That is my theory behind it, I would still titre every so often though to be sure (and for kennels etc).
After the first two puppy shots some puppies have had 60x the required immunity and not needed the 3rd one. So the last one would be a little overkill.

 

-If there is ANY indication that there are (anything from 1:2 to 1:1000 etc) then the dog still has immunity. No vaccinations needed because the memory and immune response is there. No such thing as making a dog MORE immune.

Well there are levels that are considered protective, below which a dog is considered unprotected and it is recommended that they be revaccinated. But above that cutoff, it's not like a higher number is "better".

 

Can you explain that a bit more Sass? I though it was just... If you have even one antibody your body is capable of defending itself against that virus. I know I'm oversimplifying things but I was under the impression that the dog is either protected or it isn't, and that there is no such logic as 'more protected.'

 

Well now you are opening a can of worms.

The short answer is that at least one lab (Cornell) has actually done challenge studies to establish these protective levels. (I'm too lazy to go research if this has changed, but as far as I'm aware they're actually the only lab who has done so, making other labs' values somewhat... arbitrary at best.) So those levels have been experimentally determined for Cornell's lab at least. They are quite low, the exact cutoff varies from virus to virus but they are all somewhere well less than 1:100 dilution if memory serves me and most titers I see are well above that.

As I understand it, the explanation for this is that there needs to be a minimum amount of antibody present and "ready to go" to be effective against an exposure; below a certain level the walls can be overrun, so to speak. (I am not an immunologist so this is my rudimentary "take home" understanding.)

However, having said that... circulating antibodies are not the body's only defense against diseases and you are correct that vaccine titers cannot measure memory cells or what is called CMI or cell mediated immunity. So technically while a titer tells you correctly if an animal has a protective level of antibodies, it can't measure immunity as a whole.

Because of those limitations, some infectious disease experts believe there is really no value in doing titers on adult animals that have been previously actively vaccinated. A high titer can give you peace of mind that a dog is protected, but a low titer doesn't necessarily mean the dog isn't protected. So they have their limitations, although I think there are instances where they are useful.

 

...However, having said that... circulating antibodies are not the body's only defense against diseases and you are correct that vaccine titers cannot measure memory cells or what is called CMI or cell mediated immunity. So technically while a titer tells you correctly if an animal has a protective level of antibodies, it can't measure immunity as a whole.

Because of those limitations, some infectious disease experts believe there is really no value in doing titers on adult animals that have been previously actively vaccinated. A high titer can give you peace of mind that a dog is protected, but a low titer doesn't necessarily mean the dog isn't protected. So they have their limitations, although I think there are instances where they are useful.

Circulating antibodies and memory cells kind of go hand in hand, because after an initial production of antibodies, it is the memory cells that continue to produce the circulating antibodies. It is those memory cells that "retain" the body's long-term immunity. We can't measure the "level" of memory cells, so we use the circulating antibodies as an indirect measure. if the circulating antibodies are low, we assume that the memory cells for that particular "disease" are dying off. So we need to do something to get them back.

For reasons not well understood, sometimes a portion of the memory cells for a particular antigen will go into an inactive state and stop producing antibodies. The cells aren't dead - they are in a kind of suspended state. But they can be reactivated if the antigen reappears. This is what you were referring to in your second paragraph that I quoted. But this isn't always the case. In a lot of cases, a low titer really does mean that the memory cells for that particular antigen have died off.

There's a lot about the immune system that we don't quite understand.

 

To expand on that explanation, just because your immune system isn't actively making and circulating antibodies doesn't mean it doesn't remember what those antibodies are for and how to produce them. So even if the titer is negative, exposure to, say, parvo, would trigger the immune system to make parvo antibodies.

More simply, vaccines work or they don't. They "take" or they don't. If they don't "take" the first time (with the exception of parvo, that's a different issue having to do with maternal antibodies), revaccinating won't help. If they do take the first time, revaccinating is a waste at best and potentially dangerous.

I've had shingles 4 times. There is a vaccine for shingles now. I got it (paid $270 for it, in fact) and then got shingles again a few months later. It turns out, there's a 30% fail rate on that vaccine, I just happened to fall into it. I would still encourage others to get the vaccine, because 70% is better than nothing.

 

Thanks Sass, that makes a lot more sense! Please feel free to nerd out any time

If they don't "take" the first time (with the exception of parvo, that's a different issue having to do with maternal antibodies), revaccinating won't help.

Now this I don't get. So you're saying some dogs just don't take to certain vaccines at all?

 

Yeah, some people/dogs/etc. don't respond to vaccines at all. Something hinky with their immune system, or whatever. Or they may develop immunity in response to some vaccines but not others. In those cases, revaccinating won't do any good; that dog simply isn't going to respond to that vaccine. Or they might have had a virus hanging around that prevented them from developing immunity right at that time (because their immune system was too "busy" to respond to the vaccine). In this case, revaccinating when the animal is healthy would confer immunity. And then there's the whole maternal antibody thing. Immunology is interesting!

One article I read (I think in WDJ) said that the best use for titers is to run them a certain amount of time after a puppy has received vaccines, to see if they took. If they did, there's no reason to believe that the pup's body will ever "forget" its immunity to those diseases, and therefore no reason to titer or vaccinate again (although I'd be willing to believe that your body might forget after a certain number of years with no "reminders"). Also that the dog will only have circulating antibodies if he/she was recently exposed to the disease, which is why the antibodies may not show up when a titer is done.

 

The immune system is a SYSTEM. It is not one thing. It is a network of cells, tissues, and organs that work together to defend the body against attacks by “foreign invaders", called antigens. It is a very complex system and there are portions of it that we are still not sure of.

It is very possible for a vaccine to "not take" - to not trigger an immune response. There are numerous reasons why that could have occurred . However, it is incorrect to say categorically that a revaccination won't be effective. It depends on the reason or reasons why the original vaccination didn't trigger the immune response.

Although we don't always call it a revaccination, some of what we call "boosters" are given, at least in part, for that very purpose - to trigger an immune response that didn't occur on the original vaccination.

Part of the immune system consists of a specific type of cell that "modifies" itself to "remember" antigens that were encountered previously - either through infection or through vaccination. Those modified cells are stored away in case the antigen should reappear. That's why long-term immunity is possible. Generally, one modification "remembers" just one antigen. Some of those modified cells live for a very long time, perhaps a lifetime. Some don't. We don't know why that is, but we know that there is a difference.

 

Your three statements agree with what Dr Ronald Schultz said at a health symposium I attended. (Dr Schultz is the vaccine guru, professor and premier researcher in veterinary immunology) FOR PARVO AND DISTEMPER and probably rabies. This something that is true for viruses (except mucosal viruses if I recall correctly) but not for bacterial infections. There are other vaccinations that give limited immunity but those are not core vaccines. Kennel cough vaccine only lasts for maybe six months. Same for lepto. Because lepto is rare where I live, and the vaccine is one of the riskier ones, we don't give it and I choose not to give kennel cough vaccine.

 

This something that is true for viruses (except mucosal viruses if I recall correctly) but not for bacterial infections.....Kennel cough vaccine only lasts for maybe six months.

Actually, in most dogs, bordetella vaccination produces an immunity that lasts closer to a year rather then six months.

One of those mucosal viruses is the parainfluenza virus (the "other P" in DHPP vaccine). In many cases, that immunity only lasts a year or so. Since the AVHA guidelines are for a three year cycle for this vaccine, a lot of dogs are susceptible to infection. In fact, we are seeing an increase in parainfluenza infections since we went to a three year cycle. Parainfluenza infection produces a tracheobronchitis with symptoms that are very similar to the "kennel cough" produced by a bordetella (bacterial) infection. In fact, parainfluenza is actually a more common cause. So your dog can get a "kennel cough" even if vaccinated for bordetella.

In most adult dogs, parainfluenza usually clears up quickly on it own - a matter of days. But when combined with bordetella, it can take three weeks for the coughing to stop and is more likely to lead to pneumonia. So depending on your lifestyle and other factors, you may still want to vaccinate for bordetella.

 

When I got my Doberman pup she was 11 weeks old and had never had any shots. I gave her one shot right away and I am going to give her another booster at about 15 weeks. Is there any reason she should have a third shot? She had been weaned over a month when she got her first shot so should not have had any immunity still from her mother.

 

There are about 8-10 different organisms that can cause "kennel cough" in dogs. Many are getting away from the term "kennel cough" and labeling this "canine infectious respiratory disease" instead.

Some of the bordetella vaccine manufacturers (I know Zoetis, who until very recently was Pfizer, does this for sure) will run a CIRD PCR test free of charge through an outside laboratory for dogs who have been vaccinated against bordetella and show symptoms; if the dog tests positive for bordetella they will reimburse the owner for treatment costs. Most of ours have actually been coming back as Mycoplasma, I've only seen one bordetella that I recall. I actually really like that they do this for a variety of reasons, it's nice to know what is actually going on with these dogs and get a better handle on what we've lumped together as "kennel cough" for so long.