Vaccinations for the new puppy
Susan Thorpe Vargas Ph.D.
One of the most controversial issues in veterinary science today concerns vaccinations. What people are questioning
is the frequency of vaccination, some safety vs. efficacy concerns and even whether to vaccinate at all. So when
you ask your vet when to bring your new puppy back for its next shot, be aware there is no one correct answer,
how often to vaccinate will depend upon quite a few different factors. Some of these considerations include your
puppy's environment, its breed, the age at which the first shot was given and the interval between shots. Also
important are the kinds of vaccines necessary for the area you live in and what type, e.g., whether a killed, recombinant
or a modified live-type vaccine is being used.
The Vaccine Controversy
The first point to consider is the safety issue. Vaccines can be harmful. We vaccinate because the advantages outweigh
the risks. Just ask anyone who has seen a beloved pet die of parvo or distemper. But one should question the sense
of vaccinating against Lyme disease or Leptospirosis in an area where these diseases are not a problem. This is
why the dog's environment is so important. High-risk dogs are those that live in close proximity with each other,
as in a shelter or kennel situation, or show dogs constantly exposed to dogs from all over the country. However,
there are risks associated with vaccinations and when such risks weighed against the benefits usually are considered
acceptable, except when it is your dog that suffers the untoward reaction. For instance some dogs, after being
vaccinated with modified live canine distemper vaccine (see types of vaccines) can develop aggression, seizures,
a lack of coordination and other neurological dysfunctions caused from a rare condition called postvaccinal canine
distemper virus encephalitis. Another problem noted with genetically susceptible animals is that it is possible
for vaccinations to trigger various autoimmune diseases, including several blood disorders and rabies vaccine-induced
encephalitis.
Another source of controversy is the recommended frequency of vaccinations. Although yearly boosters are recommended
by most vets, for many diseases the yearly booster really is not obligatory and may be counter productive and increase
the risk for adverse reactions. However, a yearly checkup is necessary for the same reasons you would have one
yourself. For the low-risk pet, once the initial puppy series is completed, a booster at one year and another at
three years should suffice until your dog's senior years. With the new licensing requirements duration of efficacy
studies are now available. These data were only recently required. However, animal vaccines should compare favorably
with the duration of human vaccines, and the results certainly reflect that. On the other hand, no data supports
yearly vaccinations either.
Below is a table from an article by Dr. Robert D. Schultz, Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines:
What We Know and Don't Know. Ronald D. Schultz is Professor and Chair of the Department of Patho-biological Sciences,
School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
http://critterfixer.com/pages/petcare_duration_immunity.asp
"Duration of protective immunity was assessed primarily by two procedures; the first is held to be the "gold
standard and that is to challenge the vaccinated animal with the virulent organism, the second method is to measure
antibody and compare the antibody titer to that which is known to prevent infection (e.g. provide sterile immunity).
The studies we report here include challenge studies as well as studies that determine antibody titers. A summary
of our results show the following (Table 1). "
| Vaccine | Minimum Duration of Immunity | Methods Used to Determine Immunity |
| *CDV: Rockbom Strain | 7 yrs / 15 yrs | challenge / serology |
| *CDV: Onderstepoort Strain | 5 yrs / 9 yrs | challenge / serology |
| *Canine Adenovirus-2 (CAV-2) | 7 yrs / 9 yrs | challenge-CAV-1 / serology |
| *Canine Adenovirus-2 (CAV-2) | 7 yrs | challenge / serology |
| *Canine Parvovirus-2 (CAV-2) | 3 yrs / 7yrs | challenge / serology |
| *Canine Rabies | 3 yrs / 7yrs | challenge / serology |
| Canine parainfluenza | 3 yrs. | serology |
| Bordetella bronchiseptica | 9 months | challenge |
| Leptospira interrogans ser. canicola | ? | |
| Leptospira icterohaemorrhagiac | ? | |
| Borrelia burgdorfen | 1 yr. | challenge |
| Giardia | ? | |
| Canine Coronavirus | Lifetime (whether vaccinated or not vaccinated) |
Challenge / serology |
Types of Vaccines
Killed vs. Modified Live
When designing a vaccine, efficacy and safety are the primary considerations. These two principles appear to be
mutually incompatible. In order to offer immunity against disease the vaccine model should mimic the native antigen
and yet should not cause pathology, i.e., clinical signs of disease. Killed vaccines, also known as fully attenuated
vaccines, until recently have been the safest vaccine option available. They are safer because unlike the modified
live vaccines they do not shed virus into the environment nor can they ever revert to virulence. However, in order
to maximize their effectiveness, killed vaccines are normally used with adjuvants that can cause their own problems.
The immune system is antigen-driven. This means that in order to mount an effective immune response, the body must
"see" the antigen for as long as possible. There is a threshold level of "antigen load" that
is necessary before the body can recognize a pathogen. This is why you should never split a vaccine vial. Once
the antigen is eliminated the response is terminated. Many different compounds have been used to enhance the efficacy
of killed vaccines, but the rational behind their use is to prolong the antigenic stimulus of the primary immune
response.
In comparison, the modified live vaccines are more like the original pathogen in the way they elicit a immune reaction.
In general, vaccines that contain the living organisms will produce a stronger and a longer-lasting immunity, but
their virulence must be reduced to a safe level. This process is called attenuation. Reducing the virulence of
bacteria is accomplished by culturing them under unusual conditions. For example, one can make them dependent on
a growth medium that is not available in the living animal so they cannot reproduce. Once introduced into the body
these bacteria can elicit the expected immune response, but die off so rapidly they do not cause the disease. When
the pathogen is a virus a different strategy is used-cell culture in cells or in a species for which the organism
is not normally adapted. After many passages through these foreign cell lines the virus is unable to produce disease
when reintroduced into its original host. Another issue associated with the use of MLV is possible contamination
with other pathogens. One also should be aware this not just one organism, but a population. Therefore it is conceivable
that deleterious mutations might occur. So you can see there are problems associated with both types of vaccines
and some choices between safety and efficacy that need to be made.
Recombinant
Great strides have been made in recombinant technology and the future will bring even more advances leading to
vaccines that may offer better protection and greater safety. A recombinant is defined as a virus, a bacterium
or other microorganism in which the genetic material has been artificially modified. This alteration usually involves
deletion of all or part of a gene or the insertion of one or more genes from another organism. So far the United
States Department of Agriculture has classified three different types of recombinant vaccines.
The first class is called Subunit Vaccines. It really is not necessary for an animal's immune system to "see"
the entire infectious organism in order to mount an immune response. Often all that is required is for only a small
portion or protein fragment to act as the antigen. An example of a subunit vaccine is one developed by Rhone Meriux
scientists (now known as Merial) against Lyme disease. This vaccine is made of purified Outer surface protein A.
After mapping the genome of the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi, it was determined that this protein evoked the greatest
antigenic response. Recombinant techniques allow for the isolation of this DNA fragment and its amplified expression.
It then is purified and used to manufacture the vaccine. Besides safety, one of the greatest advantages of this
type of vaccine is that a simple blood test can distinguish between animals that have been vaccinated and those
that are infected naturally.
The second category is recombinant: Gene-Deleted vaccines. These can be considered a type of genetically attenuated
modified live vaccine. Those parts of the pathogen that can cause disease are either removed or rendered nonfunctional.
The third type is called Recombinant: Vectored Vaccines. Recombinant techniques are used to isolate and remove
the immune-inducing genes from a pathogenic virus. These genes then are inserted into a nonvirulent vector virus.
Once innoculated into the host the vector virus produces both its genes and those of the 'crippled' pathogenic
virus. This has the potential to be a very effective type of vaccine because both a humoral and a cell-mediated
immune response are elicited. Class III vaccines may also allow for alternative methods of vaccination, for instance,
an oral mode of administration. They also have the potential for immunization against more than one type of infection.
The advances in safety and efficacy made possible by this new technology bode well for the future health of our
pets.
Vaccine Failure
It may require one to two weeks or more to develop an effective immune response after a course of vaccination.
If the animal is exposed to an infectious agent prior to vaccination or shortly after, the vaccine will not have
had time to induce immunity and the puppy will develop clinical signs of the disease. This also will occur if the
puppy was incubating the disease at the time it was vaccinated. In fact, the modified live vaccines can cause something
called immunosuppression, so vaccinating a puppy that already is sick only will make matters worse. Canine parvovirus,
canine distemper and the use of polyvalent vaccines that contain these attenuated viruses have been implicated
in inducing immune dysfunction. Other factors that can cause immunosuppression are stresses including pregnancy,
malnutrition, concurrent infections, not allowing enough time between scheduled vaccinations and the use of drugs
such as prednisone. Another cause of vaccine failure is incorrect administration, including splitting a vial between
puppies.
However, the most common reason for vaccine failure is thought to be the presence of maternal antibodies. This
is a passive immunity gained from the dam's colostrum during the first 72 hours of nursing. Maternal antibody interferes
more with viral vaccines than bacterial vaccines and with the parvovirus vaccines more than any other type of viral
vaccine. Unfortunately, the amount of antigen that causes disease is less than that needed to overcome maternal
antibodies, so there is a period of vulnerability when the protection afforded by maternal antibodies is not sufficient
to prevent disease and the puppy's immune system is not yet fully functioning. It is very important not only to
isolate the puppy from contact with other dogs, but to maintain a strict hygienic regime. A bleach solution diluted
1:10 with water will kill even the parvo virus, but remember to thoroughly rinse with clean water before allowing
the puppy to contact a bleached surface.
A Possible Vaccination Schedule for the Low-Risk Puppy
With the stipulation previously mentioned that there is no one correct vaccination protocol and that each individual
animal's needs should be assessed by its veterinarian, what follows is an example of an optimal vaccination schedule.
Ideally the initial vaccination should begin no earlier than 6 weeks of age. Older technology suggested that the
first shot would contain a modified live measles/distemper vaccine. Measles? Yes, measles. This is an example of
a process called heterotypic immunity. It is possible to induce an immune response to one microorganism by immunizing
with another microorganism. Since the measles virus is antigenically related to (the body sees it the same way
as) the distemper virus, it was possible to confer temporary protection against distemper while avoiding interference
from distemper maternal antibodies. We now have available a recombinant distemper vaccine that is able to overcome
maternal antibodies and is considerably safer.
If giving the core vaccines in a polyvalent form the second shot should given approximately 3 to 4 weeks after
the first injection. Most practitioners also will recommend the puppy be inoculated against canine adenovirus type
2 (CAV-2), which causes a respiratory tract disease. This vaccine will cross-protect against infectious canine
hepatitis as well. In some rare cases, if given jointly with the distemper MLV, it can cause temporary immunosuppression.
The use of low passage/high titer vaccines now have made it possible to overcome maternal antibody vaccine inactivation
at an earlier age and thus shorten the window of vulnerability to canine parvovirus, but remember greater efficacy
means you lose some safety factors.
Many veterinarians will vaccinate every two weeks, although a three- or four- week interval is considered optimal.
So the third shot should be given in that time frame. At six months a rabies vaccination is required by law. A
killed rabies vaccine in the most commonly given and the preferred route is intramuscular.
There is no question that one should vaccinate. Vaccinations protect both the individual dog and the canine population
as a whole. What you as a pet health consumer should be aware of is that there are some very real concerns within
the veterinary community on the vaccination issues. It is difficult to obtain agreement among academics as to the
necessity of certain vaccines, much less the question of yearly vaccinations. You will find just as little consensus
among practitioners, but it is you, the puppy owner, who needs to make the final decision.
Bibliography
Everman, J.D.; McKeinan A.J.; Eugster, A.K.; et al. Update on canine coronavirus infections and interactions with
other enteric pathogens of the dog. Companion Animal Practice. 1989;19(2):6-12.
Jarecki-Black, J.C.. Personal Communication.
Krakowka, S. et al. Canine Parvovirus Invection Potentiates Canine Distemper Encephalitis Attributable to Modified-Live
Virus Vaccine. Journal of the American Veternary Medical Association. 180:137-139, 1982.
Marwick, C. Exciting potential of DNA vaccines explored. JAMA 273(18):1403-1404, 1995.
Mastro, J.M.; Axthem, M.; Mathes, L.E.; et al. Repeated suppression oflymphocyte blastogenesis following vaccination
of CPV-immune dogs withmodified-live CPV vaccine. Vet Microbio. 12:201-211, 1986.
Norrby E.; Utter G.; Orvell C.; et al. Protection against canine distemper virus in dogs after immunization with
isolated fusion protein. J Virol 58: pp 536-541, 1986.
Ogilvie, Greg, D.V.M. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol 203, pages1144-1146, 1993.
Robinson A. ?DNA based vaccines: New possibilities for disease prevention and treatment. J Can Med Assoc. 152(10)
1692-1632, 1995.
Schultz, R.D. Current and Future Vaccination Programs. Veterinary Medicine. In Press Schultz, R.D. Canine Vaccines
and Immunity: Important Considerations in the Success of A Vaccination Program. Personal Communication.
Thorpe-Vargas, S.; Cargill, J.C. Vital Vaccinations. DOG WORLD Magazine. Feb. 1996, pp 38-45.
Tizard, Ian R., Ph.D., B.Sc., B.V.M. Veterinary Immunology: An Introduction. 5th Ed., W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia,
Pa. 1996.
Tizard, I. Risks Associated with the Use of Live Vaccines. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
196:11 pp1851-1858, 1990.
This series published (& copyrighted) articles are offered courtesy of the original authors. Thank you.
LOOK FOR SUSAN THORPE-VARGAS' e-article on canine genetics.....COMING SOON!