Bryan LA, et al.    Fatal, generalized bovine herpesvirus type-1 infection associated with a modified-live infectious bovine rhinotracheitis parainfluenza-3 vaccine administered to neonatal calves. Can Vet J. 1994 Apr;35(4):223-8. PMID: 8076277; UI: 94356792.
Chepurkin AV, et al.  [Anaphylactic reaction in cattle following the administration of the anti-foot-and-mouth disease vaccine].
Veterinariia. 1975 May;(5):64-5. Russian. No abstract available.PMID: 174274; UI: 76106246
Eagles BW, et al. Equine influenza reactions. Vet Rec. 1985 Apr 27;116(17):478. No abstract available.PMID: 4002585; UI: 85220448.
Falcone E, et al. [See Related Articles] Bovine viral diarrhea disease associated with a contaminated vaccine. Vaccine. 1999 Oct 14;18(5-6):387-8. No abstract available.PMID: 10636817; UI: 20099978.

Hendrick MJ, Kass PH, McGill LD, Tizard IR.Postvaccinal sarcomas in cats.J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994 Mar 2;86(5):341-3. Review. No abstract available.PMID: 8308925 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Hogenesch H, Azcona-Olivera J, Scott-Moncrieff C, Snyder PW, Glickman LT.
Vaccine-induced autoimmunity in the dog.Adv Vet Med. 1999;41:733-47. No abstract available.PMID: 9890057 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I. Introduction

II. Materials and Methods

A. Animals

B. Vaccination Schedule C. Viral Serology D. Hematology E. Endocrinology F. Immunology

G. Lymphocyte Blastogenesis Assay

H. Enzyme-Linked hnmunosorbent Assay (ELISA }

I. Necropsy

J. Statistical Analysis

III. Results

A. Viral Serology

B. Clinical Observations, Hematology, and Endocrinology C. Immunology D. Necropsy

IV. Discussion Acknowledgments References

Kass PH, Barnes WG Jr, Spangler WL, Chomel BB, Culbertson MR.   Epidemiologic evidence for a causal relation between vaccination and fibrosarcoma tumorigenesis in cats.J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1993 Aug 1;203(3):396-405.PMID: 8257557 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Summary: Within the past 2 years, a putative causal relationship has been reported between vaccination against rabies and the development of fibrosarcomas at injection sites in cats. A retrospective study was undertaken, involving 345 cats with fibrosarcomas diagnosed between January 1991 and May 1992, to assess the causal hypothesis. Cats with fibrosarcomas developing at body locations where vaccines are typically administered (n = 185) were compared with controls (n = 160) havingfibrosarcomas at locations not typically used for vaccination. In cats receiving FeLV vaccination within 2 years of tumorigenesis, the time between vaccination and tumor development was significantly (P = 0.005) shorter for tumors developing at sites where vaccines are typically administered than for tumors at other sites. Univariate analysis, adjusted for age, revealed associations between FeLV vaccination (odds ratio [oR] = 2.82; 95% confidence interval icl] = 1.54 to 5.15), rabies vaccination at the cervical/interscapular region (oR --- 2.09; 95% cl = 1.01 to 4.31), and rabies vaccination at the femoral region (oR = 1.83; 95% cl--- 0.65 to 5.10) with fibrosar-coma development at the vaccination site within 1 year of vaccination. Multivariate analysis, adjusted for age and other vaccines, also revealed increased risks after FeLV (oR = 5.49; 95% I = 1.98 to 15.24) and rabies (oR = i .99; 95% cz = O. 72 to 5.54) vaccination. The risk of cats developingfibrosarcoma from a single vaccination in the cervical/interscapular region was almost 50% higher than in cats not receiving vaccines at that site; the risk in cats with 2 vaccinations was approximately 127% higher and the risk with 3 or 4 vaccines was approximately 175% higher. However. the frequency of fibrosarcomas in the population is low (estimated at 20/100,000 cats). In approximately half of the cats in our study, fibrosarcomas were at sites where vaccines conventionally are given, and of those cats, approximately half (depending on vaccine) had previously received a vaccine at the tumor site. Although we believe that veterinarians should not alter their vaccination protocols, precautions in vaccine administration (administering different vaccines at varied sites) and further informed consent (presenting current information in a proper benefit/risk context) appear to be advisable.

Tom R. Phillips, Jean L. Jensen, Michael J. Rubino, Wen C. Yang and Ronaid D. Schultz. Effects of Vaccines on the Canine Immune System Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, Vol. 53, 154-60
ABSTRACT
The effects of several commercially available polyvalent canine vaccines on the immune system of the dog were examined. The results demonstrated that the polyvalent vaccines used in this study significantly suppressed the absolute lymphocyte count and that most of the polyvalent vaccines significantly suppressed lymphocyte response to mitogen, but had no effect on natural effector cell activity, neutrophil chemiluminescence, nor antibody response to canine distemper virus. The individual vaccine components from the polyval-ent vaccines when inoculated alone did not significantly suppress the lymphocyte response to mitogen. However, when canine distemper virus was combined with canine adenovirus type 1 or canine adenovirus type 2, significant suppression in lymphocyte responsiveness to mitogen occurred. The results indicate that interactions between canine distemper virus and canine adenovirus type I or canine adenovirus type 2 are responsible for the polyvalent vaccine induced suppression of lymphocyte responsiveness.

Rehulova E, et al.   [Neural complications after preventive vaccination of beagles against rabies]. Vet Med (Praha). 1971 Sep;16(9):571-4. Czech. No abstract available.PMID: 4400548; UI: 72107112.

Stanley RG, et al. [See Related Articles] Chronic skin reaction to a combined feline rhinotracheitis virus (herpesvirus) and calicivirus vaccine. Aust Vet J. 1988 Apr;65(4):128-30. No abstract available.PMID: 3390093; UI: 88268643.

Thornton DH. A survey of mycoplasma detection in veterinary vaccines.Vaccine. 1986 Dec;4(4):237-40.PMID: 3799018 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
Nine live virus veterinary vaccines from six sources were found to be contaminated with mycoplasma. The vaccines were for use in canine, feline and avian species, and 53 batches of the products were at fault. The isolates were identified as Mycoplasma hominis, M. arginini, M. orale, M. hyorhinis and M. gallinarum. Investigation of the contamination rate of other batches or other products from the same source in some cases helped to determine the source of infection. Mycoplasma contaminants can be considered important not only because of their role as pathogens but also because they may indicate that insufficient care has been taken during vaccine manufacture or quality control.

Webbon P. Reactions to equine influenza vaccination. Vet Rec. 1988 Oct 1;123(14):379. No abstract available.PMID: 2848352; UI: 89059225

 

[Home]  [Vaccination]   [Vaccine damage]