a disease where we have very little actual data (and lots of opinion).

Led by Dr. Fiona Emdin, we have a commentary out in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association that discusses our common approaches for treatment of Lyme disease and the need for proper assessment. (Approaches to Lyme nephritis have even bigger issues, but I’ll maybe cover that later).

The commentary is fire-walled, unfortunately, but here’s the abstract for those that don’t have access.

Canine Lyme borreliosis is commonly treated with a 28-day course of doxycycline, a regimen based on historical precedent rather than evidence. Most dogs exposed to Borrelia burgdorferi remain clinically normal despite seroconversion; of those that do develop clinical Lyme disease, the most common presentation is acute or recurrent shifting-leg lameness consistent with Lyme arthropathy. This Viewpoint proposes there is clinical equipoise to evaluate shorter durations of 10 days of doxycycline in dogs with uncomplicated Lyme arthropathy and outlines a prospective parallel-group randomized controlled trial to reassess treatment duration. Determining whether a shorter treatment course is clinically effective also has important implications for antimicrobial stewardship by minimizing unnecessary antimicrobial exposure and selection pressures for antimicrobial resistance.

This post may look familiar, as it’s a repost of a piece from earlier this year, but it fits really well in this series (and it lets me be a bit lazy for the weekend).

Does Splitting Vaccines in Small Dogs Help Avoid Adverse Events?

The short answer: I don’t know, but probably not, and it could potentially do more harm than good.

I get asked a lot about splitting vaccines for pets, that is to say giving different vaccines at different visits instead of giving a bunch of vaccines all at the same time. The questions are often related to small breed dogs, which are more prone to adverse events following vaccination. Sometimes the questions are because a particular dog has had an adverse reaction to a vaccine in the past, and sometimes they’re because the owners are concerned about adverse reactions, even though their dog has never had one.

The theory behind the supposed benefits of splitting vaccines is that less antigenic stimulation would lead to a lower risk of adverse events. On one hand, that’s true. Data from a really large study of vaccination adverse events in dogs (Moore et al. 2023) showed that as you add more vaccines, the adverse event rate goes up (see graph below).

So, why do I say I don’t know if splitting vaccines helps avoid adverse events? Because we have to think about what happens to the dog over time, not just what happens after each vaccination visit. If we give only one vaccine today, we have a lower risk of an adverse reaction than if we gave two, but if the dog still needs the second vaccine, it will need to come back again for another vaccination visit, that also comes with its own risk of an adverse event.

Looking at the numbers from the graph above, let’s approximate the risks for a small breed dog that is due for DA2PP (distemper, adenovirus 2, parvo, parainfluenza, which are given together as a single injection) and rabies vaccines.

  • That’s two vaccines. Based on the crude estimate from the graph, the risk of an adverse event would be roughly 27 in 10,000 if they are given at the same visit.
  • If we only give DA2PP vaccine, the risk would be lower, at around 21 in 10,000, but the dog will still need to get a rabies vaccine.
  • When the dog comes in for its second visit and we only give the rabies vaccine, the risk of an adverse event is once again 21 in 10,000.

If we look at the risk for a single vaccine visit, the risk is lower if we only give one vaccine (21 vs 27 in 10,000). However, if we look at the cumulative risk to this dog from receiving both vaccines on separate days, (21+21= 42 in 10,000) it’s actually higher than if we’d given them both at once.

How solid are these numbers? It’s hard to say. The data are crude, but they are the best we have. It makes sense, though. Splitting vaccines would have to drop the risk by at least 50% to achieve a net benefit when we have to add extra vaccination events to ensure the dog gets all the vaccines it needs. This also doesn’t consider the added stress, hassle and normal general malaise the pet can get after vaccination, which happens twice if the vaccines are split. I got my flu and COVID-19 vaccines at the same time. I did that on purpose because I’d rather have one episode of having a sore arm and maybe feeling crappy than two episodes. The same presumably applies to our canine patients.

It’s not that there are no valid reasons for splitting vaccines. It’s possible that some dogs that are particularly reactive to vaccines would benefit more from this strategy. We just don’t know.

The main benefit of splitting vaccines is to understand which vaccine may be causing a reaction in the dog if they have one. If I give DA2PP one day and the dog is fine, then follow up with rabies vaccine and the dog has a reaction, that’s useful because it suggests we have to focus on issues with the rabies vaccine. However, even that isn’t a guarantee of the cause, as many vaccine reactions are just random, non-repeatable events that don’t indicate long term risk.

So, split away if you want, but realize that’s it’s a bit more complicated than it might seem at first glance. It might not be reducing the risk to the dog, and it may actually be increasing it.

test

Earlier this week (in part 2 of this series) I covered minimal intervals for giving pets different vaccines (when they’re not given on the same day). This post will cover intervals for giving boosters of the same vaccine, particularly in pets being vaccinated for the first time (I covered boosters for overdue pets in part 1).

Some vaccines, such as our core modified live vaccines for dogs and cats, are highly effective even with just one dose. That means if an animal is healthy and old enough to no longer have circulating maternal antibodies (which can interfere vaccine response), it really only needs one dose of vaccine, not a series. Other vaccines (e.g. leptospirosis, Lyme disease, feline leukemia) require a “primer” and a “booster” dose to achieve an effective response; the label recommendation for these is typically to give the booster 2-4 weeks after the first dose.

We use a 2-4 week interval because we know it’s long enough to work as a booster, but also relatively short so the animal is protected as soon as possible; however, that doesn’t mean that a different interval won’t also work. The vaccine manufacturers don’t test how well their vaccines work at a whole bunch of different intervals (as it’s expensive and requires more animals to do more challenge trials), so we don’t have clear data on what happens if we miss the recommended booster interval. To make a decision in these cases, we need to consider how the immune system responds to serial doses of the same vaccine.

Longer than label booster intervals

If we are starting a vaccine series and miss the recommended interval, that doesn’t mean we need to restart it. It just means the animal was not protected as soon as it could have been, since it took longer to get that important second dose.

  • If an adult dog got its first leptospirosis vaccine, missed the booster at 4 weeks and instead came in 6 weeks after the first dose, it can just have a single booster now without having to “restart the series.” The immune system hasn’t forgotten the primer dose, and the booster will work fine. For further discussion and details, see the part 1 post from earlier this week on overdue pets.

A longer interval between boosters may actually produce an even better immune response in some cases. The best interval to use for this may actually be 3-6 months, not 2-4 weeks, but that would mean the animal in question isn’t fully protected for a lot longer. By boosting earlier, we might be sacrificing a little bit in terms of the maximum degree of protection, but we get the animal protected sooner, which is a logical trade (and remember that the 2-4 week interval has been tested by the vaccine manufacturer so we know it works well enough).

The take home message is not to get hung up on a 2-4 week vaccine series, as long as the animal gets that all-important booster (and the sooner it gets it thereafter, the sooner it’s protected).

Shorter than label booster intervals

There are some plausible concerns with shorter intervals, but unfortunately we have no data to either support or refute them. There’s also lots of grey, because the immune system doesn’t suddenly change on day 14 after the first dose of a vaccine. The immune response is on a continuum to which we are trying to apply a specific breakpoint that will work for most of the population. So a booster on day 12 or 13 likely isn’t a big deal, but an even shorter interval could be problematic because of the the way the immune system responds and creates memory. Following vaccination, we want the body to produce antibodies in the short term for immediate protection, AND establish a robust pool of immune cells that will be able to quickly ramp up antibody production again in the future on subsequent exposure to the pathogen (or a booster vaccine).

  • Antibodies are initially produced by immature plasma cells (plasmablasts). For long term immunity, the plasmablasts need to mature into “adult” plasma cells in germinal centres in the lymph nodes, and there also needs to be a population of specific T-helper lymphocytes that help signal plasma cell production. That all takes time. If a booster vaccine is given too soon in the process, the response occurs without the help of those germinal centres and with fewer helper T cells, so instead of producing plasma cells and memory B-cells (that help produce durable immunity with rapid response in the future), the response just produces more short term plasmablasts.

Pre- and post-exposure rabies vaccination in people provides an interesting comparison. After a rabies exposure, a person is given a series of vaccine doses over a very short period (days 0, 3, 7 and 14) because the main goal is rapid immediate protection (to intercept any virus already in the body), not establishing long term protection against future exposures (but there will still be some, of course). For pre-exposure rabies vaccination in people, the first two doses are given no less than 7 days apart, with another dose usually between day 21 or 28 from the first dose, which is the more effective strategy for establishing long term protection.

Picture this: A dog is due for its leptospirosis vaccine booster at two weeks, but it comes in early. Do you give it the booster, or tell the owner to come back at the two week mark?

  • If it’s possible to have the dog come back, that would be ideal, so we’re following the label instructions and don’t need to think about the other issues.
  • Sometimes we’re concerned that the owner won’t bring the dog back because it’s too much hassle. Potentially suboptimal vaccination is usually better than no vaccination, and I don’t want to pass up an opportunity to protect an animal, so if that’s the case consider how early might be too early:
    • 10-14 days after the first dose: Likely won’t make a big difference. I’d have little concern with giving the booster right away.
    • 7-10 days after the first dose: Probably also fine. While we don’t have veterinary data, human vaccine schedules show that effective boosting can occur over this interval.
    • Less than 7 days after the first dose: Questionable. The animal may still have a good short term response, but may not develop robust, long term immunity. If two doses are inadvertently given this close together, I’d consider the second dose potentially ineffective and recommend an additional booster at least two weeks later. The rare situation where it might be worthwhile to booster right away is if someone had a puppy that got a dose of leptospirosis vaccine at 12 weeks of age and came in 6 days later because they were going camping today for a few weeks. I’d consider giving the puppy the booster then (to try to give the dog more short term immunity for the camping trip when it’s at high risk of exposure), but I’d recommend a third dose later on to be confident in the long term protection.

I admit that a lot of this is based on some best guesses and extrapolation. As is often a challenge in veterinary medicine, we don’t often have directly relevant high level data to help guide us in these situations. Nonetheless, it’s important to reassess old habits and historical approaches and consider what evidence and data we do have, to help us make the best decisions we can.

test

TL;DR: There’s no proven premedication strategy that reliably prevents adverse reactions to vaccines; instead focus on patient risk assessment, appropriate vaccine selection, close monitoring, and prompt treatment if an adverse event occurs.  

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) in pets are uncommon, but that doesn’t mean their inconsequential. Clients (and veterinarians) worry about them a lot. Adverse events following vaccination can range from very mild (like feeling crappy for a day or two after getting a flu shot) to life-threatening anaphylaxis.

Some worry about pets that have had an AE in the past. Others worry even when the animal doesn’t have a history of an AE. In either case, premedication is sometimes used to try to reduce the risk of an AE – but does it actually make a difference to the animal, or does it just make us feel better?

For both prevention and treatment, it’s important to be aware of the different mechanisms that drive different types of AEs. For the purpose of this post, we can group these into four broad categories:

  1. Inflammatory reactions: These include localized pain and swelling around the injection site, and systemic signs like fever and malaise. These are essentially exuberant “normal” responses to a vaccine, based on what we would expect the body to do. These reactions are typically mild and self-limiting, but can still make the animal feel pretty rough the day after (as many people experience after their own vaccines).
  2. Anaphylaxis: This is the most sudden, dramatic and life-threatening type of reaction. It’s a rapid-onset, immune-mediated reaction driven by immunoglobulin E (IgE), which leads to profound systemic mast cell and basophil degranulation, releasing massive amounts of histamine into the body.
  3. Localized / non-anaphylactic allergic reactions: These are true allergic reactions that develop minutes to hours after vaccination, but they’re actually quite rare. They are likely a response to non-target antigens in components of the vaccine (e.g. trace components, stabilizers), not the actual vaccine antigen itself.
  4. Immune mediated inflammatory reactions: There are a few types of these, the onset of which typically occurs several hours to days after vaccination. They can vary in severity, from little nodules at the site of injection to severe systemic consequences to widespread immune complex formation.

Below is a list of some of the strategies that are commonly used to try to prevent or treat vaccine AEs, and whether they do or don’t make sense, depending on the mechanisms involved.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)

Anti-inflammatories are usually the first approach to treating reactions that result in inflammation and pain. For pain, malaise or fever after a flu shot, many people would likely take ibuprofen (an NSAID). The same is generally true for dogs and cats: if they feel rough after vaccination, an appropriate dose of an NSAID will help them feel better. This is something we do in response to a problem, it is not something we should be trying to use as a preventative. The US CDC’s Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (also known as the “Pink Book”) includes a chapter on vaccine administration, which states: “The prophylactic use of antipyretics (e.g., acetaminophen and ibuprofen) before or at the time of vaccination is not recommended. There is no evidence these will decrease the pain associated with an injection. In addition, some studies have suggested these medications might suppress the immune response to some vaccine antigens.”

Antihistamines

As the name suggests, these drugs are meant to address histamine-based reactions that cause issues like hives (but not anaphylaxis – that requires epinephrine). In dogs and cats, diphenhydramine (Benadryl) is the most frequently used antihistamine. Unfortunately, oral absorption (bioavailability) of this drug is poor and unpredictable in dogs, and the half life is short, so it’s effects can be unpredictable, limited and short term, which makes it an unreliable choice for treatment and particularly bad for prophylaxis (because there’s a good chance if you give it in advance that it may be gone by the time a reaction starts). The short half-life also increases the risk of “rebound” signs, e.g. if the histamine release persists after the drug concentrations fall. Intravenous diphenhydramine is useful for initial short-term treatment of severe reactions. Cetirizine is a better choice for an oral antihistamine, since it’s more potent, has better bioavailability and lasts longer.

Nonetheless, as for NSAIDs, antihistamines are for treatment of AEs, not prevention. In humans, they specifically recommend against pre-treating with antihistamines before vaccination. There’s no evidence that they help prevent AEs. The US CDC’s guidance for preparing for the potential management of anaphylaxis at COVID-19 vaccination sites addresses this quite clearly: “Administration of antihistamines to COVID-19 vaccine recipients prior to vaccination to prevent allergic reactions is not recommended. Antihistamines do not prevent anaphylaxis, and their prophylactic use may mask cutaneous symptoms, which could lead to a delay in the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis.”

Corticosteroids

These drugs have potent anti-inflammatory effects, and at higher doses they can even suppress the immune system. They are a core component of treatment of immune-mediated diseases. However, at both anti-inflammatory or immunosuppressive doses, they can cause a variety of adverse (side) effects. We’re not going to prevent an immune-mediated reaction with an anti-inflammatory dose of steroids, and it makes no sense to give an immunosuppressive dose of steroids prior to a vaccine (as it would inhibit the good immune response the vaccine is trying to induce). While corticosteroids are critical for treatment of vaccine AEs, they have no role in prevention, and quite realistically could do more harm than good if used prophylactically.

Epinephrine

Epinephrine is an essential emergency drug for short term treatment of imminently life-threatening, active anaphylaxis. It cannot be used to prevent reactions.

Anti-nausea medications

One anti-nausea medication in particular (maropitant) is sometimes administered prior to vaccination of pets, particularly cats. If the animal gets nauseated in response to vaccination, it might help to give maropitant in advance (similar to a person taking gravol before a car ride to prevent motion sickness). There’s no real downside to this, other than cost, and the effort of trying to get the medication into the animal (which is sometimes no small feat with cats). Whether or not the level of nausea makes it worthwhile depends on the individual animal and whether there’s a known history of nausea after vaccination, but this drug would not interfere with the vaccine response in any way.

What CAN we do to reduce the occurrence and impact of vaccine AEs in pets?

I focus on two things:

  • Carefully assessing vaccination needs (so we don’t give more vaccines than we really need to)
  • Being ready to treat AEs (because they will happen)

Our standard approaches to vaccination are geared toward the general population, and they typically err on the side of more vaccination for the protection of the pet from disease, because disease exposure is the bigger risk. If an animal has a true increased risk of an AE, the cost:benefit ratio of giving more vaccines may change. If the risk of a vaccine AE is realtively high, and the value of the vaccine is relatively low (in terms of disease prevention), it might make more sense to skip that vaccine.

  • For example, in an adult dog at risk for a vaccine AE that I know had at least one DAPP vaccine at 16 weeks of age or older, I’d be comfortable foregoing additional doses of that vaccine. But the value of other vaccines in the same dog (e.g. leptospirosis) would be higher, so I’d push more to have those done anyway. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach; one needs to consider the risks and benefits to the pet, and the owner’s preferences and risk aversity.
  • Note that splitting vaccines up across multiple appointments also doesn’t really help decrease the overall incidence of AEs (I’ve covered this before, but I’ll rehash it in another post soon).

Beyond that, have a plan for treating AEs promptly when they do occur.

  • If a pet is feeling rough after vaccination, providing short-term NSAID treatment is reasonable.
  • If a pet is having what looks like a true histamine-based reaction (e.g. hives), an antihistamine is indicated (e.g. injectable diphenhydramine for a quick effect, followed by oral cetirizine for a more reliable and prolonged effect (compared to oral diphenhydramine)).
  • If a pet is having a true immune-mediated reaction (which is rare), then immunosuppressive doses of steroids are needed (but not something we want to do unless we have to, because of the potential complications).
  • If there’s any hint that anaphylaxis might be occurring, get the epinephrine and don’t let the animal out of your sight.

The greater the concern about the risk of an AE and the greater the risk of a severe AE, the closer the animal should be monitored. That might mean vaccinating them in the morning and keeping them under close observation in the clinic during the day, or ensuring they are at home with someone to observe them. If there’s a really high risk of anaphylaxis (but enough of a need for the vaccine to still take that risk), it might even be worth having an IV catheter in place and having a dose of epinephrine standing by, along with close observation and a plan for what else to do if the animal has a severe reaction.

test

Picture this: An owner takes their dog to a veterinarian for routine vaccines. The veterinarian recommends a DAPP vaccine (distemper, adenovirus, parvovirus, parainfluenza), as well as vaccination for rabies and leptospirosis. After some discussion, the owner declines the lepto vaccine, but proceeds with the others. The next day, they call back after doing some reading, having decided they’d like to have the dog vaccinated for lepto after all. When can the dog receive the additional vaccine?

A lot of veterinarians would likely recommend waiting at least two weeks, because that’s the minimum interval for boosters for many of our canine vaccines. It’s a pretty well entrenched dogma that’s been propagated through teaching, continuing education talks and reviews for years, but if you try to trace back that recommendation, you eventually hit a dead end.

  • It’s sometimes stated that the immune system can get overwhelmed or overloaded if too many vaccines are given close together, but there’s no hard evidence that happens. People and animals are bombarded by antigenic stimuli every day, so out immune systems are designed to be ready to go 24/7.

There’s actually no clear immunological basis for a universal 14-day minimum interval between administration of different vaccines (vs boosters of the same vaccine) in dogs and cats, or that giving different vaccines closer together than this results in clinically relevant vaccine failure. In human medicine (where they have a lot more data), there’s no recommendation for a minimum interval between most vaccines, with a few exceptions that don’t apply to pet vaccines.

  • According to the US CDC guidance on Timing and Spacing of Immunobiologics: “There is no evidence that non-live vaccines interfere with the immune response to other non-live vaccines or to live vaccines. Any non-live vaccine can be administered either simultaneously or at any time before or after a different non-live vaccine or live vaccine. The 2 exceptions are a 4-week interval between PCV13 and MenACWY-D in a person with anatomic asplenia and the separation of doses between PCV13 and PPSV23. (These exceptions are not applicable to dogs and cats of course).
  • Regarding live vaccines, the CDC guidance goes on to say: Limited data are available regarding interference between live vaccines used in the United States. The immune response to one live-virus vaccine might be impaired if administered within 28 days (i.e., 4 weeks) of another live-virus vaccine. In a study conducted in 2 U.S. health maintenance organizations, the risk for varicella vaccine failure (i.e., varicella disease in a vaccinated person) among persons who received varicella vaccine within 28 days of MMR vaccination was threefold higher than among persons who received varicella vaccine >28 days after MMR vaccination. Another study determined that the response to yellow fever vaccine is not affected by monovalent measles vaccine administered 1–27 days earlier. The effect of nonsimultaneous administration of rubella, mumps, varicella, and yellow fever vaccines is unknown.”

Based on this, the concern is only with serial administration of multiple injectable modified live vaccines, and it likely only affects some of these vaccines, not all of them. Combination core vaccines for pets (DAPP for dogs, FVRCP for cats) include modified live components, but the other vaccines we use (for lepto, Lyme disease, feline leukemia, and some rabies vaccines) are non-live vaccines. There are some modified live feline chlamydia vaccines, but those are typically part of FVRCP vaccines. (If there was a chlamydia-only live vaccine, I’d consider spacing it by at least 4 weeks from an FVRCP vaccine, but I don’t know if that would actually be necessary). We don’t otherwise need to worry about giving different modified live vaccines close together because the products don’t exist.

So in my opinion the dog in our initial scenario can be vaccinated for lepto at any time with no additional concerns about “interference” or poor response because of the vaccines the dog received at the initial appointment. If the owner is told to wait, there’s a good chance life will get in the way and a later appointment won’t get booked. I wouldn’t want to miss an opportunity to vaccinate the dog, so I’d have them come back as soon as they are able. That also helps the dog get protection as soon as possible.

Now let’s think about non-injectable vaccines. Picture this instead: Same dog, same owner, same recommendations. This time the owner calls back the next day and says they will be boarding the dog later this year, so they want to get it a “kennel cough” vaccine. You recommend a mucosal (oral or intranasal) vaccine, since they are more effective than injectable kennel cough vaccines. When can the dog receive an oral or intranasal vaccine?

Mucosal (oral, nasal) vaccines that we use for “kennel cough” (typically Bordetella bronchiseptica, canine parainfluenza virus, canine adenovirus in various combinations) in dogs are modified live vaccines, so there might be some issues to consider with regard to minimum vaccination intervals, but we have a complete lack of data on the impact in pets.

  • In humans, the CDC guidance says “Two or more injectable or nasally administered live vaccines not administered on the same day should be separated by at least 4 weeks, to minimize the potential risk for interference. If 2 such vaccines are separated by < 4 weeks, the second vaccine administered should not be counted and the dose should be repeated at least 4 weeks later. On the day a live injectable or intranasal vaccine will be administered, providers should ensure that no live injectable or intranasal vaccine was given in the previous 28 days.”

This is the one situation where there might be a biologically plausible argument for a minimum interval between different vaccines, but whether it actually has a clinically significant impact is another question. We have no idea if it’s an issue for pets, but this scenario could occur with dogs given a modified live core vaccine and then a modified live intranasal or oral vaccine less than 4 weeks apart. I’ve never really considered this to be a big concern, as I’d typically be more concerned about missing the opportunity to protect the dog against a vaccine-preventable disease, but I don’t think we can ignore it completely.

So in the scenario with the newly vaccinated dog and the owner now requesting a kennel cough vaccine, I’d consider how important the vaccine is in the very short term and over the next several months. If the dog won’t be boarded for a few months, I’d recommend waiting 4 weeks for the kennel cough vaccine out of abundance of caution, to try to get the best response possible on the first dose. If the dog is going into a high risk environment (e.g. boarding) soon, then I’d give the vaccine right away, but also recommend another dose 4 (or more) weeks later based on the theoretical potential for a poorer response to the first dose. That may be overkill, but it’s the one scenario with a plausible basis for setting a minimum dosing interval between different vaccines.

To sum up another very long blog post:

  • There is no scientific basis for a minimum interval between giving different non-live vaccines to dogs and cats.
  • The only scenario in which a minimum interval between different vaccines could plausibly matter is sequential administration of multiple modified live vaccines, which doesn’t come up very often in pets anyway, and the potential for interference it based only on extrapolation from human medicine, with no evidence that it is clinically relevant in dogs or cats.

This also raises questions about vaccination of pets in shelters. Shelters vaccinate frequently using modified live vaccines, including kennel cough vaccines for dogs. Does that mean those dogs may be suboptimally vaccinated in some situations, OR can we consider shelters a natural model that shows this kind of interference actually isn’t a concern? An interesting point for discussion, but shelter vaccination strategies are fodder for a separate post.

Don’t forget to check out the new paired resource from the Ontario Animal Health Network (OAHN): Vaccination Timing and Intervals in Dogs and Cats (infosheet and infotable). If you don’t have an OAHN login, veterinarians and RVTs can sign up for free.

Let’s face it, approaches to vaccination in companion animals are based partly on direct evidence, partly on extrapolation from other species, partly on expert opinion, and partly on “this is what we do because it’s what we’ve always done.” The evidence base for much of what we do is incomplete, and for a lot of things the evidence base is actually sparse to non-existent. We typically have good basic information about most of our vaccines and what happens with them in the specific “textbook” scenarios, but we also need to know what to do when animals and owners don’t follow the textbook (which happens a lot).

Label instructions on vaccines have traditionally described those ideal / textbook scenarios, but more recently they are getting much less specific. That’s useful in some ways, because it provides room for flexibility and gets away from rigorous, dogmatic approaches, but it doesn’t necessarily help someone know what to do instead.

That’s where veterinary vaccination guidelines can be useful too, and these have been critical to the advancement of preventive care over the years, but they also need to evolve. Current veterinary vaccination guidelines have a lot of recommendations that aren’t supported by any data, but sometimes we have to make recommendations even when we have very little evidence. More recent approaches to guideline development use rigourous evidence synthesis (to make sure we are basing decisions on what’s known, not just the parts we like) and provide insight into how certain we are about each recommendation: Some recommendations are very clearly evidence-based and solid; many are reasonable but not strongly supported by evidence; some need to be rethought altogether. If there’s no transparency about what we know versus what we think versus what we’re guessing, it can lead to confusion and other issues (like guesses being treated as fact).

  • That’s me wearing my guideline methodologists hat, but I’ll take that off now, since I’m about to make some recommendations without that degree of evidence synthesis and structured decision-making process. It’s a blog post, after all. But hopefully it might entice some of the groups that make those guidelines to evolve.

Today I’m going to tackle what to do with pets that are overdue for their scheduled vaccine boosters. (I’ll try to cover some of the other scenarios in subsequent posts – this one will be long enough as it is!) Vaccines usually have recommended re-dosing intervals. In the past these have typically been very specific (e.g. every 12 months), but the trend is now toward much looser statements. For example, one Canadian canine vaccine label now reads “Historically, annual revaccination with this product has been recommended. The need for annual booster vaccination has not been established for this product. For advice on revaccination frequency, consult your veterinarian.”

Here’s an example: An 8-year-old Bichon (let’s call him Teddy) was vaccinated as a puppy, and then got core (distemper, parvovirus) and rabies vaccines at approximately 1 year of age, and then again 3 years later (around 4 years of age). He was due for re-vaccination a year ago (7 years old). Teddy was also consistently vaccinated against leptospirosis every year, but missed that one last year too.

What do we do with Teddy?

  • To be honest, my thoughts on this have evolved as I’ve put more time into looking at evidence and thinking about vaccination. I’ll admit I had a lot of ingrained approaches that were based on historical norms and not data and evidence. Changing behaviours is hard for people, and even I’m not immune to that, but we have to evolve.

A common response to this scenario would be to say that Teddy is well overdue for everything, so we need to restart all of his vaccine “series,” meaning a dose now and (for some of the vaccines) as booster in a few weeks. But that doesn’t make sense to me immunologically. Most (not all) of our canine vaccines are quite good at what they do, and the immune system of most animals has an effective long term memory. While protection against some diseases may wane over time (which is why the boosters are still needed), the ability to respond well to a booster vaccine often endures for much longer (a concept sometimes referred to as boostability).

In human medicine, there are very few situations where it is recommended to restart a vaccine series, and none of them apply to the kinds of vaccines we use in dogs and cats. If a person misses their scheduled booster and is overdue – whether by a day, a year, or 10 years – the recommendation is typically to simply revaccinate them. According to the US CDC guidance on Timing and Spacing of Immunobiologics: “Vaccination providers should administer vaccines as close to the recommended intervals as possible. However, intervals between doses that are longer than recommended typically do not reduce final antibody concentrations, although protection might not be attained until the recommended number of doses has been administered. With some exceptions (e.g. oral typhoid vaccine) an interruption in the vaccination schedule does not require restarting the entire series of a vaccine or toxoid or addition of extra doses.”

So for Teddy, I’d recommend simply revaccinating him as usual, with the exception of the rabies vaccine… That exception is due to regulatory issues around rabies vaccine, because regulators don’t like to take any chances when it comes to very deadly zoonotic diseases (which is somewhat understandable).

  • Rabies vaccine works very well, and many animals respond extremely well to a booster vaccine even if they’re overdue by several years (Moore et al. 2015), but it’s impossible to know (in advance) which animals will and which won’t respond well to a booster, or how long an animal may be protected beyond what has been tested by the vaccine manufacturer. But even rabies vaccines labels have become less prescriptive; for example, one such label now says “Duration of Immunity is at least 3 years after a repeat dose” but does not specify an interval for the repeated dose.
  • A pet’s rabies vaccination status therefore impacts what happens if that animal is potentially exposed to rabies. Different jurisdictions have different rules about this; Ontario’s rabies management guidelines for domestic animals are one example. If an overdue dog like Teddy was revaccinated today, I would have absolutely no concern about the dog being protected for at least the next 3 years, but some regulators would only consider that booster valid for 1 year. So if Teddy was exposed to a bat or an abnormal raccoon 18 months from now, that could mean a long confinement period (instead of easy observation).
  • Knowing what the rules are in your local area is important. Some jurisdictions now may worry less about the previous vaccination intervals (but knowing the pet has had previous rabies vaccines at some point), and focus mainly on the interval from the last dose (e.g. within 3 years). Some will accept a 3-year duration of immunity if there are only short lapses in the history (e.g. as long as the dog was boostered within 3 months of when it was due). Some remain very strict, meaning as soon as a pet is overdue, it’s next rabies vaccine is only good for 1 year, and only after getting another booster within 12 months can the pet go back on the 3 year revaccination schedule. While it could be helpful for regulators to have some more flexibility, “regulation” and “flexibility” are difficult concepts to marry along with “consistency”.
  • Animals that travel overseas may encounter the strictest rabies vaccination requirements. Border authorities may look very closely at vaccination history, any lapse in vaccination (even by a day) could invalidate a claim to a 3 year duration of immunity (meaning if it’s been more than 1 year since the pet’s last vaccine, it will be stopped at the border).

Knowing what rules may apply to a certain pet (based on where it lives or where it may travel) is key. If in doubt, I’d revaccinate Teddy now and give a booster in a year, even though it’s likely overkill for many pets (but better than a rabies quarantine or interrupting the owner’s vacation plans).

Even if we get veterinarians (and owners) on board with the immunological basis for not needing to restart vaccine series in overdue pets, some veterinarians will still worry about liability and vaccinating “off label.” But consider that giving a single dose now is no more off-label than restarting a series, because neither of those scenarios is described on the label (or even in the R&D from the vaccine manufacturer). Yet we convince ourselves that the historical norm (e.g. what we did before, as per the label) is the safer / better approach, but we don’t know if that’s actually true.

For me, at this point, overdue animals are easy: Vaccine them as you normally would, but also think about (and discuss with the owner) if the pet might run into any regulatory issues if it’s not revaccinated again in 1 year (instead of 3 years).

I’ll be a little more concise (I almost promise) when I cover other vaccination scenarios (stay tuned). For more information (and a sneak peak of what’s to come), check out the new paired resource from the Ontario Animal Health Network (OAHN): Vaccination Timing and Intervals in Dogs and Cats (infosheet and infotable). If you don’t have an OAHN login, veterinarians and RVTs can sign up for free.

I doubt I’ve posted anything here about hairballs in cats before, despite having cats that sometimes leave them around the house, as it’s not really an infectious disease issue. However, Dr. Samantha Taylor, a feline and internal medicine specialist who’s been at the forefront of navigating the new realities of antiviral use for feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) in cats, is coordinating a short survey looking at grooming and hairball behaviour in cats, to help answer understudied questions about how common hairballs are and factors that might be associated with them. So I figured we could help by sharing the survey link with our many cat-owning readers.

I’m not involved in this survey, but I completed it as a cat owner myself. Fellow cat owners can access the survey as well through the link below:

The Fur Report 2026: Survey on grooming behaviour and hairballs in pet cats

No hairballs yet from Franklin, my daughter’s new cat (pictured above)… but he looks like he’s planning something.

test

Two separate stories regarding Salmonella contamination of unrelated pet products have been in the news lately.

The most recent one was a recall of Salmonella-contaminated pet supplements from Fi, a New York based company (see the link for specific products and lots affected). Details are pretty sparse, but the recall was apparently triggered because of contamination of an ingredient supplied to the company. It’s not clear whether the contamination of the ingredient was detected by the supplier during routine testing, by Fi during routine testing, or based on an investigation linked to sick pets. The FDA notice doesn’t mention anything about sick animals (or their human contacts), so hopefully this recall was made out of abundance of caution prior to any known cases of illness (while noting that “no known cases” doesn’t mean “no cases”, as illness from contaminated food, treats or supplements is vastly underidentified and underreported).

While contamination is concerning, the response seems very appropriate: A problem was identified, the FDA was notified, and a recall was initiated. That’s how it should be.

…But at the other end of the spectrum is Darwin’s Pet Food.

I’ve written about Darwin’s before as they’ve had multiple contamination problems with their raw pet food in the past, including E. coli in contaminated pet food resulting in severe disease in a child, follow a few months later by more issues with contamination of their products with Listeria and Salmonella. A common theme with both stories (beyond the biohazardous pet food) was the company ignoring FDA requests to recall the implicated diets. It boggles my mind that a company can just ignore an FDA recall request, both based on the legal aspects and basic ethics. But, they did.

More recently, the US Justice Department filed a complaint to “to permanently enjoin a Washington state pet food manufacturer [Darwin’s] from manufacturing and selling adulterated pet food.”

It shouldn’t take a Justice Department lawsuit to make a company stop selling contaminated food but that seems to be the case with Darwin’s. In the FDA notice, Timothy Schell, Director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine stated “Despite repeated FDA warnings, this company continues to manufacture and distribute products contaminated with harmful bacteria. When a company does not take responsibility for product safety, FDA will intervene to protect public health.”

In some ways, I’m surprised they acted, as contamination of raw pet food is a niche issue that has largely avoided regulatory attention in the past. It’s a good sign, though. Our archives have lots of information on the broader issues around whether or not feeding raw diets to pet is a good idea, so I won’t get into those again here. Suffice to say, if raw diets are fed to pets, people need to realize there’s an increased risk to both pets and people, and they need to take appropriate precautions. Companies need to do that too. For example, some raw pet food companies use high pressure pasteurization to reduce (not necessarily eliminate) bacterial contamination in their products, which is a very useful measure.

Good companies have good facilities and food safety practices. Others deflect responsibility and ignore warnings and reports of sick animals or people. The problem is, consumers often can’t tell which companies are doing (or not doing) what. Government action is important in this kind of scenario in particular; naming-and-shaming can be a big part of it since, ultimately, if consumers stop buying dodgy products, those companies will either go out of business or have to improve.

Here’s some other info from the Justice Department notice:

The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleges FDA found the presence of pathogenic bacteria, including Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes (L. mono), and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) in the company’s finished pet food products in samples collected from 2017 through 2025. In 2024, FDA investigators also found Salmonella in the company’s Tukwila facility. Infections from L. mono, Salmonella, or STECcan cause symptoms such as diarrhea and vomiting in healthy adults. For vulnerable consumers — including pregnant women, the elderly, and the immune-compromised — L. mono, Salmonella, and STEC can each cause more serious effects including death. L. mono can cause stillbirths and miscarriages.  

The complaint further alleges Arrow Reliance’s products have repeatedly infected consumers over several years. After multiple Arrow Reliance customers complained of humans or pets suffering from health problems, FDA investigators detected the presence of pathogenic bacteria in unopened samples of the company’s product. In 2024, a four-year-old child fell ill with a STEC infection and developed Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome after the family dog was fed Arrow Reliance’s products. Third party laboratory testing of the family’s unopened pet food from Arrow Reliance confirmed the presence of both Salmonella and STEC bacteria. 

Here we have the juxtaposition of one company that seems to have initiated a recall of its products because an ingredient was contaminated, without evidence of disease but acting appropriately to reduce the risk (yay!), compared to another company that has chronically and repeatedly ignored FDA recall requests, has clear evidence of long term quality control and contamination issues, and shows no interest in the health of consumers or their pets (boo!).

I hope that people who feed Darwin’s diets will pay attention to what this government action is saying.

test

Antibiotics get used a lot in dogs and cats (and other species) that undergo surgery. A lot of the time, the antibiotics are unnecessary. I suspect in many cases veterinarians know it’s unnecessary, but they still use them out of habit, fear of complications, fear of complaints from owners, lack of consideration of the potential downsides, and because we are programmed to want to “do something” to avoid adverse outcomes, even when not doing anything may be the best approach.

A big challenge with developing reliable veterinary antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines is the lack of good studies. There are lots of small observational studies in animals for various types of surgery, which are useful but only provide quite low-certainty evidence. We’d love to have randomized controlled trials for each type of surgery in each species, but such trials are expensive and complex. Another major challenge for any surgical site infection study is enrolling enough cases (i.e. sample size). Since surgical site infections are uncommon after most procedures (which is a good thing!), studies usually need very large sample sizes (e.g. hundreds to thousands of animals) to detect differences between treatment groups, or to confidently say there’s no difference (i.e. non-inferiority trial). I frequently have discussions with people who want to do studies looking at use of antimicrobials and surgical infections. Once we go over the numbers, they tend to quickly get turned off because sample size calculations show the required size would be way too big for what they can manage (or afford) to do. Unfortunately, there simply is not enough funding in this area, so we’re not likely to get these kinds of large trials anytime soon. That doesn’t mean we’re stuck with no evidence at all on which to base our guidelines, it just means we have to rely on different types of evidence that have less certainty.

That can be disheartening to feel like the kinds of studies we want to do are constantly out of reach, but it doesn’t mean that smaller studies are futile even if they can’t answer all the questions. “Don’t let perfection be the enemy of the good” as they say. We just have to have realistic expectations (and avoid over interpreting the results).

We recently published a commentary highlighting this, entitled Small sample sizes in clinical trials: a pragmatic approach to clinical research in veterinary medicine (Weese et al. J Small Anim Pract 2026). A single small study may not be able to answer our big questions, but we can put data together from multiple small studies (if they’re well designed) using meta-analyses to draw stronger / broader conclusions. The concept is that there are no underpowered studies, there are only underpowered analyses.

  • Small studies may not be amenable to much or any statistical analysis on their own, yet weak or futile analyses are often attempted, likely because the authors feel it’s expected. However, improper conclusions from underpowered analyses can range from useless to even harmful in some cases.
  • We still want small studies to be published, but they may just be data with no analysis, and that can be hard for researchers and readers alike to wrap their heads around.

I raise this concept in the context of a nice recently published little study about bacterial endocarditis in dogs that underwent balloon dilatation because of congenital pulmonary stenosis (Zeedijk & Szatmári et al. 2026). The authors evaluated dogs that underwent this procedure and that had adequate post-operative follow up, with focus on the 83 dogs that didn’t get peri-operative antimicrobials. None developed an infection. There was a smaller group of 11 dogs that did antimicrobials. None of them developed an infection either.  We could run a rather futile statistical analysis and conclude that there is no statistically significant difference, but we’d have no confidence in that analysis. The study was not adequately powered for that comparison, so it’s great they actually did not try to do it, but we still have those data for a future meta-analysis.

The 83 dogs that didn’t get antimicrobials can also provide some additional insight. With zero infections in 83 dogs, the 95% confidence interval for the true infection rate would be 0-3.6%, i.e. the true incidence of infection could be between 0 and 36 infections per 1000 dogs that underwent the procedure without antimicrobial treatment.

  • Based on this low rate of infection, the potential severity of disease if infection occurs, the ability to treat such an infection, and the potential for complications from prophylaxis, we can consider the balance between risks and benefits of antimicrobial use in these patients. That’s still challenging, but the point is it’s important to consider all these different factors and not just the infection rate.

We can take it a step further, too. Consider that not all infections are preventable, even when antimicrobials are used, so we shouldn’t base our calculations on the assumption antimicrobial use would eliminate all these infections, it would only lower the infection rate.

  • Using an infection rate of 3.6% (the upper limit of the confidence interval) and an estimate that antimicrobials would reduce the infection risk by 25% (remembering that we don’t know if they will in fact reduce it at all), the calculated absolute risk reduction would be 0.9% (i.e. 9 infections per 1000 treated dogs).

In this scenario, the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent a single infection is 111 dogs. (NNT is an underused but very helpful concept to put rates like this into context.) At first glance, an NNT of 111 might seem quite reasonable, especially since infective endocarditis can be a severe disease. However, that’s based on a very conservative assumption that the true infection rate is at the upper end of the confidence interval, and we have yet considered other factors:

  • Some of those 111 dogs will experience adverse effects from the antimicrobial. Most will be minor side effects, but occasionally they can be significant. So we need to weight the benefit to some dogs versus the potential harm to others.
  • Also remember that we’re basing this number on a very (and likely unrealistically) high infection rate. If the infection rate is 1% and antimicrobials still reduce that risk by 25%, the absolute risk reduction would be only 0.25%, or 2.5 infections prevented per 1000 treated dogs. The NNT would be 400. Drop that infection rate to 0.5%, and the NNT is 800.

The endocarditis rate for this procedure in humans has been reported at 0.12%, which would make the NNT 3333. I think it’s pretty safe to say we’d do a lot of damage treating a few thousand dogs to prevent one case of endocarditis (and that’s not even taking into consideration the risks of antimicrobial resistance selection). Yet, antimicrobials are still very commonly being used in dogs for catheter-based cardiac interventions that are very low risk for infection (Blok et al. 2025).

Too often we don’t do the math. We don’t think about absolute risk reduction, NNT, number needed to harm, broader risks like selection for resistance, or even cost to owners. We get tunnel vision about incidence rates and p-values, and act as though they provide the answers, when in reality they rarely tell the whole story, and are sometimes even misleading.

test

These days, it’s really easy to identify new viruses. Our technology has advanced so much that you can sequence a vast array of viruses from almost any sample from an animal, person or the environment. Finding the viruses is easy, but understanding what, if any, roll they play in the grand scheme of things is a much greater challenge.

As a reviewer for scientific journals, I see lots of papers describing new viruses. Most of these are probably old viruses that we just recently identified. Often, studies say “look what we found” but don’t take the next step to figure out if the “what” is relevant, or they tend to overstate the potential relevance. I might find a new virus in a sick animal, but that doesn’t mean the virus is causing disease; it might just be part of the normal innocuous viral population that lives on and around even healthy animals.

We don’t want to dismiss new findings, but we also don’t want to over-react. Take amdoparvovirus for example, or more specifically, raccoon dog and fox amdoparvovirus (RFAV). Amdoparvovirus in part of the Parvoviridae family, along with the more well-known canine parvovirus, but is a distinct genus that includes a variety of different viruses that infect a range of mammals, particularly mustelids (e.g. ferrets, mink), skunks and raccoons. One of the most well-recognized members of this genus is the cause of Aleutian disease, a serious disease in mink.

Raccoon dog and fox amdoparvovirus was first reported in 2014 as part of an investigation of an outbreak in raccoon dogs and Arctic foxes on fur farms in China. Disease was most severe in young animals, with signs of decreased appetite, weight loss, slow growth and chronic diarrhea, with histological evidence of gastrointestinal and kidney damage.

A recent preprint (i.e. a non-peer reviewed preliminary paper) (Gajdov et al. 2026) describes an outbreak of disease in dogs attributed to RFAV. Not surprisingly, given the world we now live in, social media in some places has taken it from “here’s a potential spillover of a virus in a single kennel” to “OH NO! A NEW DOG VIRUS!!!” This preprint describes an interesting outbreak with some nice details along with some clear gaps.

  • I try to pay attention to reports of “new” issues, but always with a healthy dose of skepticism. Most of the time, a strange disease is just an unusual presentation of a normal disease. Similarly, a “new” disease event (like RFAV in dogs) is more often a rare event or something that’s happened before but not previously been recognized, versus true emergence of a new problem.

Here’s a synopsis of the outbreak and pathogen investigation described in the preprint:

  • An outbreak of disease was identified in Dobermanns in a kennel in Serbia. Affected dogs had abnormalities such as ocular and nasal discharge, conjunctivitis and weight loss, with some dogs also having “blue eye,” liver disease or, at later stages, neurological disease (which sounds pretty textbook for canine distemper). They tested for distemper, among other things, and results were negative. Samples were submitted initially from a dog and her two puppies, but it’s not clear if only those dogs were tested for distemper or whether other dogs were as well. More details about the testing (e.g. test type, numbers, timing) would be useful to help understand if we can really exclude distemper as the cause. As the old adage goes, common things occur commonly.   However, they mention repeated testing, and presumably they did a pretty good investigation before embarking on sequencing to identify any new pathogens.
  • The authors then went virus hunting, using sequencing to look for viruses present in lung, kidney and liver samples from the dog and puppies. They found “RFAV” — more specifically, they found sequences with 97% genetic similarity to the limited number of known RFAV genomes. We know relatively little about the genetic variation of this virus in nature, which is important for interpreting this finding. If the virus is genetically similar to RFAV strains circulating in wildlife, that would support direct spillover into the kennel from an infected wild animal. If it is substantially different from viruses circulating in wildlife, that suggests that it could be a distinct variant, although that still wouldn’t mean it is a dog-adapted virus. It’s way too early to say. At this point, a spillover of RFAV into dogs seems more likely than the emergence of a distinct canine virus.
  • They then developed a PCR test specifically for this virus. They got positive results from one other epidemiologically-linked dog, and an undefined number of healthy dogs from other locations tested negative. They don’t say if they tested other affected dogs, which is important context. The more sick dogs that test positive and the more healthy dogs that test negative, the more convincing it is that the virus is clinically relevant. But even with these kinds of findings, association doesn’t necessarily mean causation.

Lack of histopathological investigation (both in general and specific testing to look for evidence of canine distemper virus) is a limitation of this paper. I wonder if they’ll get asked to do that prior to peer-reviewed publication, if they still have tissues from these animals.

Another gap is this paper is the limited epidemiological data. No information was provided about potential sources of exposure or transmission patterns. I wanted more details about the kennel, numbers of affected and unaffected dogs, a timeline of how infections developed, kennel management practices and diet, as well as potential opportunities for direct or indirect contact with wildlife. There shouldn’t be farmed raccoon dogs or foxes in the area since that’s been banned in Serbia, but wild fox exposure would be worth investigating.

In the end, we’re left asking if this situation is:

  1. A new emerging disease caused by a new virus that may lead to widespread problems in dogs..
  2. An uncommon spillover event that happens periodically but just hasn’t been identified before, because such detailed investigation of kennel outbreaks is rare.
  3. An outbreak cause by a co-infection where RFAV was perhaps a contributing factor in disease but there was something else involved too
  4.  A confluence of factors that allowed a really rare scenario to develop.
  5. A distemper outbreak that was not detected.

I’d like to have convincing details to rule out E before anything else, but by next guess would be B… that this virus is “new to us” versus “truly new”.  

I don’t want to downplay the usefulness of information though. Studies like this form the foundation for further studies to help us figure out if this virus is actually a health threat in dogs and how common it is in the population (sick or healthy). Now that this is on the radar, testing can be done (through research labs) in situations where it might be relevant. We’d also need to have some testing of healthy dogs to provide context.

Raising awareness versus causing panic is always a tough balance with infectious diseases. This report tells us we have something else to consider and to investigate further, not that we have a new concerning problem that’s causing an imminent threat.