Suspected adverse reactions, 2005

Dyer, F.; Spagnuolo-Weaver, Martha; Tait, A.

doi:10.1136/vr.158.14.464

Cited by 20 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Veterinary pharmacovigilance in the UK is monitored by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) via SARSS using passive reporting of adverse events to veterinary medicines in both animals and humans [ 176 ]. The number of adverse events reported per year for dogs increased from 653 to 1,615 between the years 2003 to 2011 [ 177 – 185 ]. The 2011 result [ 182 ] equates to an average of only one report per year for every 10 of the 17,260 registered home-practising veterinary surgeons in the UK [ 95 ].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches to canine health surveillance

O’Neill

Church

McGreevy

et al. 2014

Canine Genet Epidemiol

115

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective canine health surveillance systems can be used to monitor disease in the general population, prioritise disorders for strategic control and focus clinical research, and to evaluate the success of these measures. The key attributes for optimal data collection systems that support canine disease surveillance are representativeness of the general population, validity of disorder data and sustainability. Limitations in these areas present as selection bias, misclassification bias and discontinuation of the system respectively. Canine health data sources are reviewed to identify their strengths and weaknesses for supporting effective canine health surveillance. Insurance data benefit from large and well-defined denominator populations but are limited by selection bias relating to the clinical events claimed and animals covered. Veterinary referral clinical data offer good reliability for diagnoses but are limited by referral bias for the disorders and animals included. Primary-care practice data have the advantage of excellent representation of the general dog population and recording at the point of care by veterinary professionals but may encounter misclassification problems and technical difficulties related to management and analysis of large datasets. Questionnaire surveys offer speed and low cost but may suffer from low response rates, poor data validation, recall bias and ill-defined denominator population information. Canine health scheme data benefit from well-characterised disorder and animal data but reflect selection bias during the voluntary submissions process. Formal UK passive surveillance systems are limited by chronic under-reporting and selection bias. It is concluded that active collection systems using secondary health data provide the optimal resource for canine health surveillance.

show abstract

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches to canine health surveillance

O’Neill

Church

McGreevy

et al. 2014

Canine Genet Epidemiol

115

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the number of SARs reported is minimal when compared with the number of dogs vaccinated, adverse reactions are often non‐specific and may not be directly linked to the vaccination itself (O'Rourke 2008). Retrospective analysis of reported SARs published in the veterinary record from 2004 to 2009 shows that reported SARs to inactivated vaccines consistently remained lower than those reported for mixed and live vaccines, as shown in Fig 1 (Dyer and others 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010). Fig 1 displays these trends.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 89%

“…Incidence of reported vaccine‐related SARs in dogs during 2004–2008. Adapted from Dyer and others 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Survey of veterinary surgeons on the introduction of serological testing to assess revaccination requirements

Heayns

Baugh

2012

Veterinary Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the discussion of the use of serological testing in canine vaccination protocols, no study has been published that investigates the opinions of the veterinary profession regarding the use of the test to assess revaccination requirements in dogs. This paper presents the results of a study designed to fill this research gap which was completed in 2009. Veterinary surgeons were asked to complete a questionnaire on different aspects of canine vaccination and the introduction of serological testing to determine revaccination requirements. Of the 448 questionnaires distributed, 243 replies were received (54.2 per cent) and of these, a significant majority (169/243; 69.5 per cent) of respondents would consider introducing serological testing. An average of 53.5 per cent of respondents practised tri-annual revaccination for the core diseases. A significant number of respondents (86/140; 61 per cent) who placed low importance on vaccine overload would consider introducing serological testing into canine vaccination programmes (P=0.002).

show abstract

“…The possibility of SARs is not a valid reason for not vaccinating dogs, as the number of affected dogs is relatively small when compared to the number of dogs vaccinated as shown by annual SAR publications 15,16,17,18,19,20 …”

Section: Suspected Adverse Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%