Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
Thanks, I hadn't heard about that yet, but if my vet offered it like the vet in the story, I probably would have been like "Heck yeah!"

It's a good reminder that animal meds aren't regulated tightly enough, and it's important to read about things on your own before using a new product.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,075 Posts
Thanks for the heads up! ........ so sad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,145 Posts
I am not a huge fan of ProHeart, but having said that... the problem with anecdotal stories like this, especially without a necropsy done, is that no one knows what killed that dog. Maybe it was the ProHeart and maybe it wasn't, but more harm (by way of fear and anxiety of legitimately safe medications, and having a harder time actually learning about real risks and side effects) than good comes from knee-jerk blame and assumptions that correlation = causation. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
891 Posts
I am not a huge fan of ProHeart, but having said that... the problem with anecdotal stories like this, especially without a necropsy done, is that no one knows what killed that dog. Maybe it was the ProHeart and maybe it wasn't, but more harm (by way of fear and anxiety of legitimately safe medications, and having a harder time actually learning about real risks and side effects) than good comes from knee-jerk blame and assumptions that correlation = causation. :(
The blogger updated the post. Pfizer has gotten involved & is paying for the necropsy, which will take a few weeks and they offered to pay for the cremation when the necropsy is complete.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Please let us know what is found in the necropsy....My 3 dogs were at the vets a week ago, and I hadn't heard about Pro Heart until I saw a sign posted in the examining room that advertised it....it said that the ProHeart shot is a shot for 6 month protection...so I had my dogs checked for heart worm, and they received their regular shots plus the Proheart....so far all seem to be fine. There was no consent form, or posted problems of the shot..nor any posted side affects, in fact, the vet showed me in the syringe, with all the little tiny pellets that were in the syrum, that were time released.

I have gone to this vet for 30 years, and trust him explicitly.

I think that a person can't really point to the ProHeart as being the culprit until the necropsy is final, but if it does come about that the Proheart is to blame....I would think there would be a lawsuit involved.

Thank you for researching the possible problems of the ProHeart. I am sure that if we researched ALL the vaccines, we would be in doubt about giving any.

But since this problem has been raised, please keep up informed of the outcome.

Thank you for the heads up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,851 Posts
Pro heart was given years ago, when I worked as a tech. It was pulled from the market for causing lots of problems and death. It's back, not sure what has changed with it to be safe now.

I won't give it. However I will no longer use heartgard or interceptor due to its failure rate here in the south. As far as I know, there still is not an adequate explanation as to why its failing. It's also only in the Mississippi valley area.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,240 Posts
Thinks I'll stick with the pill....if it ain't broke and all that.
Same, I'm using heartguard...

But JulieMule, do you think that extends to southern Illinois? I'm about ~2 hours from St. Louis, near the southern tip/border of my state,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
I am not a huge fan of ProHeart, but having said that... the problem with anecdotal stories like this, especially without a necropsy done, is that no one knows what killed that dog. Maybe it was the ProHeart and maybe it wasn't, but more harm (by way of fear and anxiety of legitimately safe medications, and having a harder time actually learning about real risks and side effects) than good comes from knee-jerk blame and assumptions that correlation = causation. :(
I would agree, if the link just had an anecdote. But it also talks about the history of this medication, how it was pulled from the market (b/c the FDA was going to remove it), the problems it's caused, and the fact that all vets are supposed to give a fact-sheet and get a signed informed consent from people before administering it -- which this vet did not do. There's a lot more there than just "dog got sick -- must be the meds." Granted, I did not independently verify all that.

ETA: My point is that even if you know not to assume that correlation equals causation (you recognize that the injection may not have caused the dog's death), there's still a lot to be concerned about here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,193 Posts
Another single incident that means nothing: I am in MN and my best friend's dog went heartworm positive on a monthly heartworm pill given faithfully year round. Nothing is perfect, but this dog never missed a dose. Very, very frustrating. Makes annual testing more and more important even if you are following prevention protocols.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,851 Posts
Same, I'm using heartguard...

But JulieMule, do you think that extends to southern Illinois? I'm about ~2 hours from St. Louis, near the southern tip/border of my state,
You are two hours from me. 3 out of five of mine tested were positive, had never missed a dose, and one dog had been here for only one
Summer. She was negative, given four or five doses (can't recall now) then tested positive. The heartgard was always purchased from the vet.
None of the dogs on the task force or the departments are using it anymore either. Talk with your vet, and other vets to see if you have any cases in your area. This was first handled as "oh, they probably missed a dose". I can't remember how many showed up with positive results now. Reasons I have heard, nothing confirmed, resistance to ivermectin, mutation of microfilarae from Louisiana, shorter time of microfilarae to adults, something was left out of heartgard, actual amount of ivermectin has decreased. Nothing has been confirmed, to my knowledge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,145 Posts
I would agree, if the link just had an anecdote. But it also talks about the history of this medication, how it was pulled from the market (b/c the FDA was going to remove it), the problems it's caused, and the fact that all vets are supposed to give a fact-sheet and get a signed informed consent from people before administering it -- which this vet did not do. There's a lot more there than just "dog got sick -- must be the meds." Granted, I did not independently verify all that.

ETA: My point is that even if you know not to assume that correlation equals causation (you recognize that the injection may not have caused the dog's death), there's still a lot to be concerned about here.
The responsible thing to do would have been to wait until the necropsy results were back before writing a blog post about it. Until then (IF the results are consistent with a reaction to the ProHeart), it's IS just "dog got sick -- must be the meds" and it's fear mongering. Just like a newspaper printing a retraction about an error where more people are going to remember the original story than the retraction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,415 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Well since it originally got pulled due to all of the deaths, and then was put back on the market with no formulation change, just encouraging training for vets who give it, and requiring an informed consent letter, I'd say it still isn't exactly safe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,145 Posts
Well since it originally got pulled due to all of the deaths, and then was put back on the market with no formulation change, just encouraging training for vets who give it, and requiring an informed consent letter, I'd say it still isn't exactly safe.
I'm not arguing that it is or isn't safe. My problem is with irresponsible and (as yet) unsubstantiated fear mongering. Once stuff gets entrenched in people's minds, it's difficult and frustrating to overcome whether it's true or not.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,240 Posts
You are two hours from me. 3 out of five of mine tested were positive, had never missed a dose, and one dog had been here for only one
Summer. She was negative, given four or five doses (can't recall now) then tested positive. The heartgard was always purchased from the vet.
None of the dogs on the task force or the departments are using it anymore either. Talk with your vet, and other vets to see if you have any cases in your area. This was first handled as "oh, they probably missed a dose". I can't remember how many showed up with positive results now. Reasons I have heard, nothing confirmed, resistance to ivermectin, mutation of microfilarae from Louisiana, shorter time of microfilarae to adults, something was left out of heartgard, actual amount of ivermectin has decreased. Nothing has been confirmed, to my knowledge.
What is the alternative to heartguard that you have been using? I'm not at all opposed to switching if it would be best for my dog. I'm going to be getting her yearly vaccs/hw test soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,075 Posts
Just returning from the vets for Abbylynn's annual vaccines and 3 year rabies ... I was offered that vaccine today for Abbylynn along with any choice I preferred.

I was told that this vaccine was something new that they just started carrying. I mentioned the article but was told that this vaccine is safe.

I however chose Revolution because I like the product and have had no issues with it. My dogs tested negative for heartworm this year. I also have a habit of not going with the flow and just using or purchasing new products ... especially meds for human or animal ... until I see that many others have used them and they are either safe or a good product to begin with. I like to know the long term effects of meds. I don't like being or my animals being the guinea pig(s) if I can help it. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
The responsible thing to do would have been to wait until the necropsy results were back before writing a blog post about it. Until then (IF the results are consistent with a reaction to the ProHeart), it's IS just "dog got sick -- must be the meds" and it's fear mongering. Just like a newspaper printing a retraction about an error where more people are going to remember the original story than the retraction.
No, that's not all it is. The article wasn't just an anecdote, devoid of context. Anecdote aside, this person presented OTHER reasons to be concerned. That is what I was responding to when I read it, and what I think probably a lot of other people respond to. It's alarming that a medication that was pulled because of adverse reactions (deaths) has been reinstated. It's alarming that it's been deemed risky enough that vets are required to get a signed informed consent and give a fact sheet. It's alarming that this vet did not get that consent, nor did she give the person the required fact sheet (separate issue, but still alarming). And it's alarming that this medicine is now considered safe enough for use by the FDA when there are other, presumably safer options available. I get when relatively risky medicines are approved because the benefits outway the risk, and there is no other means of treatment. But this sounds unnecessary.

Anyway, I think you didn't understand what I was saying. It's not just about the anecdote. (Though, again, I did not verify the other information at this point -- it's the principle of the matter.)

Why do you think someone shouldn't be able to write an article on their blog about a risky medicine? As long as they are presenting their opinions as opinions and the facts are accurate, why shouldn't consumers be allowed to talk about potentially hazardous medicines? I think the internet has played a critical role in increasing consumer awareness and protection, and I see nothing irresponsible about discussing concerns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
Just returning from the vets for Abbylynn's annual vaccines and 3 year rabies ... I was offered that vaccine today for Abbylynn along with any choice I preferred.

I was told that this vaccine was something new that they just started carrying. I mentioned the article but was told that this vaccine is safe.
Out of curiosity, did your vet give you a fact sheet and show you an informed consent form that you would have to sign?

Regarding the safety of this product vs. other heartworm preventatives, I have to admit I don't know how to research that. If someone else does, it would probably be good info for this thread.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top