Dogged Blog

Scrub a dub your dog, hot veterinary news and a manatee

Just a fast post from Orlando, where I'm heading home to San Francisco after a week at the massive North American Veterinary Conference.



I've got tons of news -- a new treatment for feline asthma, 0ne of the most interesting shelter medicine presentations I've ever seen, updates on treating canine skin disease (and yes, I got the list of products that Dr. Fadok recommends that you were all asking me for!) -- but it will have to wait for me to be home where I can sort through my notes. I'm literally writing this on my lap at the Orlando Airport.



In case you're wondering what's up with that photo, I spent hours looking for a stuffed manatee for my nephew Ronan, and I found one at the airport gift shop.



Oh, and my column on SFGate.com ran this morning -- it's a much longer exploration of using frequent bathing to treat canine skin disease. I think I answered some of the questions you all asked when I teased the topic in a recent blog post -- check it out! And, you know, share it on Facebook and stuff -- these geeky health topics never so as well as I think they should, and I honestly believe this information is going to help a lot of dogs!



The 'killer app' for canine itching and skin infections



"See" you all soon!

Bloggers behind the scenes at NAVC

Irish veterinarian Pete Wedderburn -- Pete the Vet, for those who read his blog, which has a place of honor on the Pet Connection blog roll -- and our own Gina Spadafori, deep in conversation in the press room at the North American Veterinary Conference in Orlando this afternoon. Their topic? The vast differences between veterinary practice in the U.S. and the U.K.

Suds over drugs: Daily bathing beats antibiotics for resistant skin infections in dogs

Are you the owner of a dog suffering from drug-resistant skin infections? There's good news from the North American Veterinary Conference in Orlando.

My year-old Scottish Deerhound, Rawley, turned out to be a dog with allergies -- only my second dog so afflicted, ever. We've been struggling hard trying to deal with them.

And as regular readers will remember, two or three years ago my Borzoi, Kryie, had a severe drug resistant staph infection -- or series of infections -- that never resolved until we got her on thyroid supplementation. (Interestingly she never did test below normal on her thyroid panels, but that's a subject for another day.)

So when I saw a session on managing chronic resistant skin infections with special reference to dogs with atopic dermatitis (the form of allergy Rawley has), I couldn't stay away.

Board-certified veterinary dermatologist Dr. Valerie A. Fadok took us on a fast overview of the general topic of resistant skin infections in dogs, dug down into the various drug options in these resistant cases, and then presented her recommendation: ditch the drugs and bathe the dog.

I'm not quite sure what made me happier, being at a session where the recommendation was low-cost and low-tech rather than a Newer! Better! Costlier! product of Big Pharma, or being at a session where the pet owner was being given complete control of the therapy.

Dr. Fadok's presentation was part of a series sponsored by Pfizer (also one of our sponsors here at Pet Connection), and she did mention that she was a fan of the Pfizer injectable antibiotic Convenia -- just not, she said, for resistant staph infections, which are almost always resistant to this class of drugs (the cephalosporins).

In addition to her recommendation to bathe dogs daily to treat skin infections and reduce symptoms of atopy, including itching, she went over a number of shampoos, rinses and sprays she'd seen good results with -- both veterinary and over-the-counter products. These included:

Duoxo (her biggest thumbs-up)
Zymox (over-the-counter)
Vetericyn VF spray

A number of chlorhexidine-based shampoos were also highly recommended -- I'll pull a complete list from the session CD when I get to a real computer.I can tell you they covered all price points.

Other important recommendations were to wash daily or, if that's truly impossible, to use one of the more effective topical products on the whole body every day that a bath is not given.

Leave the shampoo on for 10 minutes, and shampoo the dog from head to toe every time, using a sponge to get the area around the eyes.

It's pretty intensive, but it's cheap, almost any dog owner can do it, it stops contributing to the emergence of resistant staph, it's very safe, and it actually works better than the more expensive and riskier pharmaceutical alternatives.

I'm going to start daily baths with Rawley the minute I get home, and I'll keep you posted on how it goes!

One more note: She also talked about the use of desensitization for allergies, something else we're doing with Rawley. But, she said, not all dogs with chronic skin infections and itching have allergies. Some of them are sensitive to staph itself. I've heard about this before, and am going to be checking around to see what, if any, research has been done on the topic.

Now, time for lunch and then I'll be checking out some disgusting ear infection sessions -- my favorite!

Go to a veterinary conference, win an iPad?

Welcome to the North American Veterinary iPad Conference.



No, seriously. Something like 98.7 percent of all booths and vendors at the North American Veterinary Conference in Orlando are offering some method to win an iPad. If only I'd bought stock in Apple all those years ago, instead of wasting my time in journalism school.



I arrived in Orlando for NAVC late Friday night or, more accurately, early Saturday morning. Endless delays before my plane even left San Francisco, missed meal, hotel that couldn't find my reservation and then put me into a dirty room, jet lag... good times. Fortunately Gina took care of everything, including finding me a salad and figuring out why the hotel had my reservation wrong.



We spent the day at a number of scientific sessions and working out some kind of strategy to be in three places at one time. Dr. Becker is here in Florida, but he's in Naples this weekend with our own Ericka Basile for a benefit for The Brody Project, an animal-assisted therapy program in Naples, Fla., so I haven't seen him yet.



We did speak on the phone, however, because I was so excited about something that happened in one of the sessions I was in (this one not so science-y; it was on client communication, since there are two things I can't resist: truly disgusting slides of infected ears, and anything to do with communication and language).



Veterinary consultant Shannon Pigott was doing a presentation on using social media in client communication, and as I was sitting there, guess what page she popped up as example of doing it right? Our own Dr. Becker's Facebook page! *iz proud*



I'm trying to force myself to focus more on the icky ear stuff on Sunday, however, since there is a slight Cyrano de Bergerac effect that comes about when one listens to a communications pro helping veterinarians and technicians learn how to communicate better with their clients. I'd rather believe it's just magic.



I won't spoil the incredible story Gina got at the conference today, but look forward to something truly unexpected and awesome on Monday morning! And also? Make her tell you the Kindle story.



In the meantime, if anyone's reading the blog this weekend, tell us -- what veterinary topics are you most interested in hearing about?



Sadly, we will not be giving away an iPad to the person with the best answer.

Tucson

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

Letter from a dog lover to a football fan

Dear football fan,

You ask about -- nay, you rant, you rave, you carry on against -- the fact that I write about Michael Vick with disapprobation and don't equally condemn a variety of other football players who have come back to play again after they committed other crimes, including violence against people.

This is your supreme "gotcha," the one where you prove beyond all doubt that I'm a terrible person who likes dogs more than people, and in fact, probably don't care about people at all.

I think, however, that you, dear football player, need a reality check. Did it never occur to you that I don't write about those violent football players because I have never heard of them?

However hard it may be for you to believe, I don't watch football. I cannot name a single NFL player in the entire world other than Michael Vick. The only reason his name came across my radar is that he did something bad to dogs, and as a dog lover, I saw stories about it on the blogs, forums and websites that I follow.

That's it. It's that simple. Yes, I care about violence against people. I care deeply. It may be news to many of the dog haters who, for reasons surpassing all understanding, read my columns and blog posts, but caring is not a zero sum game and one can care about many things, not just one.

But I care about the violence  that I hear about, involving people who I hear of, in the newspapers, websites, blogs etc. that I read.

To you, the world of football is all-important, universal. But that's not reality. I was once in a store and noticed there was no one there, and when I commented on it to the salesclerk, he gave me a weird look and said, "Yeah. It's the Super Bowl."

And that, dear football fan, is why I have not blogged about the violent acts committed by these guys you believe to be household names -- but aren't, at least, not in my household. I have never heard of them.

So please, find something else to rant about.

Sincerely,

Christie Keith

Pets vs. Prozac: What does the science really tell us?

Yesterday, the New York Times ran a piece by Hal Herzog, author of "Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It’s So Hard To Think Straight About Animals,"  in which he questioned the scientific basis of claims for the health benefits of pets.



There's certainly nothing wrong with challenging claims on the basis of their facts. I do it all the time, and wish the media would do more of it. And here at Pet Connection, we could all retire early if we had a dollar for every time someone replied, "Cite, please?" to a comment on the blog.



But you know what annoys me as much as sloppy science? Using sloppy logic and equally sloppy science against it.



First, let me mention that Herzog named our own Dr. Marty Becker and his book "The Healing Power of Pets"" in his article. I'm sure Dr. Becker's gratified at being acknowledged as the leader in this particular area, but maybe not so much at his work, which is about pets, being lumped in with inappropriately pal-ing around with wild animals:



Herzog wrote:

The idea that domestic animals are beneficial to human health and happiness has been fueled by books like "The Healing Power of Pets: Harnessing the Amazing Ability of Pets to Make and Keep People Happy and Healthy," by the veterinarian Marty Becker, and by news reports claiming that having a dog helps you live longer or that swimming with dolphins can cure autism, bad backs, attention deficit disorder and even cancer. But is there any truth to these claims?

Dolphins are not pets. If we're going to debate this, can we at least agree on what the subject of the debate is? If it's "spending time with wild animals," that's one thing. If it's petting your cat, that's another.



Back to Herzog. After a quick look at some of the research on health and pets -- "a survey of 92 heart attack victims revealed that those who had pets were nearly five times more likely to be alive a year later than those without them" ... "stroking an animal lowers blood pressure" ... "AIDS patients living with pets are less depressed" ... "pet owners have lower cholesterol levels, sleep more soundly, exercise more and take fewer sick days than non-pet owners" ... he goes on:

Indeed, I have a stack of articles in my office supporting the hypothesis that pets are healthy for us.



Unfortunately, however, I also have another stack of articles, almost as high, showing that pets have either no long-term effects or have even adverse effects on physical and mental health.

He then goes through some of those studies, which he says had findings including "living with a pet did not make people any happier," "no evidence that pet owners lived any longer than anyone else," and that a study in Finland found "pet owners were more likely than non-pet owners to suffer from sciatica, kidney disesae, arthritis, migraines, panic attacks, high blood pressure and depression."



Now, I'm in complete agreement with Herzog that we should be more clear when we talks about whether and how pets are beneficial to human health, and about scientific research and what it tells us. For instance, take the studies about dog walkers living longer after heart attacks than non-dog owners. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most dog owners like dogs.



Some non-dog owners like dogs, I'm sure, but many either don't like them or just don't have strong feelings one way or another. Common sense would suggest that for a dog lover, being around a dog would make you feel subjectively better at least, and potentially improve some objective parameters of health as well, whereas for someone who either doesn't care much for dogs, or who actively fears or dislikes them, the opposite would be true.



But to wrap this up by saying the following?

No doubt, the talk in some medical circles of prescribing puppies and kittens for the chronically ill is well intentioned. But until the research is complete, pet lovers should probably keep taking their Lipitor and Prozac.

Really? Because if Mr. Herzog has a stack of articles suggesting there's two sides to the healing power of pets, I'd like to introduce him to the stack I have on Lipitor and Prozac, along with their other statin and antidepressant cousins.



Let's start with this look at the subject in an overview of many different studies about statin drugs from the paper that published Herzog's piece, The New York Times. In "Great drug, but does it work?", Tara Parker-Pope writes:

Statins are among the most prescribed drugs in the world, and there is no doubt that they work as advertised — that they lower not only cholesterol but also the risk for heart attack.



But in the fallout from the headline-making trial of Vytorin, a combination drug that was found to be no more effective than a simple statin in reducing arterial plaque, many people are asking a more fundamental question about statins in general: Do they prolong your life?



And for many users, the surprising answer appears to be no.

It turns out that, despite their widespread use in any and everyone with high cholesterol, the only people they help are middle-aged men with cardiovascular disease. Everyone else has no benefit, no longer life, and worse, an increased risk of side effects, including a form of amnesia.



What about Prozac? I'm going to link to a long article, and I recommend you read all of it, but here's one paragraph, discussing a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Assocation:

In an analysis of six large experiments in which, as usual, depressed patients received either a placebo or an active drug, the true drug effect—that is, in addition to the placebo effect—was "nonexistent to negligible" in patients with mild, moderate, and even severe depression. Only in patients with very severe symptoms (scoring 23 or above on the standard scale) was there a statistically significant drug benefit. Such patients account for about 13 percent of people with depression. "Most people don't need an active drug," says Vanderbilt's Hollon, a coauthor of the study. "For a lot of folks, you're going to do as well on a sugar pill or on conversations with your physicians as you will on medication. It doesn't matter what you do; it's just the fact that you're doing something."

The article looks at dozens of other studies and the ongoing medical controversy over antidepressants vs placebos, all of which make conclusions pretty much in line with that one.



So yes, it may be true that pets aren't always the right prescription -- but neither are Lipitor and Prozac, if what you're looking for is scientific support for your prescription. And when it comes to side effects... I think I'll stick with my pets.

Is the new quick canine vaccine titer test right for your dog?

Your veterinarian will soon have a new in-office test to help you make canine vaccination decisions. How useful that test will prove depends not so much on the test results, but on the questions veterinarians and pet owners expect it to answer.



The test, dubbed the Canine VacciCheck by its manufacturer, checks titer levels for three canine viruses: Canine Infectious Hepatitis (CAV-2), Canine Parvovirus (CPV) and Canine Distemper (CDV).



It's not available yet, but its early marketing focuses on three uses:

• Determining the vaccination status of dogs with unknown vaccination history



• Discovering whether or not a puppy has formed immunity after a vaccine is administered



• Finding out if your dog's immunity to any of those three viruses has "worn off," and that he's thus in need of what we call a "booster shot"

I've long championed titer testing for the first two purposes, and having such a test available right in the veterinarian's office, with results in as few as 21 minutes, is going to be great.



It's the third use that I have a problem with, even though I think it's the one that's going to excite most pet owners and a lot of veterinarians.



However much we might like to believe we can run in and check the "gas guage" of our dog's immunity and "top off" his antibody levels with a "booster shot" if necessary -- and however much our veterinarians might like to make such a service part of our pet's annual wellness checks -- that is just not how the immune system works.



First, there no evidence that immunity to those three viruses, once formed, wears off during the dog's lifetime. Virtually all adults dogs who were properly vaccinated as puppies retain immunity to CPV, CDV and CAV-2 lifelong. Outbreaks of parvo and distemper (canine infectious hepatitis caused by CAV-2 is very rare) happen in puppies and improperly vaccinated young dogs, not adult and geriatric populations.



Additionally, immunity to those three viruses is a process, not a substance that can be directly counted and measured.



In the case of CAV-2, CDV or CPV, cells known as "memory cells" are formed when the dog is infected with, or vaccinated for, those viruses. If, later in life, the dog is exposed to the virus again, memory cells will "recognize" the virus and rapidly produce large amounts of antibodies to fight it.



This process happens whether or not there are circulating antibodies in the bloodstream at the time. (Tizard, Ian R., Veterinary Immunology: An Introduction, 6th Ed, Saunders 2000.)



It's perfectly appropriate and very helpful to check for circulating antibodies shortly (around 2 weeks) after giving a puppy a vaccination, because at that time, their absence will strongly suggest the formation of immunity failed.



This can happen when maternal antibodies interfere with the puppy's own immune response to the virus. Initial immunization can also fail to take place in a dog of any age if the vaccine is improperly stored or administered, or is somehow damaged, misformulated, or  inactivated. Using a test like this after any vaccination is a way to know for sure that immunization took place.



It also makes sense to test a dog of unknown vaccination history, because if he does have circulating antibodies to the viruses, you'll know that he doesn't need to be vaccinated for them. This can help rescue groups, shelters, and adopters of stray or rescued dogs avoid giving unnecessary vaccinations, thus sparing the dog the risk of their side effects.



Sure, if the dog doesn't have antibodies he might be immune anyway, but  it's perfectly rational to err on the side of disease prevention and administer the vaccination.



Unfortunately, that third purpose, the one that has the least scientific support, is being pushed by the manufacturer in this little video they made about the test:







Yes, even inappropriate use of a test like this will help avoid a lot of unnecessary vaccinations. And it will help veterinarians pay their bills, which I'm all in favor of. Some of my best friends are veterinarians, after all.



But there's still no evidence that dogs who were ever immune to any of those three viruses need either antibody level testing or re-immunization, and unless somebody finds some, I'd recommend sticking to the first two uses for this and any other titer test on the market.

BAD RAP: Let ' s send the Obamas this book

If, like me, your head nearly exploded when reports came out that President Obama had thanked Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeff Lurie for giving Michael Vick a second chance, Donna Reynolds over on the BAD RAP blog has a suggestion.



She made it after reading my column about the issue and about Jim Gorant's book "The Lost Dogs: Michael Vick's Dogs and Their Tale of Rescue and Redemption" on SFGate.com today. In it, I wrote:

The Philadelphia Eagles must be happy they took the chance on signing convicted dog fighter Michael Vick. Protests and boycotts by animal lovers never gained much traction. Just last week, President Obama personally thanked team owner Jeff Lurie for giving Vick a second chance.When Vick told an Atlanta newspaper that he wanted to get a dog, the head of the country's largest animal welfare organization said he thought that might be a good idea.



And, of course, he's doing a great job on the field, which I guess is what a lot of people mean when they say he's redeemed himself for his past crimes. I don't know, because I don't care about Michael Vick's second chance, no matter how many football games he wins. And here's why:



"As that dog lay on the ground, fighting for air, Quanis Phillips grabbed its front legs and Michael Vick grabbed its back legs. They swung the dog over their head like a jump rope then slammed it to the ground. The first impact didn't kill it. So, Phillips and Vick slammed it again. The two men kept at it, alternating back and forth, pounding the creature against the ground until, at last, the little red dog was dead."



Those words were written by Sports Illustrated editor Jim Gorant in "The Lost Dogs: Michael Vick's Dogs and Their Tale of Rescue and Redemption," the best and most important book about animals written in 2010.



[....]



I'm neither a sports fan nor a social worker, and I freely admit that that I care more about his victims than I do about Michael Vick.



But unlike many dog advocates, I don't want to see him put back in prison, denied his right to vote, kicked out of the NFL, beaten, kicked or bashed in the head. I certainly don't think he should be executed, as right wing pundit Tucker Carlson suggested on Fox News recently.



I just think his defenders should read this book before deciding what they think about Michael Vick's big comeback.

Which gave Donna an idea: Why don't we all send a copy of Gorant's incredible book to the Obamas?



Sure, it might be better if we sent the fifteen bucks to a pit bull rescue group. But consider this: Not only will Gorant make some money (a nice way to support his many efforts to keep the focus not on Vick and his magical football-playing ways, but on his victims), but, if you use this link, so will BAD RAP, which was responsible for evaluating and rehabbing many of the surviving Vick dogs.



And if we all get out there and spread the word, and enough people hear about this, and enough books pile up, and my colleagues in the media pick up on it... maybe, just maybe, the President might make a little statement thanking all the hardworking rescuers out there for giving Vick's dogs a second chance, too.



Hey, a girl can dream, right?



Here's the link to buy the book and give a portion of the proceeds to BAD RAP: The Lost Dogs



Here's the address and phone number for gifts to the Obamas:



Mr. President and First Lady Obama

THE WHITE HOUSE

1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20500-0004

United States

202-456-1414



Amazon's system wants the "DC" in the box for "state or province." Just FYI.



So go buy a book, then drop by the BAD RAP blog and let them know you did.



Tell your friends. And, you know... everyone else, too.

Aflatoxins found in grains in Kroger-owned pet food plant

Tennessee and federal investigators have found high levels of aflatoxins, a contaminant that can cause serious illness, in grains at the plant where pet food recalled last month were manufactured. The plant is owned by Kroger Co., the grocery chain that sold the food under a variety of labels and from a number of different Kroger-owned retail outlets in 19 states. From The Tennessean:

"We took finished samples and grain samples that were stored and used to make pet food," said Tom Womack, spokesman for the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, which conducted the inspection with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.



"We did find some elevated levels in some grains stored there," Womack said.



A few days before Christmas, Cincinnati-based Kroger Co. announced the recall of several brands of dog and cat food made at a subsidiary, Delight Products Co., in Springfield because of the possible presence of aflatoxin, a toxic substance created by a fungus on corn and other crops. It can result in sluggishness, severe and bloody diarrhea, and death in animals that eat the tainted food.

Related



The recalled products were sold in 19 states, including Tennessee.



Delight Products remained in operation in the aftermath of the recall, Womack said.

Full story here.



We've had a large number of commentors, most of them first-time visitors to this blog, on our earlier post announcing the recall. It doesn't look like Kroger has been responding to consumer complaints nor requests for assistance with veterinary expenses.



While Pet Connection has not confirmed any of the reports, a number of them concern pets who died after eating the recalled food.



We encourage pet owners to continue to contact Kroger, and to ask their pet's veterinarians to contact their state veterinary office as well as the FDA, which has a pet food safety reporting system here.



And if anyone has heard back from the company, we'd like to hear from you, too!