Search

Vaccination is a cornerstone of canine preventive healthcare and one of the most cost-effective ways of maintaining a dog's health, longevity, and quality of life. Canine vaccination also serves a public health function by forming a barrier against several zoonotic diseases affecting dogs and humans. Canine vaccines are broadly categorized as containing core and noncore immunizing antigens, with administration recommendations based on assessment of individual patient risk factors. The guidelines include a comprehensive table listing canine core and noncore vaccines and a recommended vaccination and revaccination schedule for each vaccine. The guidelines explain the relevance of different vaccine formulations, including those containing modified-live virus, inactivated, and recombinant immunizing agents. Factors that potentially affect vaccine efficacy are addressed, including the patient's prevaccination immune status and vaccine duration of immunity. Because animal shelters are one of the most challenging environments for prevention and control of infectious diseases, the guidelines also provide recommendations for vaccination of dogs presented at or housed in animal shelters, including the appropriate response to an infectious disease outbreak in the shelter setting. The guidelines explain how practitioners can interpret a patient's serological status, including maternally derived antibody titers, as indicators of immune status and suitability for vaccination. Other topics covered include factors associated with postvaccination adverse events, vaccine storage and handling to preserve product efficacy, interpreting product labeling to ensure proper vaccine use, and using client education and healthcare team training to raise awareness of the importance of vaccinations., (© 2024 by American Animal Hospital Association.)

These guidelines are an update and extension of previous AAHA peer-reviewed canine vaccination guidelines published in 2017. Vaccination is a cornerstone of canine preventive healthcare and one of the most cost-effective ways of maintaining a dog's health, longevity, and quality of life. Canine vaccination also serves a public health function by forming a barrier against several zoonotic diseases affecting dogs and humans. Canine vaccines are broadly categorized as containing core and noncore immunizing antigens, with administration recommendations based on assessment of individual patient risk factors. The guidelines include a comprehensive table listing canine core and noncore vaccines and a recommended vaccination and revaccination schedule for each vaccine. The guidelines explain the relevance of different vaccine formulations, including those containing modified-live virus, inactivated, and recombinant immunizing agents. Factors that potentially affect vaccine efficacy are addressed, including the patient's prevaccination immune status and vaccine duration of immunity. Because animal shelters are one of the most challenging environments for prevention and control of infectious diseases, the guidelines also provide recommendations for vaccination of dogs presented at or housed in animal shelters, including the appropriate response to an infectious disease outbreak in the shelter setting. The guidelines explain how practitioners can interpret a patient's serological status, including maternally derived antibody titers, as indicators of immune status and suitability for vaccination. Other topics covered include factors associated with postvaccination adverse events, vaccine storage and handling to preserve product efficacy, interpreting product labeling to ensure proper vaccine use, and using client education and healthcare team training to raise awareness of the importance of vaccinations., (© 2022 by American Animal Hospital Association.)

Purpose: To evaluate differences between the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness and RNFL + ganglion cell layer (GCL) thickness in patients affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD) and healthy patients using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT)., Methods: This was a case-control prospective study. Twenty-one AD patients and 21 healthy subjects underwent neurological examination, clock-drawing test (CDT), Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), and comprehensive ophthalmic evaluation with visual acuity. SD-OCT examination was performed using Spectralis and RTVue-100. An RNFL thickness map was obtained using the Spectralis volume protocol with 19 lines on the 30° field centered on the macula. On each B-scan, the outer RNFL limit was manually set. Statistical analysis was performed to assess interoperator RNFL evaluation thickness. An RNFL+GCL thickness map was obtained using the RTVue-100 MM6 protocol. Maps were divided into the nine ETDRS subfields and each map value in every area was evaluated. A single eye from each patient was randomly chosen to perform the analysis. Differences between AD and healthy subjects were assessed., Results: The two study groups were age and sex matched. MMSE results were 19.9 ± 3.1 and 27.9 ± 1.3, respectively (P < 0.001). There was good agreement in the manual delimitation of the RNFL layer. There was a significant difference in the thickness of both the RNFL and the RNFL+GCL in all examined fields. For example, in the inferior internal subfield, the RNFL thickness was 28.1 ± 3.1 μm for AD patients and 32.6 ± 3.8 μm for healthy subjects (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: These results indicate that RNFL and RNFL+GCL thickness measurements are reduced in AD patients compared with healthy subjects. This finding may represent a useful element for the diagnosis and follow-up of this pathology.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate artifact errors in automatic inner and outer retinal boundary detection produced by different time-domain and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) instruments., Methods: Normal and pathologic eyes were imaged by six different OCT devices. For each instrument, standard analysis protocols were used for macular thickness evaluation. Error frequencies, defined as the percentage of examinations affected by at least one error in retinal segmentation (EF-exam) and the percentage of total errors per total B-scans, were assessed for each instrument. In addition, inner versus outer retinal boundary delimitation and central (1,000 microm) versus noncentral location of errors were studied., Results: The study population of the EF-exam for all instruments was 25.8%. The EF-exam of normal eyes was 6.9%, whereas in all pathologic eyes, it was 32.7% (P < 0.0001). The EF-exam was highest in eyes with macular holes, 83.3%, followed by epiretinal membrane with cystoid macular edema, 66.6%, and neovascular age-related macular degeneration, 50.3%. The different OCT instruments produced different EF-exam values (P < 0.0001). The Zeiss Stratus produced the highest percentage of total errors per total B-scans compared with the other OCT systems, and this was statistically significant for all devices (P < or = 0.005) except the Optovue RTvue-100 (P = 0.165)., Conclusion: Spectral-domain OCT instruments reduce, but do not eliminate, errors in retinal segmentation. Moreover, accurate segmentation is lower in pathologic eyes compared with normal eyes for all instruments. The important differences in EF among the instruments studied are probably attributable to analysis algorithms used to set retinal inner and outer boundaries. Manual adjustments of retinal segmentations could reduce errors, but it will be important to evaluate interoperator variability.