The BSAVA recognises the importance of preventing the importation of classical rabies (Lyssavirus genotype 1) into the UK and Ireland. It supports the current DEFRA requirements for individual identification, rabies vaccination, subsequent serological confirmation and certification of dogs and cats travelling under the UK Pet Travel Scheme (PETS) by derogation to the European Pet Passport legislation. BSAVA strongly supports the maintenance of the statutory 6 month quarantine requirements under the Rabies Act 1974 (and subsequent amendments) for importation of dogs and cats from countries that are not recognized under current legislation.
The BSAVA is strongly supportive of the following:
· A detailed transparent rabies risk assessment before any additional countries in which rabies is considered endemic are included in the legislation · Regular re-evaluation of the risk assessment for rabies-endemic countries that are already accepted as part of the legislation such as North America · Vigorous monitoring of the rabies vaccination certification process, in particular at ports of entry into the UK · Effective monitoring of veterinary certification particularly where such certification occurs outside the UK.
Addendum 1.
At the time of writing (May, 2006), the DEFRA Rabies Contingency plan for containing and eliminating rabies, should it be identified in the UK, is being updated. BSAVA continues to provide input into this process.
Addendum 2: Rabies in bats
The BSAVA is strongly supportive of measures being implemented to investigate European bat lyssavirus infection in the UK. The BSAVA recommends that all members dealing with bats read the information provided by DEFRA on bat rabies (www.defra.gov.uk). BSAVA supports the policy of rabies vaccination on request for all veterinary surgeons and support staff dealing with bats.
Rabies in bats
Cases of bats infected with one of the two European bat Lyssavirus (EBL) subtypes, EBL2 have been confirmed in the UK as recently as 2002. One of these cases resulted in the unfortunate death of a bat worker in Scotland in November 2002. All reported cases have so far occurred in Daubenton’s bats (Myotis daubentonii), a common species which often comes into human contact as it roosts in houses. Up to 8% of Daubenton’s bats carry antibodies to the virus.
Advice for veterinary surgeons dealing with bats
· Veterinary staff dealing with bats on a frequent basis should be vaccinated against rabies (see below). Handling of bats should where possible be limited to those staff that have been vaccinated. · Bats should always be handled with protective gloves. Latex gloves are suitable for the smaller species and light leather gloves such as driving gloves with disposable latex gloves on top are suitable for the larger species. · A suitable field guide (e.g. A Field guide to British Bats, Greenaway and Hutson, 1990, Bruce Coleman books, Uxbridge) should be used to familiarise staff as to the different bat species. · All bats acting strangely and Daubenton’s bats in particular should be handled with extra care. · Suspicious cases should be reported to DEFRA. · If bitten or scratched by a bat, wounds should be cleaned with soap and water or a suitable disinfectant and medical advice sought. · Medical advice on the need for post exposure protection can be obtained from the Central Public Health Laboratory (020 8200 6868). · The Veterinary Laboratory Agency carries out surveillance of submitted bat carcasses. All dead bats (not just suspected rabies cases) should be submitted to the Rabies Diagnostic Unit, Veterinary Laboratories Agency, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NB.
Rabies vaccination
Rabies vaccines can be obtained from General medical Practitioners (GPs) and should be made available free of charge to those working with bats. GPs can obtain vaccines free of charge from the Central Public Health laboratory (0208 200 4400).
Advice to clients
Clients should be discouraged from handling or approaching sick, injured or trapped bats. Assistance should be sought through the Bat Conservation Trust helpline 0845 130 0228 or in Scotland, the Scottish SPCA 0870 7377722 or the Scottish Natural Heritage Batline 01738 458663.
If clients are bitten or scratched by a bat, wounds should be cleaned with soap and water or a suitable disinfectant and medical advice sought.
Further information on the veterinary treatment of bats can be found in the BSAVA Manual of Wildlife Casualties.
Approval: BSAVA Council as Policy Statement No. 9 (Rabies and Quarantine) 2004. Recent update: May 2006
2. Policy Statement on Euthanasia of Dogs and Cats
The BSAVA believes that euthanasia, the act of producing painless death, is best performed by the injection of an overdose of a barbiturate solution, under the direction of a veterinary surgeon. When dealing with a frightened or vicious animal, a pre-medicant may be used before injecting the barbiturate. Other methods are not recommended except in emergency situations where mercy killing is necessary.
Approval: BSAVA Council as Policy Statement No. 11 (Euthanasia of dogs and cats) 1999. Recent update: May 2006
3. Policy Statement on Animal Experimentation
The BSAVA adopts the BVA Policy Statement on Animal Experimentation and uses the following BSAVA guidelines on animal experimentation:
The BSAVA recognises that great advances have been made possible in some areas of biological knowledge only as a result of research using animals and that future essential studies will only be possible through continued involvement in animal experimentation. As such the Association accepts that it is not possible to ban the use of animals in scientific experiments in the foreseeable future, but stresses that where such experiments occur the following points must be ensured:
· There are no alternatives available that do not involve animals · The aims and the objectives of the experiment are carefully considered before considering the use of animals and that the number of animals to be used is kept to the absolute minimum to achieve these aims and objectives. · The welfare of the animals is paramount and there should be no severe or prolonged pain or distress. Where there is pain or stress from the procedure or other extraneous cause, then suitable anaesthesia, analgesia or other measures compatible with current veterinary practice should be used to alleviate the pain, distress or suffering. Otherwise, euthanasia should be carried out immediately. This should be done whether or not the aims and the objectives of the experiment have been met. Only in very exceptional circumstances should this be waived and then only by prior authorisation of the Secretary of State. All premises, where experiments take place, and people responsible for the experiments should be rigidly controlled and monitored, and there should be adequate and readily available veterinary supervision for all animals involved in experiments, including breeding.
Except in isolated circumstances, all animals should be specifically bred for experimental use and lawfully acquired. The use of family pets and strays should never be allowed. Captured wild animals should only be used when there are no suitable, specifically bred animals. Great consideration must be given to their welfare, their suitability for the experiment and the conservation aspects of that particular species. The use of animals to gain manual surgical skills should be minimal and, except in very exceptional circumstances authorised by the Home Office, the animals should not be allowed to recover.
Only in very rare circumstances, when there are no other means available, should animals be used for teaching scientific principles.
Additionally, the use of animals should be limited to certain acceptable purposes. These are: · Prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease of man, animals and plants. · The assessment, detection and diagnosis of physiological conditions including breeding of animals. · The testing of substances which ultimately would be used or useful in the treatment of disease in animals or man. · Protection of the environment. · Advancement of biological knowledge. · Certain educational and training purposes
The BSAVA accepts that providing these various points and procedures are met, animals may be used for experimental investigations. However, the BSAVA strongly welcomes developments that reduce the number of animals employed and, more specifically, provide suitable and acceptable replacements for the use of animals in experiments.
Approval: BSAVA Council as Policy Statement No. 22 (Animal Experimentation) 1999. Recent update: May 2006
4. Policy Statement on Spaying of Bitches
The spaying of bitches is recommended by the BSAVA for the following reasons:
· Unwanted pups are prevented; this removes the problems associated with finding homes or increasing the stray population. · No false pregnancy; this is very common in bitches, and can occur after each season. It may result in distress to the bitch and anguish to the owner. A bitch undergoing a false pregnancy may produce milk, lose her appetite and become quite aggressive. · Pyometra and other uterine diseases are avoided; unspayed bitches can develop pyometra late in life, which then requires life saving surgery. Spaying a healthy bitch does not involve the risks of spaying an older bitch with toxaemia from the pyometra. · Reduced risk of mammary tumours; the relative risk of mammary tumours increases progressively with each successive season. Bitches spayed before the second season have a lower prevalence of mammary tumours than entire bitches. · No Oestrus; oestrus (season or "heat") occurs about every 6 months in entire bitches. During this time bitches have to be kept away from other dogs and walked under close supervision.
There are some reservations about spaying, but most are not justified when examined more closely. Spaying may predispose to weight increase, but dietary management can control this. Urinary incontinence can be associated with spaying, but whether that bears any relationship to the age at which the bitch was spayed is unknown. Spaying is irreversible, and a decision to spay a young bitch may be postponed by controlling her oestrus with drugs under veterinary direction. The BSAVA believes the benefits of spaying a bitch outweigh any potential risks that are involved with the procedure.
Approval: BSAVA Council as Policy Statement No. 24 (Spaying of bitches) 1999. Recent update: May 2006
5. Policy Statement on Castration of Dogs
The BSAVA recommends that castration should be considered in the following circumstances:
· As a treatment to limit straying, particularly in response to bitches in season. Straying causes nuisance and unwanted litters. · As a treatment for excessive and unacceptable sexual behaviour towards bitches, people and inanimate objects. · For medical reasons e.g. to prevent or remove testicular tumours, or reduce perianal adenoma or prostatic hyperplasia. · As a treatment in some cases of dominance aggression. Whether castration can be helpful can be proved first by the use of hormone injections. · To prevent the perpetuation of genetic defects.
Castration rarely produces undesirable changes in temperament. Any weight change can be controlled by management of the diet. It is notable that there is little problem with male Guide Dogs that have all been castrated.
Veterinary advice should always be sought on each individual case.
Approval: BSAVA Council as Policy Statement No. 25 (Castration of dogs) 1999. Recent update: May 2006
6. Policy Statement on Neutering of Cats
The BSAVA strongly supports the practice of neutering cats (castration of tom cats and spaying of queens) for the over-riding reason of preventing unwanted kittens - thus removing the problems associated with finding homes or increasing the stray population.
The additional welfare benefits of neutering cats include:
· Reduction of roaming, and thus reduction in numbers of cats injured or killed in road traffic accidents. · Reduction in fighting, and thus reduction in infected wounds and abscesses and spread of FIV infection.
The BSAVA is a member of the Cat Group and supports the Policy of the Cat Group on early neutering (i.e. at 4 months of age rather than the traditional 6 months of age). The full Cat Group Policy Statement may be found at: www.thecatgroup.org.uk/
Approval: BSAVA Council as Policy Statement No. 29 (Neutering of cats) 1999. Recent update: May 2006
7. BSAVA Policy Statement on the Neutering of Rabbits
The BSAVA advises that all non-breeding rabbits should be neutered (ovariohysterectomy and castration respectively) soon after they attain sexual maturity. The exact age varies with respect to breed, ranging from 4 - 6 months, or up to 9 months in giant breeds. Pre-pubescent females are difficult to spay because of their tiny uterus and ovaries that can be hard to locate6. Therefore waiting until sexual maturity makes for an easier, and hence safer procedure, and the risk of unwanted pregnancy is minimal. Rabbits should ideally be spayed before maturity when large amounts of abdominal fat can complicate surgery.
Males can be castrated when the testicles have descended, usually around 3 ½ - 4 months of age. Attempts to neuter prior to this may require abdominal surgery which is more complicated. If neutered shortly after the testicles have descended, the risk of unwanted pregnancy does not appear to be significant.
There are some reservations about neutering, but most are not justified when examined more closely. Especial care and attention to anaesthesia technique is important. It is acknowledged that rabbits may constitute a higher anaesthetic risk compared to other species. Neutering may predispose to weight increase, but dietary management can control this. The BSAVA believes the benefits of neutering rabbits outweigh any potential risks that are involved with the procedure.
REASONS FOR NEUTERING RABBITS
· Prevention of pregnancy and unwanted litters. · Prevention of uterine neoplasia. The likelihood of developing adenocarcinoma is the most important medical reason to neuter female rabbits. · Prevention of other uterine diseases. These include pyometra, uterine aneurysm and endometritis. · Prevention of pseudopregnancy. It is stressful for rabbits to go through nest building, milk production and aggressive protection of territory. This can make the pet very difficult to handle during this period and can progress to decreased appetite and gastrointestinal problems. · Prevention of mammary disease. Both cystic mammary gland and mammary neoplasia can be prevented by early neutering. · Reduction of aggression. Neutering shortly after sexual maturity may be beneficial in modifying hormonally related aggression, thereby reducing undesirable behaviour towards the owner, and making rabbits less likely to fight if kept in groups. Despite this, keeping two adult rabbits of the same sex together may be difficult if they have not grown up together. It is also important to realize that there are a number of possible motivations for aggressive behaviour and neutering may not always be beneficial or appropriate. Full investigation of the underlying motivation is necessary in all cases of undesirable behaviour before a treatment strategy can be selected. · Prevention of undesirable sexual mounting behaviour by an entire male rabbit towards other rabbits, or cage mates of other species. · Prevention of testicular disease. Disease of the testicle is rare in the male rabbit, but it can occur. Most common are abscesses (often from bite wounds from other rabbits), haematomas and neoplasia.
EVIDENCE-BASED SUPPORTIVE INFORMATION
Uterine adenocarcinoma is the most common tumour of entire female rabbits, with reported incidence of 50 - 80%1,2,3,4 in animals of certain breeds (tan, French silver, Havana and Dutch)5 that are older than 4 years, although breeding history is not a factor. Over time, the endometrium undergoes progressive change including hyperplasia, which is associated with adenocarcinoma, as in humans. Local invasion of the myometrium occurs rapidly and infiltration may extend to other peritoneal structures. More distant metastases to the lung, liver and sometimes brain and bone can occur within 1-2 years3. Clinical signs in breeding females include decreased fertility, small litters and increased stillbirths. In pet rabbits, owners may notice haematuria or a serosanguinous vaginal discharge, cystic mammary glands, and later weight loss, depression and respiratory signs due to pulmonary metastases. Treatment is ovariohysterectomy with thoracic radiography to evaluate for metastases. If metastases are present the prognosis is extremely poor. Mammary neoplasia is less common in this species, but when it does occur it spreads rapidly and is usually concurrent with uterine neoplasia. Cystic mammary glands are common and although a benign change, the excess fluid within the glands can be uncomfortable.
REFERENCES
Baba N, von Haam E: Animal model for human disease: spontaneous adenocarcinoma in aged rabbits. Am J Pathol 1972; 68:653-656
Ingalls TH, Adams WM, Lurie MB et al: Natural history of adenocarcinoma of the uterus in the Phipps rabbit colony. J Natl Cancer Inst 1964; 33:799-806.
Weisbroth SH: Neoplastic diseases. In Manning PJ, Ringler DH, Newcomer CE, eds. The Biology of the Laboratory Rabbit. New York, Academic Press, 1994, pp 259-292.
Greene HSN: Uterine adenomata in the rabbit. J Exp Med 1941; 73: 273-292
Pare JA, Paul-Murphy J: Disorders of the reproductive and urinary systems. In Quesenberry KE, Carpenter JW, eds. Ferrets, Rabbits and Rodents. Clinical Medicine and Surgery. Missouri, Saunders, 2004, pp183-193.
Harcourt-Brown F: Textbook of Rabbit Medicine, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002, pp57.
Approval: Approved by Council 2007.
8. Policy Statement on Pet Identification Schemes
BSAVA supports the permanent identification of all companion animals using an implanted microchip transponder manufactured to ISO 11784/5. BSAVA recommends that the transponder should be implanted according to the WSAVA list of implant sites.
BSAVA recommends that the details of all implanted animals should be maintained on a central database or databases which can be accessed by a single well publicised phone and internet portal that is manned at all times.
BSAVA recommends that identification microchips for companion animals should only be supplied sterile with an appropriate devise which enables implantation to be carried out aseptically and that the registration fee for the database should be included in the purchase price.
BSAVA recommends that manufacturers of identification microchips, suppliers and operators of the databases should comply with the Codes of Practice drawn up by the Microchip Advisory Group and the Dog identification group (DIG).
BSAVA also recommends that its members only purchase products and services from companies who comply with these Codes. Details of the current Codes and those companies subscribing to them can be found on the BSAVA web site under Microchip Advice under the Resouces section.
Approval: BSAVA Council as Policy Statement No. 26 (Pet identification schemes) 1999. Recent update: March 2005
9. Policy Statement on Companion Animal Vaccination Protocols, Nosode Vaccines and Adverse Reactions to Vaccines
The BSAVA endorses the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) report (2002) and the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) statement (2003) on canine and feline vaccination, and advises members that they should consider the recommendations particularly recommendation 19 (see below), made in these reports when discussing with owners the relative risks and benefits of vaccination. BSAVA policy
The BSAVA believes that vaccination plays a very valuable role in the control of infectious disease in cats and dogs. It recognises that adverse reactions, including lack of efficacy may occasionally occur, but that the overall risk/benefit analysis strongly supports the continued use of vaccination to control major infectious diseases of cats and dogs. The BSAVA strongly supports the concept that a thorough risk /benefit assessment on an individual case basis should be discussed with clients when deciding on timing of vaccination and use of particular vaccines for particular animals. The BSAVA strongly supports all scientifically valid research into the epidemiology, control and prevention of canine and feline infectious diseases in the UK and the publication of such research, so as to provide veterinary surgeons with appropriate information on which to base decisions. The BSAVA strongly supports further research into improving efficacy and safety of vaccines.
The BSAVA does not endorse the use of nosode vaccines for companion animals and believes that there is no evidence base to support their efficacy. The BSAVA particularly advises against the use of nosodes in a legal context (e.g. Local Authority inspection of kennelled animals). The BSAVA supports the use of the wide range of high quality, safe and efficacious licensed veterinary vaccines. The BSAVA believes that all animals should receive the benefit of solid protective immunity from life-threatening infectious diseases that is conferred by vaccination using licensed veterinary products. The BSAVA endorses the concept that tailored vaccine programmes should be applied to as many animals as possible within a population to maintain the level of protective immunity within that population.
The BSAVA strongly endorses the importance of pharmacovigilance and the VMD Suspected Adverse Reactions Reporting Scheme.
Explanatory details
In recent years there has been much discussion and concern within and outwith the veterinary profession over current protocols for vaccination of companion animals (dog and cat). The major concern has been the spectrum of adverse reactions that have been associated with the administration of vaccines, and related to this, the issue of frequency of administration of vaccine boosters. The veterinary profession in North America has taken a proactive approach to dealing with these issues. There have been a number of independent scientific papers, and a co-ordinated approach to the specific issue of injection site fibrosarcoma in cats through the formation of the Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force (VAFSTF). In addition, several organisations have established scientific working parties that have published specific guidelines on the administration of vaccines to companion animals. These have included reports from the American Association of Feline Practitioners and Academy of Feline Medicine (Revised guidelines to be published in 2006), the AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents (2002), and the American Animal Hospital Association (2006).These reports have emphasised the safety of current vaccines, acknowledged the potential for adverse reactions, and recommended new guidelines based on the concept of ‘core’ versus ‘non core’ products, and the extension of current revaccination intervals. In Europe and the United Kingdom, the discussion on these issues has been far less prominent. This may reflect the fact that there are far fewer licensed vaccines available for use in Europe compared to North America. The single most significant contribution has been the report of the UK VPC on feline and canine vaccination, published in full in 2002, and summarised in the Veterinary Record (2002). The majority of the recommendations were accepted by the government and their response published in (2003). The VPC report emphasises the safety and value of vaccination, and presents UK data on the very low prevalence of adverse reactions to these products in dogs and cats. On the issue of extended booster intervals, the VPC recommends that until such time as more extensive scientific evidence is presented, there is insufficient basis to alter the current data sheet recommendations for companion animal vaccines. The report suggests however, that owners might request veterinary surgeons to use revaccination intervals different from those recommended by the manufacturer following an informed discussion of the relative risks and benefits. On the issue of feline fibrosarcoma, the report recognises the value of the VAFSTF recommendations on the administration of feline vaccines to standardised body sites. The statement on injection site sarcoma by the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP; 2003) broadly endorses the VPC report, but does not support the practice of administration of monovalent vaccines to different body sites. A ‘nosode’ vaccine is derived from infected animal tissue or live micro-organisms, but this material is subsequently diluted to the point where there is insignificant (or no) micro-organism present. Nosodes are generally given by oral administration and there is no requirement that the product be actually swallowed by the animal. Nosodes are unlicensed veterinary products and there is no scientific evidence base to support their efficacy. By contrast, there is evidence that nosodes do not generate protective immunity. In one anecdotal study of a canine parvovirus nosode, there was no protection of ‘nosode-vaccinated’ dogs subsequently challenged with virulent parvovirus. The use of nosodes therefore is regarded as putting individual pet animals at risk from contracting infectious disease and moreover weakens the population immunity to infection thereby allowing the more ready emergence of outbreaks of infectious disease.
The BSAVA is a member organization of the WSAVA which has currently convened a Vaccination Guidelines Group. The BSAVA endorses the WSAVA Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats (2007).
References
CVMP Advice on Injection-Site Fibrosarcomas in Cats. (2003) Veterinary Record 152, 381-382.
Day MJ, Horzinek M and Schultz RD. WSAVA Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats. Journal of Small Animal Practice, September 2007.
Elston T, Rodan I, Flemming D, Ford RB, Hustead DR, Richards JR, Rosen DK, Sherk-Nixon MA and Scott FW (1998) 1998 Report of the American Association of Feline Practitioners and Academy of Feline Medicine Advisory Panel on Feline Vaccines. JAVMA 212, 227-241.
Ford RB. 2001. Vaccines and vaccinations: the strategic issues. Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice 31, 439-453.
Gaskell R, Gettinby G, Graham S and Skilton D (2002) Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) Working Group on Canine and Feline Vaccination. Final Report to the VPC. DEFRA Publications, London, ISBN: 0-9531234-5-6.
Gaskell RM, Gettinby G, Graham SJ and Skilton D (2002) Veterinary Products Committee Working Group Report on Feline and Canine Vaccination. Veterinary Record 150, 126-134.
Klingborg DJ, Hustead DR, Curry-Galvin EA, Gumley NR, Henry SC, Bain FT, Paul MA, Boothe DM, Blood KS, Huxsoll DL, Reynolds DL, Riddell Jr MG, Reid JS and Short CR (2002) AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents’ Report on Cat and Dog Vaccines. JAVMA 221, 1401-1407.
Paul MA, Carmichael LE, Childers H, Cotter S, Davidson A, Ford R, Hurley KF, Roth JA, Schultz RD, Thacker E, and Welborn L (2006) 2006 AAHA Canine Vaccine Guidelines. AAHA website..
Government response to the recommendations contained in the report of the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) working group on feline and canine vaccination. Published on the VMD website www.vmd.gov.uk
Approval: BSAVA Council as Policy Statement No. 30 (Companion Animal Vaccination Protocols and Adverse Reactions to Vaccines) 2003. Recent update: September 2007
10. Policy Statement on Use of Electronic Collars in Companion Animals
Note: this statement refers only to electronic shock collars. In principle, the BSAVA opposes the use of electronic shock collars for training and containment of animals. Shocks received during training may not only be acutely stressful, painful and frightening for the animal but also may produce long term adverse effects on behavioural and emotional responses. The Association recognises that all electronic devices that employ shock as a means of punishing or controlling behaviour are open to potential abuse and that incorrect use of such training aids has the potential to cause welfare problems. Apart from the potentially detrimental effect on the animal receiving the shocks there is also evidence that there is a risk to public safety from the use of shock-collar based containment systems, as they may evoke aggression in dogs under certain circumstances. The BSAVA strongly recommends the use of positive reinforcement methods in training dogs wherever possible and supports investigation of positive reinforcement training methods that could replace those using aversive stimuli.
Approval: BSAVA Council as Policy Statement No. 31 (Use of electronic collars in companion animals) 2004. Recent update: March 2006
11. Policy Statement on Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA)
Current scientific evidence supports the opinion that the risk of pet-transmitted MRSA is small and those pet owners who undertake hygienic precautions are at minimal risk. MRSA, furthermore, does not normally harm healthy people including pregnant women, babies and children. High-risk individuals (long-term sick, elderly or patients with a poor immune system for example) may need to take extra care and seek advice from their veterinary surgeon and doctor. The BSAVA recommends that all reported zoonotic infections with MRSA are investigated and that medical and veterinary staff co-ordinate in eliminating infection. MRSA is of little risk to healthy animals but vulnerable pets include immunocompromised animals, long-term in-patients, and animals with open wounds, implants or undergoing major surgery. Infectious disease control policies should be implemented to prevent MRSA and other nosocomial infections. The BSAVA strongly advocates the responsible use of anti-bacterial agents to minimise the development of resistant species and strains of all bacterial pathogens particularly those with zoonotic potential.
Accepted: BSAVA Council as Policy Statement No. 32 (Guidance on Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus) 2004. Recent update: September 2005
12. Policy Statement on Use of Anthelmintics in Dogs
The BSAVA recommends that, for the control of roundworms, worming of puppies should begin at two weeks of age, in order to prevent egg-shedding as Toxocara canis infection becomes patent. Thereafter, treatments should be repeated according to manufacturers’ recommendations until pups are 12-14 weeks of age so as to prevent egg laying by late maturing roundworms. Thereafter, a benefit/risk assessment of each individual case should determine both choice of anthelmintic, spectrum of anthelmintic activity and frequency of administration. In cases of high risk or where there is increased zoonotic potential, maximum control according to the manufacturers recommendation is recommended. In other cases, the risk of re-infection may be so low as to recommend intermittent anthelmintic therapy with longer inter-treatment intervals. Local risk information should determine the spectrum of anthelmintic used e.g. anthelmintics for heartworm or lungworm prevention. BSAVA strongly encourages further valid scientific research into the epidemiology, control and prevention of all parasitic infections of dogs in the UK (in particular those with zoonotic potential), and publication of such research so that it can be used by veterinary surgeons in decision-making. For dogs entering the UK after travel, a treatment for tapeworms containing praziquantel is essential 24-48 hrs before entry to comply with the UK derogation to the EU Pet Passport legislation.
Guidelines and explanatory notes for veterinary surgeons
Guidelines for both veterinary and owner information have been prepared by Maggie Fisher for BSAVA and are available here. Guidelines include decision tree on risk assessment, spectrum of anthelmintic activity of available drugs and detailed information on the biology, diagnosis and treatment of canine helminth infections
Approval: BSAVA Council as Policy Statement No. 33 (Use of anthelmintics in dogs) 2004. Recent update: May 2006
13. Policy Statement on Use of Anthelmintics in Cats
BSAVA recommends that, for the control of roundworms, treatment of kittens should start at six weeks of age (infection is acquired post-natally) and then repeated according to the manufacturers’ recommendations until kittens are 12-14 weeks of age. However, BSAVA is aware that further research is required to properly determine the pattern of infection and egg-excretion in kittens. Thereafter, a benefit/risk assessment of each individual case should determine both choice of anthelmintic, spectrum of anthelmintic activity and frequency of administration. In cases of high risk or where there is increased zoonotic potential, maximum control according to the manufacturers recommendation is recommended. In other cases, the risk of re-infection may be so low as to recommend intermittent anthelmintic therapy with longer inter-treatment intervals. Local risk information should determine the spectrum of anthelmintic used e.g. anthelmintics for heartworm prevention in travelling cats. BSAVA strongly encourages further valid scientific research into the epidemiology, control and prevention of all parasitic infections of cats in the UK (in particular those with zoonotic potential), and publication of such research so that it can be used by veterinary surgeons in decision-making. For cats entering the UK after travel, a treatment for tapeworms containing praziquantel is essential 24-48 hrs before entry to comply with the UK derogation to the EU Pet Passport legislation.
Guidelines and explanatory notes for veterinary surgeons
Guidelines for both veterinary and owner information have been prepared by Maggie Fisher for BSAVA and are available here. Guidelines include decision tree on risk assessment, spectrum of anthelmintic activity of available drugs and detailed information on the biology, diagnosis and treatment of feline helminth infections
Approval: BSAVA Council as Policy Statement No. 34 (Use of anthelmintics in dogs) 2004. Recent update: May 2006
14. Policy Statement on the Cloning of Cats and Dogs
Background Facts
In recent years the cloning of a range of animal species, including cats and dogs, has been reported. In the United States, commercial companies have been established with the purpose of storing genetic material from pet cats and dogs with view to future cloning of these animals.
It is accepted that there are potential risks to the production of cloned animals, both to the animals involved in producing the clone and the clones thus created. The success rate for cloning is limited – the two recently cloned dogs were the only live births from a total of 1095 embryos implanted into 123 surrogate dams. The negative welfare implications of cloning are discussed in the Draft Interim Report of the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC) Report on Breeding and Welfare in Companion Animals. The UK Kennel Club is opposed to the cloning of dogs which is contrary to their objective of ‘promoting in every way the general improvement of dogs’.
It has been suggested that the recent production of cloned dogs has limited value with respect to research into canine disease which is best studied in the natural dog population. Moreover, the UK Animal Procedures Committee (APC) recommends that licences should not be granted for animal cloning with trivial objectives such as the creation or duplication of pets.
BSAVA Policy
The BSAVA does not support the cloning of cats and dogs for commercial purposes and recognises that the procedure as it applies to research is covered by the UK Animal Procedures Act.
The BSAVA does not endorse the process of commercial collection and storage of genetic material from companion animals for the express purpose of cloning a specific pet animal.
Approval: BSAVA Council 2005
References
Animal Procedures Committee (2001) Report on Biotechnology. www.apc.gov.uk
Companion Animal Welfare Council (2005) Draft Interim Report on Breeding and Welfare in Companion Animals.
UK Kennel Club Policy Statement on the Cloning of Dogs (2004).
Shin T, Kraemer D, Pryor J, Liu L, Rugila J, Howe L, Buck S, Murphy K, Lyons L, Westhusin M. 2002. A cat cloned by nuclear transplantation. Nature 415: 859.
Lee BC, Kim MK, Jang G, Oh HJ, Yuda F, Kim HJ, Shamim MH, Kim JJ, Kang SK, Schatten G, Hwang WS. Dogs cloned from adult somatic cells. Nature 436: 641.
15. Policy Statement on the Restraint of Companion Animals in Motor Vehicles
The BSAVA endorses the use of restraining devices for companion animals travelling in motor vehicles. Cats and smaller animals should be contained within purpose designed and appropriately restrained ‘pet carriers’ whereas dogs may best be restrained by the use of a ‘dog seat belt’. Dog seat belts are recommended where dogs travel in the interior passenger area of a vehicle, rather than for dogs travelling in the rear of an estate car separated from human passengers by a purposed-designed ‘dog guard’. Restrained animals are less likely to cause distraction to the driver of the motor vehicle, and there are two clear benefits to such restraint in the event of a motor vehicle accident: There is anecdotal clinical evidence that unrestrained animals may be forced at high velocity through a vehicle after impact, thus sustaining more extensive injury than had the animal been restrained. In the event of a motor vehicle accident, the driver and human passengers may be placed at an additional risk of trauma caused by high velocity contact with unrestrained pets in the car. There is excellent scientific evidence pertaining to the increased risk to front-seat occupants of unbelted rear-seat human passengers, and little reason to suspect that this risk would be lessened by an unrestrained animal. The BSAVA is aware that there are various types and manufacturers of dog seat belts, and limited scientific evaluation of their effectiveness is available. Furthermore, the BSAVA recognizes that some dogs may be resistant to the use of such apparatus and therefore recommends that the seat belt be introduced to a dog in a considered fashion, with positive associations being made with its use in a neutral context before using it in the car itself. This will involve introducing the dog to the seat belt at home before using it in the car and using food rewards or play to reward the dog for wearing the apparatus. Once the dog is happy to wear the seat belt while playing or eating his dinner at home the owner can then start to use the belt in the car. However, initially it should be used for very short periods of restraint in a stationary car and once the dog accepts this it can then be used for restraining the dog in a moving car.
References
Ichikawa et al., 2002. Mortality of front-seat occupants attributable to unbelted rear-seat passengers in car crashes. Lancet 359:43-44.
MacLennan et al., 2004. Risk of injury for occupants of motor vehicle collisions from unbelted occupants. Inj Prev 10: 363-7.
Mayrose et al., 2005. Influence of the unbelted rear-seat passenger on driver mortality: ‘the backseat bullet’. Acad Emerg Med 12:130-134.
