Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My cat received a 3-year rabies vaccine last year. Normally, she gets the 1-year vaccine, but I went to a different vet last time- a so called "feline specialist" who only treats cats. She told me that she prefers to do the 3-year rabies vaccine which I thought was nice since my cat doesn't exactly enjoy shots. However, I vaguely remembered reading something about the 3-year vaccine having more side effects than the 1-year vaccine and I asked the vet about it and she assured me there was no problem.
So today, I Googled the 3-year vaccine and I was horrified to read that cats supposedly have five times the risk of developing a certain type of cancer from receiving this vaccine as opposed to the 1-year vaccine.
So my thoughts are:
a) Why would a vet who specializes in cats even be using this vaccine?
b) Why would she give me no warning before injecting my cat with this stuff?
Can someone tell me anything to put my mind at ease because I'm ready to sue!
In my experience most vets who work with a lot of cats prefer the non-adjuvant 1 year vaccine as there is less inflammatory response to the vaccine. This makes it less effective (hence the shorter revaccination time) but also less likely to be associated with cancer. I don't know if your vet doesn't subscribe to the current theory or what. Maybe you could (politely) ask her? On the other hand, I've never read anything to indicate that it's considered malpractice to give the 3 year vaccine to cats. The risk is still pretty minimal.
Ideally she would have discussed the risks/benefits of both types of vaccines with you before giving it to your cat. But, I don't think you'll have much luck trying to sue especially since your cat hasn't actually suffered any ill effects.
In my experience most vets who work with a lot of cats prefer the non-adjuvant 1 year vaccine as there is less inflammatory response to the vaccine. This makes it less effective (hence the shorter revaccination time) but also less likely to be associated with cancer. I don't know if your vet doesn't subscribe to the current theory or what. Maybe you could (politely) ask her? On the other hand, I've never read anything to indicate that it's considered malpractice to give the 3 year vaccine to cats. The risk is still pretty minimal.
Ideally she would have discussed the risks/benefits of both types of vaccines with you before giving it to your cat. But, I don't think you'll have much luck trying to sue especially since your cat hasn't actually suffered any ill effects.
I don't intend to return to this particular vet, so we won't be having that conversation. I only tried her out because my cat gets really terrified at the vet and I thought she might prefer to go somewhere with no dogs. After the visit, I'd already decided that I would be returning to my previous vet because I wasn't impressed with the feline vet, but now I'm angry after discovering that she might've endangered my cat in any way.
Doesn't sound like a particularly impressive feline-only vet if she didn't discuss vaccine options and only suggested that one. Too bad. In general the cat-only idea is a good one IMO, but I suppose even the specialists can sometimes be mediocre vets. FWIW I think you're right to care more about the relationship and trusting the vet than whether or not they see dogs, although I personally chose and got generally good vibes from the two cat-only vets that my cat saw in her lifetime. She never met a dog, ever.
I wouldn't worry yourself sick over just the potential of a problem from the vaccine though. 5 times a very small risk is still a small risk. There's a good chance she'll be fine and nothing bad will ever come of it except the mediocre vet experience.
So today, I Googled the 3-year vaccine and I was horrified to read that cats supposedly have five times the risk of developing a certain type of cancer from receiving this vaccine as opposed to the 1-year vaccine.
Is that comparing the 3-year vaccine to three one-year vaccines, or to one one-year vaccine?
Doesn't sound like a particularly impressive feline-only vet if she didn't discuss vaccine options and only suggested that one. Too bad. In general the cat-only idea is a good one IMO, but I suppose even the specialists can sometimes be mediocre vets. FWIW I think you're right to care more about the relationship and trusting the vet than whether or not they see dogs, although I personally chose and got generally good vibes from the two cat-only vets that my cat saw in her lifetime. She never met a dog, ever.
I wouldn't worry yourself sick over just the potential of a problem from the vaccine though. 5 times a very small risk is still a small risk. There's a good chance she'll be fine and nothing bad will ever come of it except the mediocre vet experience.
Thank you, I sure hope that's the case. I just love my cat so much so it really bothered me to read about the potential dangers of this vaccine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sll3454
Is that comparing the 3-year vaccine to three one-year vaccines, or to one one-year vaccine?
I believe it was being compared to a single one-year non-adjuvanted vaccine. I read it here:
Our vet does not use the 3 year at all. She said it has been found more likely to cause a tumor, etc.
They do not even carry them.
Like Greg said, the risk is small, so don't worry yourself about it. You may want to call and see if they use the one year at all and have a note put on your kittys chart for one year only.
The one year shot isn't any safer than the three year one. My cat previously had the 3-yr one with one ill effect. Got the one year one, now is is on her death bed. Totally swollen up.
My sister is a vet and informed me that current research indicates that it is the act of the needle going into the skin that can cause the sarcomas, not the stuff in the vaccine as previously thought and thus, there is no real difference in risk with the 1 year or 3 year (or any other type of vaccine for that matter). However, she said that a good number of vets haven't re-educated themselves on the issue and continue to use purevax, which is only currently approved for 1 year, to be conservative (even if the state allows for 3 year vaccines). I haven't looked into the research myself yet, so take this all with a grain of salt; however, my sister is a younger practicing vet (i.e., educated more recently from Cornell vet school) who does tend to keep up with research and goes to conferences each year. Another vet informed me that although purevax is currently only approved for 1 year (and on back order right now at some places), the company is looking to get it approved for 3 years, which would make this issue a non-issue regardless.
EDIT: I found the research supporting what my sister indicated. See the review in the 2013 AAFP Feline Vaccination Advisory Panel Report (Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 15(9), 785-808): http://jfm.sagepub.com/content/15/9/785.full.pdf+html
It is free to download, so you can see page 12 of the pdf for the following excerpt (I have bolded certain parts for emphasis):
"Update on feline injection-site sarcomas (FISS)
Vaccine-associated sarcoma was first recognized as an issue in cats in the early 1990s. While initial studies suggested a risk of sarcoma development in around 2/10,000 doses of vaccine administered, which increased to 13–36/10,000 doses in other studies, current estimates based on larger epidemiologic studies (published between 2002 and 2007) suggest that the risk of sarcoma development following vaccination is actually very low (probably well below 1/10,000 doses of vaccine). Although initial reports linked development of sarcomas at vaccination sites with the use of inactivated rabies or FeLV vaccines, and aluminum-based adjuvants, more recent studies found no relationship between vaccine type, brand or use of inactivated versus modified-live vaccines and the risk of subsequent sarcoma formation.
The impact of using the canarypox-vectored rabies vaccine is still unclear. One retrospective study of histo pathology samples showed no reduction in the prevalence of FISS after the introduction of this vaccine; however, the types of vaccine used were not reported. In a recently published case control study it was suggested that there may be a lower risk of inducing sarcomas with this vaccine than with other rabies vaccines. Many of these studies have also clearly shown that injections other than vaccines also have the ability to induce sarcoma formation.
No studies have been published that define objective methods for reducing the risk of FISS in individual cats presented for routine vaccination. Based on our current understanding of this problem, it is likely that vaccines are not uniquely implicated in the development of injection site sarcomas in cats. FISS risk following vaccination likely results from a complex interaction of multiple extrinsic (eg,frequency and number of vaccines administered over time, composition of the injected product, etc) and intrinsic factors (eg, genetic predisposition, tissue response following injection, etc). The presumed relationship between types of vaccine, inflammation at the site of vacci nation and subsequent FISS development appears complex at best and, if involved, is likely only one among many factors that contribute to FISS development.
Table 5 provides a brief review of considerations and management options for the reduction of FISS risk, taken from current publications. None of these suggestions are known to prevent or cure FISS.
When considering vaccine type, the Advisory Panel recommends that the following be taken into consideration. Recent studies demonstrate that all vaccines carry some risk of inducing FISS, as do at least some other injectable products. Although current information as outlined above does not clearly show differences in risk of FISS development between modified-live and inactivated vaccines, some Advisory Panel members consider that, on balance, risk might be mitigated by the use of modified-live vaccines. There are also other factors that may influence the choice of live versus inactivated vaccines (see Table 6 and Appendix 1 [General FAQs], page 803). Overall, however, the Advisory Panel concluded that, at the current time, there is insufficient information to make definitive recommendations to use particular vaccine types to reduce the risk of FISS."
Last edited by cs2008; 05-08-2014 at 01:37 PM..
Reason: research
The one year shot isn't any safer than the three year one. My cat previously had the 3-yr one with one ill effect. Got the one year one, now is is on her death bed. Totally swollen up.
I am so very sorry to hear this.
Thanks for the info, cs2008!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In general the cat-only idea is a good one IMO, but I suppose even the specialists can sometimes be mediocre vets. FWIW I think you're right to care more about the relationship and trusting the vet than whether or not they see dogs, although I personally chose and got generally good vibes from the two cat-only vets that my cat saw in her lifetime. She never met a dog, ever.
