Prevention — free for everyone
Prevention comes first at VetMed, and it is free to read — no account needed. Thirty shelves are open below in full; the rest of the hundred are in preparation and appear here, cards and all, as each is verified and approved.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #1 in the build order
Does regular macrocyclic-lactone prevention keep dogs free of heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis) — and how well does it hold up against resistant isolates?
LIKELY proposed stamp — preview build, pending the developer's verdict
LIKELY: Monthly macrocyclic-lactone prevention is one of the best-proven interventions in small-animal medicine. In randomized, masked field studies in endemic areas, selamectin prevented heartworm in 100% of 298 treated dogs over six months (Boy 2000); in client-owned dogs in a high-risk Brazilian area, 36 months of monthly selamectin left all 24 dogs negative while 21.6% of untreated neighbourhood dogs were infected (Moraes-da-Silva 2016). The honest complication is resistance, and it is carded on the face of this shelf, not buried: against confirmed macrocyclic-lactone-resistant isolates, a single oral moxidectin dose was only 19–82% effective depending on the isolate, and three monthly doses still managed only 44% against JYD-34 (McTier 2017) — while a sustained-release moxidectin injection given before challenge was 99.5% effective against that same JYD-34 isolate (Bowman 2017). Prevention works; which product, given on schedule, is the live clinical question in resistance areas. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #1); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Boy 2000: selamectin prevented heartworm in 100% of 298 dogs over six months in endemic areas
Randomised, controlled, masked field studies
Who: Dogs: 397 heartworm-free dogs from four heartworm-endemic areas of the USA, allocated randomly to six months of monthly topical selamectin (n=298, minimum 6 mg/kg) or oral ivermectin (n=99) — a positive-control comparison, in client-owned animals under field conditions.
Result: Selamectin achieved a heartworm prevention rate of 100%: all treated dogs tested negative for microfilariae and adult heartworm antigen on days 180 and 300. Across the wider study series (3,954 selamectin doses in 673 dogs and 347 cats), there were no serious adverse events.
Watch out: The comparator was ivermectin, not placebo — field trials of an established preventive cannot ethically withhold protection — and the studies were run by the manufacturer's (Pfizer) clinical group. The 100% figure is against the isolates circulating in those areas at that time; see the resistance cards below.
Boy MG, Six RH, Thomas CA et al. Efficacy and safety of selamectin against fleas and heartworms in dogs and cats presented as veterinary patients in North America. Vet Parasitol. 2000;91(3-4):233-50. PMID: 10940525. Registry ID: none — pre-registration-era animal trial. MeSH: Animals · Anthelmintics · Antiparasitic Agents · Cat Diseases · Cats · Dirofilariasis · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Drug Administration Schedule · Ectoparasitic Infestations · Female · Ivermectin · Male · North America · Siphonaptera
Bowman 2017: sustained-release moxidectin was 99.5% effective against the resistant JYD-34 isolate in a controlled challenge
Randomised, controlled laboratory challenge study
Who: Dogs: 12 purpose-bred Beagles (≥8 months, confirmed heartworm-negative), randomly allocated to untreated saline-injected controls (n=6) or a single subcutaneous sustained-release moxidectin injection (ProHeart 6, label dose 0.17 mg/kg, n=6); all dogs inoculated with 50 infective D. immitis larvae (JYD-34 isolate) two days later and necropsied on day 150 for worm counts.
Result: All six control dogs were infected, harbouring 21–37 worms each (geometric mean 25.4). Only one of the six treated dogs was infected, with a single male worm — efficacy 99.5% (geometric mean) against a confirmed macrocyclic-lactone-resistant isolate.
Watch out: Six dogs per group and a challenge given two days after injection — peak cover, not the end of the six-month dosing interval; the same paper's background reports an earlier small study in which this product showed only ~20% efficacy against a different resistant isolate (Jd2009-2) when challenge came at the end of the dosing period. Timing within the dosing interval matters, and the manufacturer (Zoetis) ran the study.
Bowman DD, McTier TL, Adams EL et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of ProHeart® 6 (moxidectin) against a resistant isolate of Dirofilaria immitis (JYD-34) in dogs. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10(Suppl 2):502. PMID: 29143654. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Animals · Blood · Delayed-Action Preparations · Dirofilaria immitis · Dirofilariasis · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Drug Evaluation · Drug Resistance · Female · Filaricides · Injections, Subcutaneous · Lactones · Macrolides · Male
McTier 2017: one oral moxidectin dose stopped susceptible isolates cold (100%) and failed resistant ones (19–82%)
Nine controlled laboratory challenge studies (isolate panel)
Who: Dogs: groups of three to eight dogs inoculated with 50 infective larvae from nine different D. immitis isolates (MP3, Michigan, JYD-34, ZoeMO-2012, ZoeKy-2013, ZoeLA-2013, GCFL-2014, AMAL-2014, ZoeAL-2015) and treated 28–30 days later with a single oral moxidectin dose of 3 µg/kg; one JYD-34 group was treated monthly for three consecutive months. Necropsy about four months after treatment for adult worm recovery.
Result: A single dose was 100% effective against five of nine isolates (MP3, Michigan, ZoeKy, GCFL, ZoeAL), confirming their susceptibility. Against JYD-34, ZoeMO, ZoeLA and AMAL it was incompletely effective — 19%, 82%, 54% and 62% respectively — demonstrating resistance to oral moxidectin at this dose. Three consecutive monthly doses against JYD-34 reached only 44%.
Watch out: A single low oral dose given once, a month after infection, is a susceptibility probe, not a field regimen — it understates what monthly dosing achieves against susceptible worms (see Boy 2000) while accurately exposing which isolates have shifted. Manufacturer-run (Zoetis), with the conflicts declared in the record.
McTier TL, Six RH, Pullins A et al. Efficacy of oral moxidectin against susceptible and resistant isolates of Dirofilaria immitis in dogs. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10(Suppl 2):482. PMID: 29143634. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Animals · Dirofilaria immitis · Dirofilariasis · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Drug Evaluation · Drug Resistance · Filaricides · Macrolides
Moraes-da-Silva 2016: 36 months of monthly selamectin — 24 of 24 client-owned dogs stayed negative in a high-risk area
Prospective field study (client-owned dogs, veterinarian-administered)
Who: Dogs: 24 client-owned dogs in a high heartworm-risk area of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, given topical selamectin monthly (minimum 6 mg/kg, administered by a veterinarian) for 36 months, with blood tested before the first treatment and at study end (modified Knott's test for microfilariae plus adult-antigen test). Exposure was confirmed by testing 204 untreated dogs in surrounding low-income communities.
Result: All 24 treated dogs tested negative by both tests after 36 months — 100% preventive efficacy under real-world, long-duration use. Heartworm was confirmed present in the area: 44 of 204 community dogs (21.6%) were positive for microfilariae or D. immitis antigen.
Watch out: No randomised control group — the untreated community dogs establish exposure pressure, not a matched comparison — and numbers are small (n=24). Its value is duration and setting: three years of on-schedule use in owned dogs, complementing the shorter controlled trials.
Moraes-da-Silva MF, Mendes-de-Almeida F, Abdalla L et al. Selamectin for the prevention of canine Dirofilaria immitis infection: field efficacy in client-owned dogs in a high risk area. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9(1):407. PMID: 27450482. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Administration, Topical · Animals · Anthelmintics · Blood · Brazil · Dirofilaria immitis · Dirofilariasis · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Ivermectin
Synthesis: prevention works — the shelf's real content is where it fails
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Boy 2000 (397 dogs, masked field RCT), Bowman 2017 (12 Beagles, controlled challenge vs a resistant isolate), McTier 2017 (nine isolate challenge studies), Moraes-da-Silva 2016 (24 client-owned dogs, 36 months).
Result: Against susceptible heartworm populations, monthly macrocyclic-lactone prevention is essentially completely effective in both controlled and field settings, and safe across thousands of doses. The failure mode is real and specific: genetically resistant isolates, documented in the US since JYD-34 (isolated 2010), against which single doses — and even three monthly oral doses in a probe design — can fail, while a sustained-release injectable at peak cover still held at 99.5%. The clinical reading: keep every dog on schedule, treat lack-of-efficacy reports as resistance signals rather than owner error by default, and expect product choice within the class to matter more in resistance areas than it used to.
Watch out: Nearly all of this evidence is manufacturer-generated (Pfizer/Zoetis programmes) — normal for veterinary parasitology, where regulators require these exact studies, but the independence caveat belongs on the shelf. Figures are prevention rates under study conditions; no card here measures what happens with missed or late doses in the field, which is where most real-world failures occur.
Synthesis of Boy MG et al. PMID: 10940525; Bowman DD et al. PMID: 29143654; McTier TL et al. PMID: 29143634; Moraes-da-Silva MF et al. PMID: 27450482. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #2 in the build order
Does the age at which a dog is spayed or neutered change its later risk of joint disorders and cancers — and does the answer depend on breed and sex?
POSSIBLE proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
POSSIBLE (observational — Tier C, for the developer personally): No randomised trial of neutering age exists or can exist; everything here is the UC Davis hospital-records programme. In 759 Golden Retrievers (Torres de la Riva 2013), early-neutered males had hip dysplasia at 10% — double the intact rate — cruciate tears appeared only in early-neutered dogs (5% of males, 8% of females, 0% intact), and late-neutered females carried hemangiosarcoma at about 8%, four times the intact rate. Hart 2014 found the pattern breed-dependent: neutering before 6 months doubled joint disorders in Labradors but raised them four- to five-fold in Goldens, and raised cancers three- to four-fold in female Goldens while barely moving them in female Labradors. Hart 2020 extended this to 35 breeds: small breeds generally show no added joint-disorder risk. Percentages are absolute incidences from the records; the multipliers are relative to each breed's intact baseline of roughly 3–5%. Whether to delay neutering is therefore a breed-, sex- and age-specific judgment — the shelf's job is to put the numbers on the table, not to set a universal age. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #2); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Torres de la Riva 2013: in 759 Golden Retrievers, early neutering doubled hip dysplasia in males and cruciate tears occurred only in early-neutered dogs
Retrospective hospital-records study (observational)
Who: Veterinary hospital records of 759 client-owned Golden Retrievers, 1–8 years old, intact or neutered early (before 12 months) or late (12 months or later), examined for hip dysplasia (HD), cranial cruciate ligament tear (CCL), lymphosarcoma (LSA), hemangiosarcoma (HSA) and mast cell tumour (MCT). Setting: a single US university teaching hospital's records. Retrospective observational study — no randomisation is possible for this question.
Result: Of early-neutered males, 10% were diagnosed with HD — double the occurrence in intact males. No intact male or female was diagnosed with CCL, but occurrences were 5% in early-neutered males and 8% in early-neutered females. Almost 10% of early-neutered males were diagnosed with LSA, three times the intact-male rate. HSA cases in late-neutered females were about 8% — four times the rate in intact and early-neutered females. No intact female had MCT, while the occurrence was nearly 6% in late-neutered females. All figures are absolute incidences from the records; the multipliers are relative to those baselines.
Watch out: Records from one referral hospital: neutered and intact dogs may reach a teaching hospital for different reasons, and the study cannot separate the effect of gonadal-hormone removal from everything else that differs between owned intact and neutered dogs. Golden Retrievers are a cancer-prone breed; none of these numbers transfer to other breeds — which is precisely what the next two cards test.
Torres de la Riva G, Hart BL, Farver TB, Oberbauer AM, Messam LL, Willits N, et al. Neutering dogs: effects on joint disorders and cancers in golden retrievers. PLoS One. 2013. PMID: 23418479. Registry ID: none — observational records study. MeSH: Age Factors · Animals · Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Hemangiosarcoma · Hip Dysplasia, Canine · Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin · Male · Mast-Cell Sarcoma · Orchiectomy · Ovariectomy · Risk Factors · Rupture · Time Factors
Hart 2014: the same neutering ages doubled joint disorders in Labradors but raised them four- to five-fold in Goldens
Retrospective hospital-records study, two breeds (observational)
Who: Veterinary hospital records over 13 years comparing Labrador Retrievers with Golden Retrievers, examining neutering before 6 months, at 6–11 months, in year 1, or in years 2–8. Joint disorders: hip dysplasia, cruciate tear, elbow dysplasia. Cancers: lymphosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, mast cell tumour, mammary cancer. Retrospective observational study.
Result: In Labradors, about 5% of intact males and females had one or more joint disorders, and neutering before 6 months doubled that incidence in both sexes. In Goldens, with the same ~5% intact rate, neutering before 6 months increased a joint disorder to four to five times the intact rate. For cancers: female Labradors rose only slightly above their 3% intact level with neutering, while female Goldens — also starting at 3% — saw at least one cancer rise three- to four-fold with neutering at every period through 8 years. Neutering effects on cancers in males of both breeds were relatively minor.
Watch out: Same single-centre records programme and the same caveats as the 2013 card, now with a second breed: the headline lesson is interaction, not a universal number — breed and sex change the size and even the presence of the association. Association is not proof that the neutering caused the disorders; the shelf presents the strongest observational dataset available, labelled as such.
Hart BL, Hart LA, Thigpen AP, Willits NH. Long-term health effects of neutering dogs: comparison of Labrador Retrievers with Golden Retrievers. PLoS One. 2014. PMID: 25020045. Registry ID: none — observational records study. MeSH: Age Factors · Animals · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Incidence · Joint Diseases · Male · Neoplasms · Proportional Hazards Models · Species Specificity · Sterilization, Reproductive
Hart 2020: across 35 breeds, vulnerability to early neutering is the exception in small breeds and common in large ones
Retrospective hospital-records study, 35 breeds (observational)
Who: The same UC Davis hospital database and diagnostic criteria extended to 35 breeds plus three Poodle varieties, males and females analysed separately by age at neutering. Joint disorders: hip dysplasia, cruciate tear/rupture, elbow dysplasia. Cancers: lymphoma, mast cell tumour, hemangiosarcoma, osteosarcoma; urinary incontinence also followed in females. Retrospective observational study.
Result: There were major breed differences in vulnerability to neutering for both joint disorders and cancers. In most breeds the caregiver can choose the age of neutering without increasing the risks of these disorders or cancers. Small-dog breeds seemed to have no increased risks of joint disorders associated with neutering, and in only two small breeds (Boston Terrier and Shih Tzu) was there a significant increase in cancers. The paper lays out neutering-age guidelines breed by breed and sex by sex, building on the earlier finding that in several large breeds neutering before one year was associated with joint-disorder risks two to four times those of intact dogs, particularly with neutering by 6 months.
Watch out: The abstract reports the pattern, not per-breed numbers — the breed-by-breed table lives in the full text, and no per-breed figure is carded here that the record does not print. One hospital's records across all 35 breeds: referral patterns differ by breed, and popular breeds dominate the sample. This is the dataset the profession actually uses for these decisions; it is still observational.
Hart BL, Hart LA, Thigpen AP, Willits NH. Assisting Decision-Making on Age of Neutering for 35 Breeds of Dogs: Associated Joint Disorders, Cancers, and Urinary Incontinence. Front Vet Sci. 2020. PMID: 32733924. Registry ID: none — observational records study. MeSH: none in the record
Synthesis: timing matters for some breeds and not others — an observational shelf, read breed by breed
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Torres de la Riva 2013 (759 Golden Retrievers), Hart 2014 (Labrador vs Golden comparison), Hart 2020 (35 breeds). All from one university hospital-records programme; no randomised evidence exists for this question.
Result: The consistent thread: removing gonadal hormones early is associated with more joint disorders in larger breeds (doubling in Labradors, four- to five-fold in Goldens, on ~5% intact baselines) and with more of certain cancers in some breeds and sexes (female Goldens three- to four-fold on a 3% baseline), while most small breeds show no measurable increase. Nothing here argues against neutering itself — the population and behavioural case stands outside this shelf — it argues that the age is a real decision for large-breed owners, and a much smaller one for small-breed owners. Observational throughout: POSSIBLE, and Tier C because the numbers feed individual medical decisions.
Watch out: Three traps to avoid with this shelf: quoting a Golden Retriever multiplier for a different breed; quoting a relative multiplier without its small absolute baseline; and treating an association from referral-hospital records as proven causation. The intact comparison dogs in these records are themselves a selected group (breeding and show dogs are over-represented among the intact).
Synthesis of Torres de la Riva G et al. PLoS One. 2013. PMID: 23418479; Hart BL et al. PLoS One. 2014. PMID: 25020045; Hart BL et al. Front Vet Sci. 2020. PMID: 32733924. Registry IDs as on the individual cards. Tier C — observational evidence for a decision owners make once per dog.
Prevention · Cats · Shelf #3 in the build order
Does feline leukemia virus (FeLV) vaccination protect cats against persistent infection after virulent challenge — and do products differ?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
LIKELY: Five controlled challenge studies, reported in four papers, agree that FeLV vaccination prevents the outcome that matters — persistent antigenemia/viremia — while disagreeing, instructively, about which product does it best. The newest replicon vaccine (Carritt 2025) left 0 cats persistently antigenemic in two studies where the canarypox comparator left 43% and 30%. In Stuke 2014 an inactivated vaccine protected 89.5% against persistent antigenemia versus 20% for the recombinant comparator; Patel 2015, under an immunosuppressed challenge, found the inactivated product's preventable fraction 100% against the canarypox product's 45%. Jirjis 2010 adds duration: two years after vaccination, 10 of 12 vaccinates were still protected while all 11 placebo controls became persistently viremic. The protection claim is LIKELY; the product ranking flips with the study and the challenge strain, so the shelf cards the numbers and not a brand verdict. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #3); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Carritt 2025: replicon FeLV vaccine — 0 cats persistently antigenemic in two studies; canarypox comparator left 43% and 30%
Controlled vaccination–challenge studies (two) plus field safety study
Who: Cats in two controlled efficacy studies receiving two doses, three weeks apart, of a non-adjuvanted alphavirus replicon-particle vaccine expressing FeLV gp85, or a non-adjuvanted canarypox-vectored FeLV vaccine, followed by virulent FeLV challenge; protection read as prevention of persistent p27 antigenemia. A separate field safety study covered over 800 cats given two doses of two commercial serials.
Result: None of the cats receiving two doses of the replicon vaccine developed persistent antigenemia after challenge in either study. Of cats receiving the canarypox-vectored vaccine, three of seven (43%) became persistently antigenemic in one study and three of ten (30%) in the other. Safety in the field study of over 800 cats was demonstrated for both commercial serials. The authors conclude the replicon vaccine pairs a non-adjuvanted safety profile with adjuvanted-vaccine-level efficacy.
Watch out: This is the vaccine's own development programme (the same team built the replicon rabies vaccine carded on Shelf #24), the groups are small (seven and ten cats in the comparator arms), and the comparison is against one named product in a laboratory challenge — not field effectiveness against the variety of FeLV strains cats meet outdoors. Persistent antigenemia is the right endpoint, but it is a laboratory endpoint.
Carritt K, Davis R, Stachura K, Crumley P, Mogler M, Stahl M, Deng L, Xu Z, Tarpey I. A Novel, Safe, Non-Adjuvanted Alphavirus Replicon-Based Vaccine Expressing the Feline Leukemia Virus Envelope Protein Protects Against Virulent FeLV Challenge. Vaccines (Basel). 2025. PMID: 40733674. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: none in the record
Stuke 2014: inactivated vaccine protected 89.5% against persistent antigenemia; the recombinant comparator protected 20%
Placebo-controlled vaccination–challenge study (Random Allocation indexed)
Who: Fifty seronegative cats aged 8–9 weeks, allocated (the record's indexing includes Random Allocation) to placebo, an inactivated FeLV vaccine (Versifel FeLV), or a recombinant canarypox FeLV vaccine (Purevax FeLV), two doses three weeks apart, then challenged with the virulent FeLV 61E strain three weeks after the second dose. Persistent antigenemia followed from 3 to 15 weeks post-challenge; bone marrow was tested for proviral DNA.
Result: At week 15, the inactivated vaccine conferred 89.5% protection against persistent FeLV antigenemia and 94.7% protection against proviral DNA integration in bone marrow cells. The recombinant vaccine conferred 20% protection against persistent antigenemia and 35% against proviral integration. The authors conclude the inactivated vaccine was efficacious in this highly virulent challenge model and provided better protection than the recombinant vaccine in it.
Watch out: A minimum-age kitten study against one virulent strain under European Pharmacopoeia conditions — a deliberately severe test. Read beside Patel 2015, which ranks the same two product types the same way, and Carritt 2025, whose new replicon product beat the canarypox class: the durable finding is that products differ, not that one brand wins everywhere.
Stuke K, King V, Southwick K, Stoeva MI, Thomas A, Winkler MT. Efficacy of an inactivated FeLV vaccine compared to a recombinant FeLV vaccine in minimum age cats following virulent FeLV challenge. Vaccine. 2014. PMID: 24662705. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Antigens, Viral · Bone Marrow Cells · Cats · DNA, Viral · Gene Products, gag · Leukemia Virus, Feline · Leukemia, Feline · Random Allocation · Retroviridae Proteins, Oncogenic · Vaccination · Vaccines, Inactivated · Vaccines, Synthetic · Viral Vaccines
Patel 2015: under immunosuppressed challenge, inactivated vaccine's preventable fraction was 100%, canarypox vaccine's 45%
Controlled vaccination–challenge study (immunosuppressed challenge)
Who: Cats vaccinated at 9 and 12 weeks with an inactivated adjuvanted whole-virus vaccine (group A, n = 11), a canarypox-vectored vaccine (group B, n = 10), or left unvaccinated (group C, n = 11). Three months after vaccination, all cats were immunosuppressed and challenged with FeLV-A/61E; persistent antigenemia read at 12 weeks post-challenge, proviral DNA and viral RNA at 3–9 weeks.
Result: Persistent antigenemia developed in 0 of 11 inactivated-vaccine cats, 5 of 10 canarypox-vaccine cats, and 10 of 11 unvaccinated controls. The inactivated group was significantly protected versus both other groups (P < 0.013 and P < 0.0001); the canarypox group did not differ significantly from controls (P > 0.063). Preventable fraction: 100% for the inactivated vaccine, 45% for the canarypox vaccine. At 9 weeks, proviral DNA/RNA was detected in 1 of 11, 6 of 10 and 9 of 11 cats respectively.
Watch out: The challenge was deliberately stacked — immunosuppressed cats, virulent strain — so the canarypox product's 45% here is a stress-test figure, not its field performance; Carritt 2025's unimmunosuppressed comparison found the same product class leaving 30–43% persistently antigenemic. What survives across studies: unvaccinated cats almost all become persistently infected, and vaccinated cats mostly do not.
Patel M, Carritt K, Lane J, Jayappa H, Stahl M, Bourgeois M. Comparative Efficacy of Feline Leukemia Virus (FeLV) Inactivated Whole-Virus Vaccine and Canarypox Virus-Vectored Vaccine during Virulent FeLV Challenge and Immunosuppression. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2015. PMID: 25972402. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Antigens, Viral · Canarypox virus · Cat Diseases · Cats · DNA, Viral · Drug Carriers · Leukemia Virus, Feline · RNA, Viral · Retroviridae Infections · Treatment Outcome · Tumor Virus Infections · United States · Vaccines, Inactivated · Vaccines, Synthetic · Viral Load · Viral Vaccines · Viremia
Jirjis 2010: protection held two years — 10 of 12 vaccinates protected, all 11 placebo controls persistently viremic
Placebo-controlled vaccination–challenge study, 2-year duration (indexed RCT)
Who: Twelve cats vaccinated at 8 and 11 weeks with a commercial inactivated FeLV vaccine and eleven age-matched, placebo-vaccinated controls, kept in isolation for two years after vaccination and then challenged with virulent FeLV. Persistent viremia monitored by p27 ELISA for 12 weeks after challenge. The record is indexed as a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Result: Persistent viremia developed in all 11 (100%) control cats, whereas 10 of 12 (83%) vaccinated cats were fully protected from persistent viremia following challenge. The authors conclude the vaccine protects cats from persistent FeLV viremia for at least two years after vaccination.
Watch out: Twelve and eleven cats, one product, one challenge strain — a duration demonstration, not a precision estimate; the 83% carries wide uncertainty. Two vaccinates were not protected, which matters for how the shelf is worded: vaccination greatly reduces risk for cats with outdoor exposure; it does not make an FeLV-positive housemate safe.
Jirjis FF, Davis T, Lane J, Carritt K, Sweeney D, Williams J, Wasmoen T. Protection against feline leukemia virus challenge for at least 2 years after vaccination with an inactivated feline leukemia virus vaccine. Vet Ther. 2010. PMID: 20957616. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Cats · Leukemia Virus, Feline · Leukemia, Feline · Specific Pathogen-Free Organisms · Vaccination · Vaccines, Inactivated · Viral Vaccines · Viremia
Synthesis: vaccination prevents persistent FeLV infection across five challenge studies in four papers — LIKELY; product rankings are study-bound
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Carritt 2025 (replicon vaccine, two studies), Stuke 2014 (inactivated vs recombinant, placebo-controlled), Patel 2015 (immunosuppressed challenge), Jirjis 2010 (two-year duration, placebo-controlled).
Result: Every controlled study on this shelf finds the same core result: unvaccinated control cats become persistently antigenemic at rates of 91–100% after virulent challenge, and vaccinated cats at rates near zero to about half that, depending on product and challenge severity. Protection persists at least two years (Jirjis). The head-to-head numbers rank products differently by study — inactivated beat canarypox in Stuke and Patel; the 2025 replicon product beat canarypox in Carritt — so the shelf claims protection for vaccination, with per-product figures on the cards, and no brand crown. LIKELY: consistent direction across five studies in four papers, two of them placebo-controlled (Stuke and Jirjis), with the endpoint (persistent infection) that determines a cat's prognosis.
Watch out: All five studies (four papers) are kitten laboratory challenges from vaccine development programmes; there is no field-effectiveness trial in owned cats with natural exposure, and no study here addresses which cats benefit — that risk judgment (outdoor access, FeLV-positive contacts) belongs to the consultation, not the shelf.
Synthesis of Carritt K et al. Vaccines (Basel). 2025. PMID: 40733674; Stuke K et al. Vaccine. 2014. PMID: 24662705; Patel M et al. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2015. PMID: 25972402; Jirjis FF et al. Vet Ther. 2010. PMID: 20957616. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Horses · Shelf #4 in the build order
Does daily prophylactic omeprazole prevent gastric ulcers in horses in training?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
LIKELY: Two sham-controlled randomised trials and a meta-analysis of seven more agree. McClure 2005, in 135 race-training horses whose ulcers were first healed at the full treatment dose, found 38 of 48 horses (79%) stayed ulcer-free on 1 mg/kg omeprazole paste daily versus 7 of 44 (16%) on sham. Endo 2012 randomly allocated 62 ulcer-free two-year-olds: ulcers developed in 1 of 31 treated horses versus 12 of 31 sham-dosed controls over 28 days. Mason 2019 pooled seven randomised trials (566 horses): ulceration in 23.4% on omeprazole prophylaxis versus 77.2% on sham — a relative risk of 0.28 (95% CI 0.18–0.43), an absolute effect the authors put at 566 fewer ulcers per 1,000 horses treated, with severity scores also lower. The endpoint is the endoscopic lesion itself — hard, not a surrogate. The stamp stops at LIKELY rather than PROBABLE because the primary records do not state that ulcer scorers were blinded, and McClure's trial is prevention of recurrence after healing rather than first prevention. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #4); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
McClure 2005: after healing, 79% of horses stayed ulcer-free on 1 mg/kg omeprazole versus 16% on sham
Randomised, sham-controlled multicentre trial (indexed RCT)
Who: One hundred and thirty-five horses in race training with gastric ulcers, first treated with omeprazole 4 mg/kg orally once daily for 28 days. In the dose-selection and dose-confirmation phases, horses then received sham dosing, 0.5 mg/kg, or 1 mg/kg omeprazole paste once daily for a further 28 days; ulcers were scored by gastroscopy before and after the preventive phase (day 28 to day 56). Multicentre prospective study, indexed as a randomized controlled trial.
Result: Sham-dose-treated horses and horses receiving 0.5 mg/kg had significantly higher ulcer scores than horses receiving 1 mg/kg. In the dose-confirmation portion, 38 of 48 horses (79%) receiving 1 mg/kg remained ulcer-free, versus 7 of 44 (16%) sham-dose-treated horses. The authors conclude that omeprazole paste at 1 mg/kg once daily for 28 days was effective for prevention of recurrence of gastric ulcers in horses in race training.
Watch out: Frame it precisely: this is prevention of recurrence in horses whose ulcers were first healed on the full dose — the population is racehorses in active training, the highest-risk setting there is, and the 79%-versus-16% contrast should not be quoted for a leisure horse at pasture. The record does not state that the gastroscopy scorers were blinded to treatment.
McClure SR, White GW, Sifferman RL, Bernard W, Hughes FE, Holste JE, et al. Efficacy of omeprazole paste for prevention of recurrence of gastric ulcers in horses in race training. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2005. PMID: 15906569. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Administration, Oral · Animals · Anti-Ulcer Agents · Dose-Response Relationship, Drug · Female · Horse Diseases · Horses · Male · Ointments · Omeprazole · Physical Conditioning, Animal · Prospective Studies · Secondary Prevention · Stomach Ulcer · Treatment Outcome
Endo 2012: ulcers developed in 1 of 31 omeprazole horses versus 12 of 31 sham-dosed controls in 28 days
Randomised, sham-controlled trial
Who: Two-year-old Thoroughbreds entering training in Japan. Of 85 youngsters screened endoscopically, 23 (27.1%) already had gastric ulcers; the 62 ulcer-free horses were allocated randomly to omeprazole oral paste 1 mg/kg (31 horses) or sham-dosed control (31 horses) for 28 days, with a second endoscopic examination at the end. Indexed as a randomized controlled trial.
Result: At the second endoscopy, only 1 horse in the treated group had developed gastric ulcers, while 12 horses in the control group had done so. The authors conclude the efficacy of omeprazole paste in prevention of equine gastric ulcers in young Thoroughbreds during the training period was confirmed. Read with the screening figure: more than a quarter of these youngsters arrived at training already ulcerated, which is the background risk the prophylaxis is acting on.
Watch out: Primary prevention this time (ulcer-free horses), complementing McClure's recurrence design — but 62 horses, one centre, one breed, 28 days. The record states random allocation and sham dosing; it does not state that the endoscopist scoring the second examination was blinded.
Endo Y, Tsuchiya T, Sato F, Murase H, Omura T, Korosue K, et al. Efficacy of omeprazole paste in the prevention of gastric ulcers in 2 years old Thoroughbreds. J Vet Med Sci. 2012. PMID: 22498926. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Administration, Oral · Animals · Anti-Ulcer Agents · Horse Diseases · Horses · Omeprazole · Stomach Ulcer
Mason 2019: meta-analysis of seven RCTs — ulceration 23.4% on omeprazole versus 77.2% on sham (relative risk 0.28)
Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
Who: Systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) of randomised controlled trials comparing omeprazole prophylaxis with sham in horses in active training: seven trials, 566 horses. Primary outcome ulcer occurrence; secondary outcome endoscopic severity; prophylactic doses of 1 and 2 mg/kg compared in subgroups.
Result: Omeprazole prophylaxis was superior to sham in preventing gastric ulcer occurrence: 23.4% of omeprazole horses versus 77.2% of sham horses ulcerated — a relative risk of 0.28 (95% CI 0.18–0.43, relative measure; the absolute rates stand beside it). The authors calculate an absolute effect of 566 fewer ulcers per 1,000 horses treated and rate the evidence high quality. Severity scores were significantly lower on omeprazole (mean difference −1.05; 95% CI −1.35 to −0.69), with subgroup mean differences of −0.94 at 1 mg/kg and −1.60 at 2 mg/kg. Studies were heterogeneous for prophylactic dose.
Watch out: A meta-analysis inherits its trials' limits: sham-arm ulceration of 75–87% reflects race-training populations, so the absolute benefit shrinks in lower-risk horses even if the relative effect holds. The pool mixes first-prevention and recurrence-prevention designs (McClure is one of the seven), which the shelf keeps separate on its own cards.
Mason LV, Moroney JR, Mason RJ. Prophylactic therapy with omeprazole for prevention of equine gastric ulcer syndrome (EGUS) in horses in active training: a meta-analysis. Equine Vet J. 2019. PMID: 29665126. Registry ID: none — meta-analysis. MeSH: Animals · Anti-Ulcer Agents · Bias · Confidence Intervals · Female · Horse Diseases · Horses · Male · Odds Ratio · Omeprazole · Physical Conditioning, Animal · Prevalence · Proton Pump Inhibitors · Risk Factors · Stomach Ulcer · Syndrome
Synthesis: prophylactic omeprazole prevents ulcers in training horses — LIKELY, on sham-controlled trials
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: McClure 2005 (135 racehorses, recurrence prevention), Endo 2012 (62 young Thoroughbreds, first prevention), Mason 2019 (meta-analysis, seven trials, 566 horses).
Result: The three records triangulate: in horses entering or continuing race training, daily omeprazole paste at the 1 mg/kg prophylactic dose keeps roughly four of five horses ulcer-free where roughly four of five sham-dosed horses ulcerate (Endo 1/31 versus 12/31 new ulcers; McClure 79% versus 16% remaining ulcer-free; Mason pooled 23.4% versus 77.2%, relative risk 0.28). The endpoint is the lesion itself, seen on endoscopy. LIKELY — the consistency and size of the effect across sham-controlled trials earn it; the unrecorded blinding of ulcer scorers and the race-training specificity of the populations keep it from the top grade. The dietary companion approach is Shelf #67's question (forage first), not this one's.
Watch out: Prophylaxis trials ran 28 days in horses in full training. They do not answer how long to continue, whether intermittent dosing works, or what happens in horses whose risk is a fraction of a racehorse's — and acid suppression is not a substitute for the forage and management factors that drive the disease.
Synthesis of McClure SR et al. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2005. PMID: 15906569; Endo Y et al. J Vet Med Sci. 2012. PMID: 22498926; Mason LV et al. Equine Vet J. 2019. PMID: 29665126. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #7 in the build order
Do isoxazoline preventives (fluralaner, afoxolaner and their class) keep dogs free of fleas and ticks — and for how long per dose?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and displayed under the developer's blinded-trial rule
LIKELY: Isoxazoline preventives keep dogs essentially free of fleas and ticks for their whole dosing interval. In a randomized, investigator-blinded field trial, a single oral dose of fluralaner held flea-control efficacy at 99.2–99.9% and tick control at 99.7–100% for 12 weeks (Rohdich 2014). Over a full year under European field conditions, one fluralaner injection matched twelve monthly afoxolaner doses: at every visit, at least 95% of dogs were tick-free and at least 93% flea-free, with counts down more than 99% from baseline (Petersen 2024). Field trials compare products against each other rather than against no treatment — an untreated control group cannot ethically be left infested — so the class claim rests on these head-to-heads plus the placebo-controlled laboratory studies behind each product's registration. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #7); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Rohdich 2014: one oral fluralaner dose held flea control at 99.2–99.9% and tick control at 99.7–100% for 12 weeks
Randomised, investigator-blinded, controlled multi-centre field study
Who: Dogs: privately owned, naturally flea- and tick-infested dogs in a randomized, investigator-blinded, multi-centred European field study — 108 tick-infested dogs treated with a single oral fluralaner chew (Bravecto) and 54 with three sequential topical fipronil treatments (Frontline); for fleas, households were the unit (115 fluralaner, 61 fipronil). Counts at weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12.
Result: Fluralaner flea-control efficacy in treated households was 99.2%, 99.8%, 99.8% and 99.9% at weeks 2–12, against fipronil's 94.1%, 93.0%, 96.0% and 97.3%; tick-control efficacy on treated dogs was 99.9%, 99.9%, 99.7% and 100%, against 97.6%, 93.8%, 100% and 100%. Fluralaner was non-inferior for ticks and superior for fleas. Of dogs with flea allergy dermatitis signs at the start, 85.7% of the fluralaner group showed no clinical signs at study completion, vs 55.6% on fipronil.
Watch out: The comparator is another active product (fipronil), not placebo — field prevention trials are built this way — and the study was run by the manufacturer's (MSD) group. Efficacy is measured against each group's own pretreatment counts, so the figures are relative reductions plus parasite-free proportions.
Rohdich N, Roepke RK, Zschiesche E. A randomized, blinded, controlled and multi-centered field study comparing the efficacy and safety of Bravecto (fluralaner) against Frontline (fipronil) in flea- and tick-infested dogs. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:83. PMID: 24593931. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Acaricides · Administration, Oral · Administration, Topical · Animals · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Flea Infestations · France · Germany · Insecticides · Isoxazoles · Male · Pyrazoles · Single-Blind Method · Siphonaptera · Spain · Tablets · Tick Infestations · Ticks · Treatment Outcome
Petersen 2024: a single fluralaner injection matched 12 monthly afoxolaner doses for a full year (976 dogs)
Randomised, examiner-masked, non-inferiority field study (one year)
Who: Dogs: household dogs at veterinary clinics in Germany, France and Spain, in a randomized, examiner-masked, non-inferiority field study over one year — 976 treated dogs (653 given one subcutaneous fluralaner injection, 15 mg/kg, on day 0; 323 given 12 monthly oral afoxolaner doses). The per-protocol primary population was 415 dogs (279 fluralaner, 136 afoxolaner), assessed on days 14–365.
Result: From visits 2 through 10, at least 95% of primary dogs in each group were tick-free and at least 93% were flea-free; the fluralaner group was non-inferior to afoxolaner at every visit (P ≤ 0.0048). Tick and flea counts fell by more than 99% from baseline on fluralaner, and by more than 98% (ticks) and 97% (fleas) on afoxolaner. There were no unexpected adverse events in any treated dog in either group.
Watch out: Both arms are isoxazolines, so this trial proves duration and equivalence, not the class effect itself; it was designed and run by the fluralaner manufacturer's (MSD) development group. 'No unexpected adverse events' in a trial of this size does not exclude rare events — see the synthesis card.
Petersen I, Goebel-Lauth S, Pobel T et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of a single administration of fluralaner injectable suspension (BRAVECTO injectable) vs. monthly administration of oral afoxolaner (NexGard) in dogs for tick and flea control over one year under European field conditions. Parasit Vectors. 2024;17(1):504. PMID: 39654069. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Animals · Dogs · Tick Infestations · Isoxazoles · Flea Infestations · Dog Diseases · Naphthalenes · Female · Male · Administration, Oral · Acaricides · Treatment Outcome · France · Insecticides · Spain · Ticks · Siphonaptera · Germany · Injections
Synthesis: reliable parasite freedom for the dosing interval — with a class warning that belongs on the shelf
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Rohdich 2014 (randomized blinded field trial, n=162 tick-infested dogs / 176 flea-infested households) and Petersen 2024 (randomized masked field trial, 976 dogs, one year).
Result: Two large, randomized, blinded field trials agree: isoxazoline-treated dogs stay essentially flea- and tick-free for the full dosing interval, whether the product is given monthly by the owner or once a year by injection at the clinic — the injectable's real contribution is removing owner compliance from the equation. The balance a clinician should hold alongside: US regulators require class labelling about rare neurologic adverse events (including seizures, and including in dogs with no prior history) for isoxazolines, so a seizure history is a genuine product-choice conversation even though these trials saw no unexpected events; and tick *attachment* is prevented less completely than tick *killing* — the separate question of blocking tick-borne disease transmission is its own shelf (#26 in the build order).
Watch out: Nearly all isoxazoline evidence is manufacturer-generated, as with most veterinary parasitology; the consistency across products, countries and a full year of field use is what carries the LIKELY stamp. Parasite-count endpoints are direct measures of prevention, but they are not the same as disease endpoints (flea allergy, tick-borne infection), which the balance keeps separate.
Synthesis of Rohdich N et al. PMID: 24593931; Petersen I et al. PMID: 39654069. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #8 in the build order
Does dental prevention work in dogs — how often must teeth be brushed, and do dental treats beat placebo?
POSSIBLE proposed stamp — gate-verified and displayed under the developer's blinded-trial rule
POSSIBLE: Brushing works, and frequency is the dose. In a randomized, blinded trial in Beagles, brushing daily or every other day retarded plaque and calculus accumulation and reduced pre-existing gingivitis significantly more than brushing weekly or every other week over 28 days (Harvey 2015) — the study's own recommendation is daily brushing. For owners who will not brush, an edible seaweed (Ascophyllum nodosum) treat beat placebo on plaque index, calculus index and breath sulphur compounds over 90 days in a double-blind trial of 60 client-owned dogs after professional cleaning (Gawor 2018). Both trials measure plaque, calculus and gingivitis indices — the accepted precursors of periodontal disease — not tooth loss or periodontal surgery itself, and both are short and small, which is what holds this shelf at POSSIBLE. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #8); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Harvey 2015: brushing daily or every other day beat weekly brushing — a clear frequency gradient in a blinded trial
Randomised, controlled, blinded study (28 days)
Who: Dogs: Beagles in a randomized, controlled, blinded study using a clean-tooth model over 28 days, all fed a standard dry kibble diet, allocated to five regimens: brushing daily, every other day, weekly, every other week, or no brushing (control). Plaque, calculus and gingivitis were scored on standard indices with a clearly defined brushing technique.
Result: Brushing more frequently had greater effectiveness in retarding accumulation of plaque and calculus and in reducing the severity of pre-existing gingivitis. Brushing daily or every other day produced statistically significant improved results compared with brushing weekly or every other week. No gingival or other oral-tissue injury was found at the end of the 28-day trial. The authors' conclusion: daily brushing is recommended.
Watch out: Colony Beagles, trained technique, 28 days, and surrogate indices rather than periodontal outcomes — it establishes that mechanical plaque removal works and how often it must happen, not what a reluctant owner achieves at home over years. The abstract reports the frequency gradient and significance, not effect sizes, and the card does not invent them.
Harvey C, Serfilippi L, Barnvos D. Effect of frequency of brushing teeth on plaque and calculus accumulation, and gingivitis in dogs. J Vet Dent. 2015;32(1):16-21. PMID: 26197686. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Animals · Dental Calculus · Dental Plaque · Dental Plaque Index · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Gingivitis · Male · Periodontal Index · Time Factors · Toothbrushing
Gawor 2018: seaweed dental treats beat placebo on plaque, calculus and breath compounds after cleaning (60 dogs, 90 days)
Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial (90 days)
Who: Dogs: 60 client-owned small-breed dogs (Japanese Chin, Miniature Schnauzer, Chihuahua, Pomeranian, West Highland White Terrier) given a professional dental cleaning under general anaesthesia, then randomized double-blind to daily edible treats containing the brown alga Ascophyllum nodosum or placebo treats, dosed by bodyweight, for 90 days; plaque index (PI), calculus index (CI), oral health index (OHI), gingival bleeding index (GBI) and volatile sulphur compounds (VSC) assessed under sedation at 30, 60 and 90 days.
Result: The A. nodosum group showed significantly improved PI, CI and VSC concentration compared with placebo; plaque and calculus accumulation was efficiently decreased, and oral health status (OHI, GBI) was significantly better than in the placebo group.
Watch out: Small-breed dogs only, a single centre, and the intervention began right after a professional cleaning — it shows slower re-accumulation on a clean tooth, not rescue of established disease. The abstract reports significance without effect sizes; one trial of one ingredient does not generalize to every 'dental' treat on the shelf.
Gawor J, Jank M, Jodkowska K et al. Effects of edible treats containing Ascophyllum nodosum on the oral health of dogs: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled single-center study. Front Vet Sci. 2018;5:168. PMID: 30109236. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: none in the record.
Synthesis: brush if you can (daily is the dose); a proven adjunct beats nothing
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Harvey 2015 (randomized blinded Beagle frequency trial) and Gawor 2018 (double-blind placebo-controlled trial, 60 client-owned dogs).
Result: The prevention hierarchy the evidence supports: mechanical removal is the active principle, and its dose is frequency — daily or every-other-day brushing is where the significant benefit sits; weekly brushing is closer to none. A daily Ascophyllum treat after cleaning measurably slowed plaque and calculus return for owners who will not brush. Neither trial followed dogs long enough, or measured hard enough outcomes (periodontal attachment loss, extractions), to grade this higher than POSSIBLE; formulated dental diets are a separate shelf (#57 in the build order).
Watch out: Plaque and calculus indices are surrogates: everyone accepts them as the pathway to periodontal disease, but this shelf grades the surrogate evidence it actually has. Owner compliance is the known weak link in the whole topic and neither trial measures it.
Synthesis of Harvey C et al. PMID: 26197686; Gawor J et al. PMID: 30109236. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Cats · Shelf #9 in the build order
How long does FVRCP (panleukopenia, herpesvirus, calicivirus) vaccination protect cats — is the three-year interval challenge-backed?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
LIKELY: Two long, strict-isolation challenge studies bracket the modern three-year core schedule. Scott & Geissinger 1999 challenged cats 7.5 years after kitten vaccination: panleukopenia protection was solid (high titres throughout), while the respiratory components were partial — relative efficacy 52% against herpesvirus signs and 63% against calicivirus signs (relative measures, on clinical-sign reduction), and vaccination did not prevent mild local infection or shedding. Gore 2006 challenged cats three years after vaccination: 100% protection against panleukopenia disease and against calicivirus oral ulceration (P < .005 and P < .001), with rhinotracheitis signs significantly reduced (P = .015). Panleukopenia immunity is measured in many years; respiratory immunity is real but partial and shorter. Neither record states randomisation or blinding — challenge studies of this era rarely report either — so the shelf rests on controlled but unblinded evidence. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #9); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Scott & Geissinger 1999: 7.5 years after kitten vaccination, panleukopenia protection was solid; herpesvirus and calicivirus protection was partial
Vaccination–challenge study (7.5-year duration of immunity)
Who: Specific-pathogen-free cats vaccinated as kittens (8 and 12 weeks) with an inactivated trivalent vaccine (panleukopenia, herpesvirus, calicivirus), housed in isolation; of the original 15 vaccinated and 17 unvaccinated cats, 9 vaccinated and 8 unvaccinated were challenged 7.5 years after vaccination. Unvaccinated controls were offspring of vaccinated cats kept as contact controls. Antibody titres measured yearly; clinical responses and titres followed weekly after challenge.
Result: Vaccinated cats kept high panleukopenia titres throughout and were solidly protected against virulent panleukopenia challenge 7.5 years after vaccination. They stayed seropositive to herpesvirus and calicivirus for three to four years with gradually declining titres; protection against herpesvirus challenge was partial, with a relative efficacy of 52% on reduction of clinical signs, and calicivirus results were similar at 63% (both relative measures). Vaccination did not prevent local mild infection or shedding of either respiratory virus. The authors conclude the duration of immunity was over seven years and that persistence of titres beyond three years supports revaccination at three-year intervals.
Watch out: Nine and eight cats at challenge, one inactivated adjuvanted product, and an unusual control group (offspring of the vaccinates). The abstract does not state how cats were allocated or whether assessors were blinded. The honest split in the result is the shelf's core content: 'duration of immunity' is not one number — it is long for panleukopenia and partial for the respiratory pair.
Scott FW, Geissinger CM. Long-term immunity in cats vaccinated with an inactivated trivalent vaccine. Am J Vet Res. 1999. PMID: 10328440. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Antibodies, Viral · Caliciviridae Infections · Calicivirus, Feline · Cat Diseases · Cats · Feline Panleukopenia · Feline Panleukopenia Virus · Female · Herpesviridae · Leukocyte Count · Lymphocyte Count · Male · Time Factors · Vaccines, Combined · Vaccines, Inactivated · Viral Vaccines
Gore 2006: three years after vaccination, 100% protection against panleukopenia disease and calicivirus ulceration; rhinotracheitis signs reduced
Vaccination–challenge study (3-year duration of immunity)
Who: Forty-two seronegative cats vaccinated at 8 weeks with a booster at 12 weeks, kept in strict isolation for three years, then challenged — with calicivirus, or sequentially with rhinotracheitis virus followed by panleukopenia virus. For each viral challenge, a separate group of 10 age-matched, nonvaccinated control cats was also challenged.
Result: Vaccinated cats showed a statistically significant reduction in rhinotracheitis-associated clinical signs (P = .015), 100% protection against oral ulcerations associated with calicivirus infection (P < .001), and 100% protection against disease associated with virulent panleukopenia challenge (P < .005), three years after the second vaccination. The authors conclude the vaccine protected cats 8 weeks of age or older against all three viruses for a minimum of three years.
Watch out: As with the 1999 study: no randomisation or blinding is stated in the record, and the respiratory claim is reduction of signs and of one lesion (oral ulceration), not prevention of infection. Two manufacturer-programme studies (the Gore/Lakshmanan team also produced the canine duration studies on Shelf #51) carry most of this shelf — consistent results, single research lineage.
Gore TC, Lakshmanan N, Williams JR, Jirjis FF, Chester ST, Duncan KL, Coyne MJ. Three-year duration of immunity in cats following vaccination against feline rhinotracheitis virus, feline calicivirus, and feline panleukopenia virus. Vet Ther. 2006. PMID: 17039444. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Caliciviridae Infections · Calicivirus, Feline · Cat Diseases · Cats · Feline Panleukopenia · Feline Panleukopenia Virus · Female · Herpesviridae · Immunization · Immunization, Secondary · Male · Respiratory Tract Infections · Specific Pathogen-Free Organisms · Time Factors · Vaccines, Attenuated · Viral Vaccines
Synthesis: the three-year interval is challenge-backed at three years and stretched, partly, to 7.5 — LIKELY
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Scott & Geissinger 1999 (inactivated vaccine, 7.5-year challenge) and Gore 2006 (modified-live vaccine, 3-year challenge).
Result: Two independent products, two challenge time points, one pattern: panleukopenia protection is essentially complete at three years (Gore: 100% against disease) and still solid at 7.5 years (Scott: high titres, solid protection); herpesvirus and calicivirus protection is a reduction in disease severity (significant sign reduction in Gore; 52% and 63% relative efficacy in Scott), not sterilising immunity, and antibody to the respiratory pair fades over three to four years. The three-year core-booster interval sits comfortably inside this evidence; annual respiratory boosters for low-risk indoor cats do not. LIKELY on the strength of two concordant controlled challenge studies, held below the top grade because neither record reports randomisation or blinded assessment.
Watch out: Both studies used strict isolation — the cleanest possible test of duration, and the least like a cattery or shelter. Cats at high respiratory exposure (boarding, breeding, shelter) are a different risk conversation from the house cat this evidence describes.
Synthesis of Scott FW, Geissinger CM. Am J Vet Res. 1999. PMID: 10328440; Gore TC et al. Vet Ther. 2006. PMID: 17039444. Registry IDs as on the individual cards. Cross-point: Shelf #51 (the canine duration-of-immunity programme).
Prevention · Horses · Shelf #10 in the build order
Does West Nile virus vaccination protect horses against WNV encephalitis and viremia after challenge?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and displayed under the developer's blinded-trial rule
LIKELY: The strongest small-trial design on this part of the hub: Seino 2007 placed 24 seronegative horses into groups 'in random and blind manner' across three commercial vaccines and a diluent control, then used a severe encephalitis challenge — all six control horses died (0% survival), and every vaccinated horse survived (100%), protected from encephalitis and viremia between 28 and 56 days after vaccination. Siger 2004 adds the natural route: in a blind challenge trial, horses were randomly assigned to a single dose of canarypox-vectored vaccine or left untreated, then challenged by infected mosquito bites 26 days later — viremia in 1 of 9 vaccinated horses versus 8 of 10 controls. Two trials, 44 horses, one direction. The stamp is LIKELY rather than higher because the groups are small and both are challenge models from vaccine development programmes; the endpoint, survival in a model that kills every control, needs no surrogate apology. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #10); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Seino 2007: in a randomised, blinded challenge, all six control horses died of West Nile encephalitis; every vaccinated horse survived
Randomised, blinded vaccination–challenge trial (indexed RCT)
Who: Twenty-four healthy, West Nile virus-seronegative horses of varying ages and sexes, placed in random and blind manner into three trial groups of eight; within each group, two horses received an inactivated WNV vaccine, two a canarypox-vectored modified-live vaccine, two a yellow-fever-chimera vaccine, and two a diluent control — six horses per product and six controls in total. Challenge used a severe model producing clinical West Nile disease, at 28 days (chimera) to 56 days (inactivated and canarypox) after vaccination.
Result: Challenge caused grave neurological signs, viremia and moderate-to-severe brain and spinal cord lesions in the controls, with 0% survivorship in all six control horses. In contrast, vaccination resulted in 100% survivorship — protection from the onset of WNV encephalitis and viremia — at every vaccination-to-challenge interval tested. Horses given the chimera vaccine showed significantly fewer clinical signs than controls (P ≤ 0.01) and than the inactivated-vaccine horses (P = 0.035). Mild residual inflammatory lesions were seen in a few vaccinated horses.
Watch out: Six horses per product is a licensure challenge, not a precision estimate — the survival contrast (6/6 dead versus 18/18 alive) is what carries the conclusion, and it is as stark as small trials get. The model is deliberately severe (direct challenge producing grave disease); field exposure is usually less uniform, which cuts in the vaccine's favour, but the trial also ends at 56 days — duration is a separate question this shelf does not answer.
Seino KK, Long MT, Gibbs EP, Bowen RA, Beachboard SE, Humphrey PP, et al. Comparative efficacies of three commercially available vaccines against West Nile Virus (WNV) in a short-duration challenge trial involving an equine WNV encephalitis model. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2007. PMID: 17687109. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Antibodies, Viral · Horse Diseases · Horses · West Nile Fever · West Nile Virus Vaccines · West Nile virus
Siger 2004: after mosquito challenge, viremia in 1 of 9 once-vaccinated horses versus 8 of 10 controls
Blind, randomised vaccination–challenge trial (mosquito challenge)
Who: Twenty mixed-breed horses with no prior West Nile exposure, randomly assigned to a single intramuscular dose of a recombinant canarypox-vectored WNV vaccine (10 horses) or no treatment (10 controls), in a blind challenge trial. On day 26, nine treated and ten control horses were challenged through the bites of WNV-infected Aedes albopictus mosquitoes; clinical responses, virus isolation and antibody responses were monitored for 14 days.
Result: Following challenge, 1 of 9 treated horses developed viremia, in contrast to 8 of 10 control horses. All horses seroconverted after challenge, but antibody responses in vaccinated horses were detected earlier than in controls. The authors conclude that a single dose of the vaccine provides early protection against development of viremia after challenge with WNV-infected mosquitoes, even in the absence of measurable antibody titres in some horses.
Watch out: The endpoint here is viremia, not encephalitis — viremia is the necessary precursor of disease and the quantity mosquito transmission depends on, but the survival claim belongs to the Seino card. One vaccinated horse still became viremic; 'early protection' at 26 days after one dose is the claim, and the authors word it that way.
Siger L, Bowen RA, Karaca K, Murray MJ, Gordy PW, Loosmore SM, et al. Assessment of the efficacy of a single dose of a recombinant vaccine against West Nile virus in response to natural challenge with West Nile virus-infected mosquitoes in horses. Am J Vet Res. 2004. PMID: 15566080. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Aedes · Analysis of Variance · Animals · Antibodies, Viral · Canarypox virus · Horse Diseases · Horses · Viral Vaccines · West Nile Fever · West Nile virus
Synthesis: equine WNV vaccination protects against a challenge that kills every control — LIKELY
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Seino 2007 (24 horses, three products, randomised and blinded, lethal challenge model) and Siger 2004 (20 horses, single-dose canarypox vaccine, blind mosquito challenge).
Result: Across both challenge designs — a severe direct model and a natural mosquito-bite model — vaccination prevented the disease-defining outcomes: 100% survival against 0% in controls (Seino), and viremia in 1 of 9 versus 8 of 10 (Siger) after a single dose. Blinding and randomisation are stated in both records, which is rare on this hub and part of why the stamp is firm. LIKELY: the evidence is exactly what a prevention shelf wants — small, but randomised, blinded, controlled and concordant, on hard endpoints.
Watch out: Neither trial addresses duration of immunity, annual-booster necessity, or protection in the face of an actual outbreak's varied exposure — and neither compares products at field scale. Seino's within-trial product differences (chimera fewest signs) come from six horses per arm and should not be quoted as a product ranking.
Synthesis of Seino KK et al. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2007. PMID: 17687109; Siger L et al. Am J Vet Res. 2004. PMID: 15566080. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Horses · Shelf #11 in the build order
Does continuous digital cryotherapy (icing) prevent or reduce laminitis in at-risk horses?
POSSIBLE proposed stamp — gate-verified and displayed under the developer's blinded-trial rule
POSSIBLE: The experimental evidence is genuinely positive and unusually careful for its field — but it is a model, not a stable. In van Eps & Pollitt 2004, six Standardbreds went through carbohydrate-overload laminitis induction with one forelimb continuously cooled and the other left as the within-horse control: no cooled limb became lame, lamellar histological scores were significantly lower in cooled limbs (P < 0.05), and lamellar MMP-2 mRNA expression was significantly lower (P < 0.05) — with histology graded blind and limbs randomly allocated (the record's MeSH includes Random Allocation). The 2009 follow-up in 18 horses (three groups of six; cooling during the developmental phase only, the practical scenario) again found lameness and histopathology significantly reduced at day seven, and confirmed continuous cryotherapy alone caused no lameness. What is missing: any field trial in clinical cases — sepsis, colitis, retained placenta — where cooling starts after the trigger rather than alongside it. That gap, not the data quality, sets POSSIBLE. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #11); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
van Eps & Pollitt 2004: cooled limbs never became lame, and lamellar damage scores were significantly lower
Randomised experimental study, blinded histological grading (contralateral design)
Who: Six Standardbreds in a carbohydrate-overload laminitis-induction model. Each horse had one forelimb continuously cooled while the contralateral forelimb served as the control — a within-horse comparison. Histology of lamellar sections was graded blind to treatment allocation; the record's MeSH terms include Random Allocation, though the record does not say which allocation was randomised. Endpoints, as the record states them: lameness evaluation, blinded lamellar histological grading, and analysis for lamellar matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) mRNA expression.
Result: No cooled limb became lame. Histological scores of lamellar sections were significantly lower in cooled limbs than in corresponding control limbs (P < 0.05), and lamellar MMP-2 mRNA expression was significantly lower in cooled limbs (P < 0.05). The authors conclude that continuous hoof cooling (cryotherapy) appears to promote hoof lamellar health and ameliorate lamellar pathology during the developmental phase of acute laminitis. Because each horse supplied both limbs, horse-to-horse variation — diet response, gut flora, severity of the overload — cannot explain the difference.
Watch out: Six horses and a contralateral design: systemic effects of cooling one limb are limited, but the design cannot detect them. The model is developmental-phase laminitis from carbohydrate overload — the cleanest, most predictable version of the disease — and cooling here ran concurrently with induction, a timing clinical practice can rarely match. Blinded grading is a strength the record states outright; random allocation rests only on the record's MeSH indexing, which does not say which allocation was randomised; the sample size is what it is.
van Eps AW, Pollitt CC. Equine laminitis: cryotherapy reduces the severity of the acute lesion. Equine Vet J. 2004. PMID: 15147134. Registry ID: none — animal experimental studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Cryotherapy · Female · Foot Diseases · Gene Expression Regulation, Enzymologic · Hoof and Claw · Horse Diseases · Horses · Inflammation · Lameness, Animal · Male · Matrix Metalloproteinase 2 · RNA, Messenger · Random Allocation · Safety · Severity of Illness Index · Treatment Outcome · Vasoconstriction
van Eps & Pollitt 2009: 72 hours of cooling started at induction significantly reduced lameness and lamellar histopathology at day 7
Randomised controlled experimental trial (indexed RCT)
Who: Eighteen normal Standardbred horses in an oligofructose laminitis-induction model, in three groups of six. Group 1 received continuous cryotherapy to the distal limbs for 72 hours and no laminitis induction. Groups 2 and 3 both received laminitis-inducing doses of oligofructose; group 2 had 72 hours of cryotherapy applied immediately after dosing, and group 3 was left untreated as the control. All horses were clinically assessed and euthanised seven days after dosing, and hoof lamellar tissue was harvested and analysed. The record is indexed as a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Result: In the laminitis-induced horses, clinical lameness and laminitis histopathology were significantly reduced in the horses that underwent 72 hours of cryotherapy compared with untreated controls — the abstract reports significance without printing P values. Cryotherapy alone produced no significant lameness or other ill effect. The authors conclude that continuous 72-hour cryotherapy applied to the distal limbs safely and effectively ameliorates the clinical signs and pathology of acute laminitis, and propose pre-emptive distal-limb cryotherapy as a practical method of ameliorating laminitis in ill horses at risk of developing the disease.
Watch out: The shelf's practical claim is real but precisely bounded: cooling began immediately after dosing, before any clinical sign — the earliest moment a developmental phase could be intercepted. In a colitis or post-foaling patient, nobody knows when the developmental phase began, which is exactly the uncertainty the model removes; this trial says nothing about icing begun after lameness appears. Eighteen horses across three arms, one induction model, day-7 endpoints.
van Eps AW, Pollitt CC. Equine laminitis model: cryotherapy reduces the severity of lesions evaluated seven days after induction with oligofructose. Equine Vet J. 2009. PMID: 20095220. Registry ID: none — animal experimental studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Cryotherapy · Female · Foot Diseases · Hoof and Claw · Horse Diseases · Horses · Inflammation · Male · Oligosaccharides · Time Factors
Synthesis: icing works in the model, including at the practical timing — the field trial is the missing piece
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: van Eps & Pollitt 2004 (six horses, blinded histology grading; random allocation resting on the record's MeSH indexing) and van Eps & Pollitt 2009 (18 horses, three-arm randomised trial).
Result: Continuous digital cryotherapy applied during the developmental phase of experimental laminitis prevents lameness in cooled limbs and significantly reduces lamellar histological damage in both studies (P < 0.05 printed in the 2004 record; the 2009 abstract reports significance without printing P values), with a mechanistic correlate in reduced lamellar MMP-2 expression. The 2009 study answers the obvious objection — that cooling only works if started before disease — by showing the benefit when cooling is confined to the developmental window, and shows the intervention itself is benign (no lameness from cryotherapy alone). POSSIBLE: randomised, blinded-graded, replicated by the same group — and entirely within an oligofructose/carbohydrate-overload model, never yet tested in a randomised field trial of clinical at-risk patients.
Watch out: The clinical leap is from 'ice a horse you know is entering the developmental phase' to 'ice every at-risk hospital patient', where start times, durations (48–72 hours of continuous icing is a nursing commitment) and triggers all vary. This shelf supports the practice as the best-evidenced preventive available for at-risk inpatients; it does not pretend the field evidence exists.
Synthesis of van Eps AW, Pollitt CC. Equine Vet J. 2004. PMID: 15147134; van Eps AW, Pollitt CC. Equine Vet J. 2009. PMID: 20095220. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Horses · Shelf #12 in the build order
Does faecal-egg-count-based targeted selective treatment control strongyles in horses while reducing anthelmintic use?
POSSIBLE proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
POSSIBLE — a feasibility claim, not an efficacy claim: Roelfstra 2020 ran a strongyle surveillance and targeted-treatment programme for six years across five farms (93 equids, 757 faecal samples, France and Switzerland) on a ≥200 eggs-per-gram treatment threshold, and across the whole programme only 263 of 757 samples (34.7%) triggered a treatment — two of every three routine doses a calendar programme would have given were simply not needed, with the programme sustained for six years without the abstract reporting loss of strongyle control. That is the honest scope of the shelf: the evidence shows a European yard population can be run on egg-count-triggered dosing with far less anthelmintic. It does not show — because no randomised comparison exists — that horses fare as well as on interval dosing, that resistance actually slows (the rationale, not a measured endpoint here), or that the threshold suits tapeworm, bots or cyathostomin larval disease, which egg counts cannot see. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #12); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Roelfstra 2020: over six years, only 263 of 757 samples (34.7%) crossed the treatment threshold
Observational programme evaluation (no control group)
Who: Ninety-three equids on five farms in France and Switzerland, managed for six years under a surveillance and targeted-treatment programme: quarterly coprology (Mini-FLOTAC technique), with anthelmintic treatment given only when a sample reached the threshold of 200 strongyle eggs per gram of faeces (EPG). Total 757 faecal samples analysed. Setting: real yards, not a research herd — but no comparison group and no randomisation.
Result: In total, only 263 samples (34.7%) exceeded the 200 EPG threshold and led to treatment; the remaining 65.3% of scheduled treatment occasions were withheld without the programme reporting loss of strongyle control over its six years. The authors conclude the data demonstrate the feasibility of a surveillance-based selective treatment approach under European conditions, in line with the sustainable parasite-control policy the Swiss Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office had introduced in 2015.
Watch out: 'Feasibility' is the authors' own word and the shelf keeps it. There is no control arm, so the study cannot exclude that some untreated horses carried burdens a calendar programme would have cleared, nor can it show the outcome the whole strategy exists for — slower anthelmintic resistance — which would need years of resistance-marker follow-up. Egg counts also miss tapeworm, encysted cyathostomin larvae and bots entirely; a selective programme needs separate provision for those, and this record does not test one.
Roelfstra L, Betschart B, Müller S, Schär F. A surveillance and treatment strategy for strongyle control in horses in Switzerland, France and Germany (Roelfstra et al., Parasitology 2020; the programme ran in France and Switzerland). Parasitology. 2020. PMID: 33333748. Registry ID: none — observational programme evaluation. MeSH as in the record (strongyle surveillance, faecal egg counts, targeted treatment).
Synthesis: selective treatment demonstrably cuts drug use by about two-thirds — outcomes equivalence is unproven
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the card above: Roelfstra 2020, a six-year, five-farm, 93-equid programme evaluation. No randomised or controlled comparison exists in the record set for this question.
Result: What one large, long, real-world programme establishes: threshold-based targeted treatment (200 EPG) is workable in ordinary European yards for years at a time and reduces anthelmintic administration to about one occasion in three (263 of 757 samples treated). What it does not establish: equivalent clinical outcomes versus interval dosing, any measured slowing of resistance, or safety of the threshold across all parasite classes and climates. POSSIBLE for the feasibility claim as worded; the shelf makes no stronger claim, and the resistance benefit that motivates the practice remains a rationale supported by parasitology, not by this record.
Watch out: Do not let this shelf be read as 'stop worming'. The programme works because surveillance is systematic — quarterly counts on every animal — and treatment is immediate when the threshold is crossed. Dropping the testing while keeping the withholding is the one version of this strategy with no evidence at all.
Synthesis of Roelfstra L et al. Parasitology. 2020. PMID: 33333748. Registry ID as on the individual card.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #23 in the build order
Does tetravalent leptospirosis vaccination protect dogs against infection and renal shedding — and does the protection hold across serogroups, products, and a full 12 months?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
LIKELY: Tetravalent (L4) leptospirosis vaccination prevents or significantly reduces infection — including the renal carrier state that spreads this zoonosis — a full 12 months after the two-dose course. In four challenge studies, one per serogroup (Klaasen 2014), the vaccine prevented or significantly reduced infection after challenge with Canicola, Icterohaemorrhagiae, Grippotyphosa and Australis strains, and prevented or significantly reduced renal infection after Canicola and Icterohaemorrhagiae challenge. The honest complication is a product difference, and it is carded on the face of this shelf: in a head-to-head of the two licensed European tetravalent vaccines (Klaasen 2022), Nobivac L4 controlled disease parameters better overall, completely preventing clinical signs after Grippotyphosa and Icterohaemorrhagiae challenge, while Versican Plus L4 did NOT significantly reduce infection or shedding after Icterohaemorrhagiae challenge. All of this is challenge-model evidence from the manufacturer's programme — no field-effectiveness trial is carded — which is what holds the stamp at LIKELY. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #23); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Klaasen 2014: tetravalent vaccine prevented or significantly reduced infection from all four serogroups, 12 months after vaccination
Controlled challenge studies (four, one per serogroup)
Who: Dogs in four separate controlled challenge studies, one per serogroup (Icterohaemorrhagiae, Canicola, Grippotyphosa, Australis): in each study a group received the new tetravalent leptospirosis vaccine (two doses) and a control group did not; twelve months after the second vaccination all dogs were challenged both intraperitoneally and conjunctivally with a pathogenic strain of that study's serogroup. Recorded post-challenge: clinical signs, body temperature, total leucocyte and thrombocyte counts, presence of challenge organisms in blood, urine and kidney tissue, and interstitial nephritis at necropsy four weeks after challenge. The abstract does not state group sizes.
Result: The vaccine was able to either prevent or significantly reduce infection following challenge with the strains of all four serogroups. It also prevented or significantly reduced renal infection following Canicola and Icterohaemorrhagiae challenge, with a trend of reduction of renal infection with Australis (serovar Bratislava). In the Grippotyphosa study, challenge produced no detectable renal infection in any dog of the control group, so that renal endpoint was uninformative. The authors conclude significant protective immunity was achieved 12 months after a basic two-dose schedule against all four serogroups.
Watch out: A challenge model, not field exposure: intraperitoneal plus conjunctival challenge is an artificial route, purpose-bred dogs are not the owned-dog population, and efficacy against infection/shedding is not a measured reduction in clinical disease under natural exposure. This is also the development-programme paper for the vaccine that became Nobivac L4 — the comparison that matters most (against the other licensed product) is the second card, and independent replication is absent.
Klaasen HL et al. A new tetravalent canine leptospirosis vaccine provides at least 12 months immunity against infection. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2013.08.002. PMID: 24054091. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Bacterial Vaccines · Body Temperature · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Humans · Kidney Diseases · Leptospira interrogans · Leptospirosis · Leukocyte Count · Male · Vaccination · Zoonoses
Klaasen 2022: Nobivac L4 controlled disease better overall — Versican Plus L4 did not significantly reduce Icterohaemorrhagiae infection or shedding
Head-to-head controlled challenge studies (four)
Who: Beagle dogs in four similar challenge studies (serogroups Grippotyphosa, Icterohaemorrhagiae, Canicola, Australis): in each study dogs were assigned to Nobivac L4, Versican Plus L4, or a non-vaccinated control group; two vaccinations were followed by Leptospira challenge. Efficacy parameters: antibody titres, body temperature, clinical signs, cultures of Leptospira from blood, urine, kidney and liver, rapid urinalysis, and macroscopic and histopathological examination at necropsy. The abstract does not state group sizes.
Result: Compared with Versican Plus L4, Nobivac L4 resulted in generally better control of leptospirosis disease parameters after challenge, including complete prevention of clinical signs following Grippotyphosa and Icterohaemorrhagiae challenge. Versican Plus L4 prevented infection only by Australis and shedding only by Grippotyphosa and Australis, and did not lead to any statistically significant reduction of either infection or shedding following an Icterohaemorrhagiae challenge.
Watch out: A head-to-head run inside one manufacturer's challenge programme, comparing that manufacturer's product favourably against a competitor's — the direction of the result and the provenance belong together on the card, and no independent group has replicated the comparison. The record carries no MeSH headings (noted here per this library's identifier standard). Challenge-model limits from the first card apply unchanged.
Klaasen HL et al. An Assessment and Comparison of the Efficacy of Two Licensed Tetravalent Leptospira Vaccines for Dogs Using an Improved Challenge Model. Vaccines. 2022;10:1472. PMID: 36146551. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: none in the record.
Synthesis: 12-month tetravalent protection is real in the challenge model — and product choice matters for Icterohaemorrhagiae
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Klaasen 2014 (four serogroup challenge studies of the tetravalent vaccine, 12 months after dose two) and Klaasen 2022 (four head-to-head challenge studies of the two licensed European tetravalent vaccines).
Result: The challenge evidence supports annual tetravalent leptospirosis vaccination: protection against infection and renal shedding held at 12 months across all four serogroups in the development studies, which is the duration claim the annual booster schedule rests on. The shelf's second content is the gap: the two licensed products are not interchangeable on this evidence — one of them failed to significantly reduce infection or shedding against Icterohaemorrhagiae, the serogroup most tied to severe disease and zoonotic spread. What no card here measures is field effectiveness in owned dogs under natural exposure, protection beyond 12 months, or any serogroup outside the four in the vaccines.
Watch out: Both studies come from a single manufacturer's programme (MSD-line authorship), the 2022 comparison most of all; regulators accepted these challenge models for licensure, which is why they are carded, but a prudent reader treats the product ranking as programme evidence, not settled independent fact.
Synthesis of Klaasen HL et al. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2014. PMID: 24054091; Klaasen HL et al. Vaccines. 2022. PMID: 36146551. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #24 in the build order
How long does rabies vaccination actually protect dogs and cats — does virulent-challenge evidence support the three-year duration of immunity on the label?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
LIKELY: Three-year duration of immunity is challenge-verified, not just licensed on paper. In dogs, a killed rabies component in a core combination vaccine protected 28 of 32 dogs (88%) against virulent rabies challenge after three years of strict isolation, while 30 of 31 unvaccinated controls (97%) died (Lakshmanan 2006). In cats, a non-adjuvanted canarypox-vectored vaccine given at 12 weeks with a booster one year later protected every vaccinated cat against virulent challenge three years on (Jas 2012) — note that programme includes the one-year booster; the three-year interval runs from it. And a novel non-adjuvanted RNA-particle vaccine protected 100% of both dogs and cats more than three years after a SINGLE dose at 12 weeks (Stachura 2025). Three platforms, three challenge programmes, the hardest endpoint in medicine: LIKELY — with the standing caveats that all are manufacturer programmes, and that field serology in free-roaming populations (fenced in the synthesis) answers a different, population-level question. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #24); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Lakshmanan 2006: killed rabies vaccine protected 88% of dogs against virulent challenge after 3 years — 97% of controls died
Vaccination–challenge study (3-year isolation, dogs)
Who: Thirty-two seronegative pups vaccinated at 8 weeks of age with a modified-live distemper/adenovirus-2/parvovirus combination and at 12 weeks with the same combination plus a killed rabies virus vaccine; 31 additional seronegative pups served as age-matched nonvaccinated controls. All dogs were strictly isolated for 3 years after the second vaccination and then challenged with virulent rabies virus.
Result: Clinical signs of rabies were prevented in 28 (88%) of the 32 vaccinated dogs. In contrast, 97% (30 of 31) of the control dogs died of rabies infection. The authors conclude the rabies component provided protection against virulent rabies challenge in dogs 12 weeks of age or older for a minimum of 3 years following vaccination, with no immunogenic interference between the modified-live components and the killed rabies component.
Watch out: Four of 32 vaccinates were not protected — 88% is not sterilising immunity, and at three years the margin is thinner than the headline interval suggests. One manufacturer's combination product, purpose-bred seronegative pups, and strict isolation (no natural re-exposure, no illness or malnutrition) are best-case conditions compared with the owned-dog population.
Lakshmanan N et al. Three-year rabies duration of immunity in dogs following vaccination with a core combination vaccine against canine distemper virus, canine adenovirus type-1, canine parvovirus, and rabies virus. Vet Ther. 2006;7(3):223-31. PMID: 17039445. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Adenoviridae · Adenoviridae Infections · Animals · Distemper · Distemper Virus, Canine · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Male · Parvoviridae Infections · Parvovirus, Canine · Rabies · Rabies Vaccines · Rabies virus · Time Factors · Vaccination · Vaccines, Attenuated · Vaccines, Inactivated · Viral Vaccines
Jas 2012: canarypox-vectored rabies vaccine protected all cats at challenge 3 years after a primary-plus-one-year-booster programme
Vaccination–challenge study (cats, vectored vaccine)
Who: Seronegative cats vaccinated at 12 weeks of age with a non-adjuvanted canarypoxvirus-vectored recombinant rabies vaccine, with a booster vaccination one year later; antibody responses were followed and the animals were then challenged with virulent rabies virus 3 years after vaccination. The abstract does not state group sizes.
Result: The regimen induced a strong and sustained antibody response, and all vaccinated animals were protected against the virulent rabies challenge carried out 3 years after vaccination. The authors conclude the results validated a 3-year duration of immunity after a complete basic vaccination programme — primary vaccination from 12 weeks of age followed by revaccination one year later — supporting boosters every three years thereafter.
Watch out: Read the regimen, not just the interval: the 3-year claim is anchored to primary vaccination PLUS the one-year booster, not to a single kitten dose — dropping the one-year booster is not what this trial tested. Manufacturer programme (the vaccine is Merial's Purevax line technology), group sizes not stated in the abstract, and antibody titres plus challenge in colony cats are best-case conditions.
Jas D et al. Three-year duration of immunity in cats vaccinated with a canarypox-vectored recombinant rabies virus vaccine. Vaccine. 2012;30(49):6991-6. PMID: 23059358. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Canarypox virus · Cat Diseases · Cats · Genetic Vectors · Immunologic Memory · Rabies · Rabies Vaccines · Rabies virus · Time Factors · Vaccination · Vaccines, Synthetic
Stachura 2025: a single dose of a non-adjuvanted RNA-particle rabies vaccine at 12 weeks protected 100% of dogs and cats beyond 3 years
Vaccination–challenge programme (dogs and cats, RNA-particle vaccine)
Who: Dogs and cats in a multi-study development programme for a low-volume (0.5 mL), non-adjuvanted alphavirus (VEEV TC-83-derived) RNA-particle vaccine expressing the rabies virus glycoprotein: graded-dose experiments in both species, vaccination–challenge studies after a single dose at 12 weeks of age, and field safety studies in animals as young as 12 weeks using two vaccine serials at the field dose.
Result: In graded dose experiments the vaccine induced neutralizing levels of antibodies in cats and dogs. In vaccination/challenge studies, 100% protection from virulent rabies was demonstrated in excess of three years post-vaccination from a single dose at 12 weeks of age in both dogs and cats. Young kittens and puppies were vaccinated without serious adverse effects, and field safety studies with two serials confirmed safety at the field dose. The authors present the vaccine as combining a non-adjuvanted safety profile with at least three years' duration of immunity from one dose.
Watch out: A novel platform in its own manufacturer's programme: the 100% figure is real challenge data, but group sizes and per-study detail sit in the full text, not the abstract, and the record carries no MeSH headings (noted per this library's identifier standard). This vaccine is not the inactivated product most dogs and cats currently receive — its three-year single-dose result supports the interval's plausibility, not a promise about every licensed product.
Stachura K et al. A Novel, Safe, Non-Adjuvanted Alphavirus RNA Particle Vaccine Expressing the Rabies Virus Glycoprotein Induces a Three-Year Duration of Immunity in Dogs and Cats After a Single Vaccine Dose. Vaccines. 2025;13(12):1176. PMID: 41441643. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: none in the record.
Synthesis: three challenge programmes say three years is real — field serology answers a different question
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Lakshmanan 2006 (dogs, killed vaccine, 88% protected at 3 years), Jas 2012 (cats, canarypox-vectored, all protected after primary + 1-year booster), Stachura 2025 (dogs and cats, RNA-particle, 100% beyond 3 years after one dose).
Result: Across three platforms and both species, virulent-challenge evidence supports a genuine three-year duration of immunity — the interval on the label is earned, provided the basic programme is completed (in cats, that includes the one-year booster). Two field studies are fenced here rather than carded, because they measure antibody titres in free-roaming populations, not challenge protection: in Africa and Asia most vaccinated dogs seroconverted, but population immunity attrits through turnover and waning, leading those authors to recommend repeat campaigns within two years for rabies CONTROL (Morters 2014, PMID 25393023); in Cambodia, modelled serological protection after a primary course lasted a mean 4.7 years in 82% of dogs (Auerswald 2024, PMID 38635851). Campaign strategy in endemic regions and individual booster intervals in owned animals are different questions — this shelf answers the second.
Watch out: Every challenge card is a manufacturer programme in colony animals under best-case conditions; no independent group has run a 3-year rabies challenge. The correct use of this shelf is confidence in the 3-year interval for a properly vaccinated owned dog or cat — not a reason to stretch intervals further, and not evidence about animals vaccinated while ill, malnourished, or very young.
Synthesis of Lakshmanan N et al. Vet Ther. 2006. PMID: 17039445; Jas D et al. Vaccine. 2012. PMID: 23059358; Stachura K et al. Vaccines. 2025. PMID: 41441643. Fenced field-serology records: Morters MK et al. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014. PMID: 25393023; Auerswald H et al. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2024. PMID: 38635851. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #25 in the build order
Does Bordetella bronchiseptica vaccination prevent kennel cough in dogs, how large is the benefit in real-world settings, and how long does protection last?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
LIKELY: Bordetella vaccination prevents kennel cough — decisively under controlled conditions, modestly in the mess of a real shelter, and the modesty is carded on this shelf's face. A single oral dose completely prevented disease on aerosol challenge 13 months later (0 of 17 vaccinates versus 13 of 17 placebo dogs met the case definition; prevented fraction 1.0; Scott-Garrard 2020). In closed-kennel field trials an intranasal trivalent vaccine was 71.2% (epizootic winter) and 81.8% (endemic summer) effective against coughing (Glickman & Appel 1981). But in 972 dogs entering a humane shelter, intranasal vaccines cut coughing by only about a fifth to a quarter relative to placebo (10.7% and 10.2% versus 13.5%; P=0.37, not significant), with days spent in the shelter the strongest risk factor (Edinboro 2004). Direction is the same in all three settings; size depends on exposure pressure and baseline incidence — which is why this is LIKELY, not a stronger word. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #25); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Scott-Garrard 2020: one oral dose prevented all disease on challenge 13 months later (0/17 vs 13/17 placebo)
Vaccination–challenge study (duration of immunity, oral vaccine)
Who: Two groups of approximately eight-week-old beagles, vaccinated once orally with 1 ml of placebo (n=17) or 1 ml of Recombitek Oral Bordetella (n=17); thirteen months after vaccination both groups were challenged with virulent Bordetella bronchiseptica by aerosolisation. The disease case definition was spontaneous cough on two or more consecutive days; coughing days, cough duration, and tracheal and nasal shedding were also recorded.
Result: Thirteen of 17 dogs in the placebo group (76.5%) and no dogs in the vaccine group (0.0%) developed spontaneous cough of two or more consecutive days. Dogs in the vaccine group had a significantly lower prevalence of disease, with a prevented fraction of 1 (100% prevention). The number of days coughing, the duration of cough, and the prevalence of tracheal and nasal shedding were also significantly lower in vaccinated dogs. The authors conclude a single oral dose is effective in preventing disease and reducing shedding 13 months after vaccination.
Watch out: Seventeen dogs per arm in a manufacturer's challenge programme: a prevented fraction of 1.0 in 17 dogs is compatible with true efficacy meaningfully below 100%, and an aerosol challenge in colony beagles is not a boarding kennel. The record carries no MeSH headings (noted per this library's identifier standard). What the trial genuinely establishes is duration — protection intact at 13 months — for this oral product.
Scott-Garrard M et al. Thirteen-month duration of immunity of an oral canine vaccine against challenge with Bordetella bronchiseptica. Vet Rec Open. 2020. PMID: 33093964. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: none in the record.
Glickman & Appel 1981: intranasal trivalent vaccine was 71.2% (winter) and 81.8% (summer) effective against coughing in kennel field trials
Placebo-controlled field trials (two seasons, closed kennel)
Who: Dogs in a closed commercial beagle breeding kennel, in two field trials run during periods of endemic (summer) and epizootic (winter) canine infectious tracheobronchitis activity, evaluating three intranasal vaccines against placebo; the trivalent vaccine — Bordetella bronchiseptica, canine parainfluenza and canine adenovirus-2 — was administered at 3 weeks of age. The abstract does not state group sizes.
Result: The trivalent vaccine was 71.2% and 81.8% effective in decreasing the incidence of coughing during the winter and summer trials, respectively. The number of deaths was lower in each of the vaccine groups than in the placebo groups. No adverse reactions were observed with any of the intranasal vaccines.
Watch out: A 1981 trial in puppies in one closed breeding kennel, of a trivalent product — the efficacy belongs to the combination (Bordetella plus two viral components against a multi-pathogen syndrome), not to the Bordetella component alone, and group sizes are not in the abstract. Kennel cough is a syndrome, not a single-agent disease: no vaccine covers all of its causes.
Glickman LT, Appel MJ. Intranasal vaccine trial for canine infectious tracheobronchitis (kennel cough). Lab Anim Sci. 1981. PMID: 6273648. Registry ID: none in the record's databank fields (pre-registration-era trial). MeSH: Adenoviridae · Administration, Intranasal · Animals · Bacterial Vaccines · Bordetella · Bronchitis · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Respirovirus · Seasons · Tracheitis · Vaccines · Viral Vaccines
Edinboro 2004: in 972 shelter dogs, intranasal vaccines cut coughing only ~21–24% relative to placebo — not significant (P=0.37)
Placebo-controlled field trial (humane shelter)
Who: 972 healthy dogs admitted to a humane shelter without respiratory signs, assigned daily on a rotating basis to one of two intranasal vaccines (Bordetella bronchiseptica plus canine parainfluenza, with [IN-BPA] or without [IN-BP] canine adenovirus type 2) or a placebo intranasal vaccine, and monitored for up to 30 days after vaccination for coughing and other respiratory signs.
Result: Spontaneous coughing for at least one day within 30 days occurred in 33 dogs (10.7%) in the IN-BP group, 36 (10.2%) in the IN-BPA group, and 42 (13.5%) in the placebo group (P=0.37). The IN-BP and IN-BPA vaccines were 20.7% and 24.4% effective (relative) respectively in reducing coughing compared with placebo. The strongest prognostic factor for coughing, regardless of vaccine group, was the number of days spent at the shelter, with each additional day increasing the risk of coughing by 3%. The authors note the low incidence of coughing during the study precluded observation of differences in vaccine effectiveness. No differences in vaccine-associated adverse events were noted.
Watch out: This is the honest field-modesty card: the largest, most real-world trial found a small, statistically non-significant benefit. Allocation was by daily rotation rather than strict randomisation, overall coughing incidence was low (10–13.5%), and vaccination on shelter entry leaves little time for immunity before exposure peaks — all reasons the shelter number understates what pre-exposure vaccination (the boarding/daycare use case) can do, and none of them turn 24% into 80%.
Edinboro CH et al. A placebo-controlled trial of two intranasal vaccines to prevent tracheobronchitis (kennel cough) in dogs entering a humane shelter. Prev Vet Med. 2004. PMID: 15156996. Registry ID: none in the record's databank fields. MeSH: Adenoviridae · Administration, Intranasal · Animals · Bordetella bronchiseptica · Bronchitis · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Housing, Animal · Male · Parainfluenza Virus 1, Human · Treatment Outcome · Vaccination · Vaccines
Synthesis: prevention is real, its size is setting-dependent — challenge 100%, kennel 71–82%, shelter ~21–24% (relative)
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Scott-Garrard 2020 (challenge, 13-month duration), Glickman & Appel 1981 (closed-kennel field trials), Edinboro 2004 (972-dog shelter field trial).
Result: Read together, the three settings tell one coherent story: Bordetella vaccination builds protection that is complete against a defined challenge a year later, large (roughly three-quarters) against natural exposure in a stable kennel population vaccinated ahead of exposure, and small when dogs are vaccinated at the shelter door amid continuous high-pressure exposure with a low overall attack rate. The practical reading for owned dogs — vaccinated before boarding, daycare, shows or grooming — is closer to the kennel end of that range than the shelter end; for shelter intake protocols, the Edinboro card is the governing evidence and expectations should be set by it.
Watch out: Do not quote the challenge prevented fraction (1.0) or the kennel percentages as the expected benefit for an individual dog entering a high-exposure environment: the only trial run in that environment measured about a quarter relative reduction, not statistically significant. Duration evidence (13 months) exists for the oral product only; intranasal and injectable products carry their own programme data, not carded here.
Synthesis of Scott-Garrard M et al. Vet Rec Open. 2020. PMID: 33093964; Glickman LT, Appel MJ. Lab Anim Sci. 1981. PMID: 6273648; Edinboro CH et al. Prev Vet Med. 2004. PMID: 15156996. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #26 in the build order
Do oral isoxazoline acaricides prevent Lyme disease transmission — do they kill Ixodes scapularis fast enough to block Borrelia burgdorferi infection in dogs?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and displayed under the developer's blinded-trial rule
LIKELY: Oral isoxazolines kill Ixodes scapularis fast enough to block Borrelia burgdorferi transmission — shown in three randomised, controlled laboratory transmission studies across two molecules. Afoxolaner (Baker 2016): no live ticks on treated dogs 5 days after infestation with ~50 wild-caught ticks (67% infected), and all 10 treated dogs stayed seronegative through day 92 while 9 of 10 controls seroconverted. Sarolaner (Honsberger 2016): a single dose prevented transmission when dogs were infested 21 or 28 days later — negative antibody, PCR and culture — while transmission was confirmed in all 8 placebo dogs. The afoxolaner combination product replicated the result in two further studies (Prullage 2025): 100% tick efficacy, 10 of 10 controls seroconverting in each study, no treated dog biopsy-positive. The limits are printed on the cards: laboratory infestations in purpose-bred dogs, manufacturer programmes, and infection (seroconversion) as the endpoint — clinical Lyme disease itself was not an outcome in any study. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #26); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Baker 2016: afoxolaner-treated dogs had no live ticks and zero infections (0/10) versus 9/10 controls seroconverted
Randomized, blinded, negative-controlled transmission study
Who: Twenty healthy dogs randomly assigned to two groups of ten: one treated orally on day 0 with afoxolaner (NexGard) near the minimum recommended dose (actual doses 2.5–3.1 mg/kg), one untreated control group. On day 28 each dog was infested with approximately 50 adult unfed wild-caught Ixodes scapularis with a 67% Borrelia burgdorferi infection rate by PCR. Live ticks were counted and removed on day 33; serum C6 antibody (SNAP 4Dx) was tested before infestation (all dogs seronegative) and on days 48, 63, 77 and 92. The study was randomised, blinded and negative-controlled.
Result: No ticks were found on treated dogs, while control dogs had an average of 21.4 ticks. The ten treated dogs remained seronegative through the end of the study (day 92), while nine of the ten control dogs were infected, as shown by seroconversion to C6 antibody starting on day 48. The authors conclude all dogs treated with afoxolaner 28 days prior to challenge with wild-caught I. scapularis were protected from B. burgdorferi infection.
Watch out: A heavy artificial challenge (~50 ticks at once) in purpose-bred dogs, run in the manufacturer's programme (McCall laboratory/Merial): the direction and completeness are striking, but the endpoint is infection by serology, not clinical Lyme disease — most seroconverting dogs never become ill, so this card proves transmission blocking, not prevention of sickness. One untreated control dog also escaped infection, a reminder that even 50 infected-rate ticks do not guarantee transmission.
Baker CF et al. Ability of an oral formulation of afoxolaner to protect dogs from Borrelia burgdorferi infection transmitted by wild Ixodes scapularis ticks. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016. PMID: 27865266. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Acaricides · Administration, Oral · Animals · Antibodies, Bacterial · Borrelia burgdorferi · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Isoxazoles · Ixodes · Lyme Disease · Naphthalenes · Tick Infestations
Honsberger 2016: a single sarolaner dose blocked Borrelia (and Anaplasma) transmission 21–28 days later — all 8 placebo dogs were infected
Placebo-controlled laboratory transmission study
Who: Twenty-four purpose-bred laboratory beagles seronegative for Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum antibodies, allocated randomly to placebo (oral, days 0 and 7) or sarolaner (Simparica) 2 mg/kg on day 0 (28 days before infestation) or day 7 (21 days before infestation). On day 28 each dog was infested with approximately 25 female and 25 male wild-caught adult I. scapularis (57% B. burgdorferi and 6.7% A. phagocytophilum prevalence by PCR). Ticks were counted in situ on days 29 and 30 and removed on day 33; blood was tested by SNAP 4Dx Plus and quantitative ELISA, and day-104 skin biopsies by culture and PCR.
Result: Reductions in geometric mean live tick counts versus placebo were 86.3%, 100% and 100% at 1, 2 and 5 days after infestation for the group treated 21 days before infestation, and 90.9%, 97.1% and 100% for the group treated 28 days before (all count days P<0.0001). Transmission of B. burgdorferi to all eight placebo-treated dogs was confirmed by positive antibody (6 of 8), PCR (7 of 8) and/or culture (7 of 8), and A. phagocytophilum transmission by antibodies in four placebo dogs. In contrast, a single sarolaner dose prevented transmission of B. burgdorferi at both intervals (negative antibody, PCR and culture) and of A. phagocytophilum (negative antibodies in all treated dogs). There were no adverse reactions to sarolaner.
Watch out: Eight dogs per group in the manufacturer's (Zoetis) programme; the two timing arms (21 vs 28 days) both sit inside the monthly dosing interval, so the study says nothing about protection late in an extended interval or after missed doses. As with the afoxolaner card, the endpoint is infection, not clinical disease.
Honsberger NA et al. Efficacy of sarolaner in the prevention of Borrelia burgdorferi and Anaplasma phagocytophilum transmission from infected Ixodes scapularis to dogs. Vet Parasitol. 2016. PMID: 26906926. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Acaricides · Anaplasma phagocytophilum · Animals · Antibodies, Bacterial · Arachnid Vectors · Borrelia burgdorferi · Disease Transmission, Infectious · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Ehrlichiosis · Female · Isoxazoles · Ixodes · Lyme Disease · Male · Tick Infestations · Treatment Outcome
Prullage 2025: the afoxolaner combination replicated complete transmission blocking in two studies (10/10 controls seroconverted in each)
Two randomized, negative-controlled transmission studies (combination product)
Who: Two studies of the oral combination afoxolaner/moxidectin/pyrantel (NexGard Plus), each with 20 dogs randomly assigned to the combination (at a dose close to the minimum recommended 2.5 mg/kg afoxolaner) or negative control (10 per group). Twenty-eight days after treatment each dog was infested with approximately 50 Ixodes scapularis with B. burgdorferi infection rates of 60% (study 1) and 38.5% (study 2); ticks were counted and removed five days later. C6 antibody was followed by SNAP 4Dx and Lyme Quant C6 testing, and skin biopsies at 76 days post-infestation were tested by quantitative PCR for B. burgdorferi DNA.
Result: On the day of count and removal, no ticks were found on treated dogs, while control dogs averaged 25.1 ticks (study 1) and 19.6 ticks (study 2) — efficacy 100% (P≤0.0001). Ten of 10 control dogs in both studies seroconverted by the end of the study. None of the skin biopsies from treated dogs were positive for B. burgdorferi DNA, while at least three of the four skin biopsies from each control dog tested positive. No clinical signs of Lyme disease were detected in any dog. The authors conclude the combination is effective 28 days after a single treatment in preventing B. burgdorferi transmission from naturally infected I. scapularis.
Watch out: A replication inside the same manufacturer's programme as the first card — it confirms the afoxolaner result for the combination product rather than independently validating the class. 'No clinical signs in any dog' includes the infected controls: infection and illness are different endpoints, and this shelf claims only the first.
Prullage J et al. The ability of an oral combination of afoxolaner, moxidectin and pyrantel to protect dogs from Borrelia burgdorferi infections transmitted by Ixodes scapularis. Parasit Vectors. 2025. PMID: 40259302. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Dogs · Ixodes · Lyme Disease · Dog Diseases · Borrelia burgdorferi · Macrolides · Tick Infestations · Pyrantel · Isoxazoles · Naphthalenes · Female · Male · Administration, Oral · Acaricides
Synthesis: three studies, two molecules, complete transmission blocking at label timing — infection prevented; clinical disease untested
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Baker 2016 (afoxolaner, 20 dogs), Honsberger 2016 (sarolaner, 24 beagles), Prullage 2025 (afoxolaner combination, two studies of 20 dogs). Two records are fenced below.
Result: The class mechanism is speed of kill: ticks die within 1–2 days of attachment, before Borrelia's typical transmission window closes, and every transmission study carded here found complete prevention of infection when infestation fell inside the dosing interval (21–28 days post-dose). Two records are fenced rather than carded: the fluralaner speed-of-kill study against the European tick Ixodes ricinus (Wengenmayer 2014, PMID 25406442) supports the mechanism — 100% kill by 12 and 24 hours after treatment, and at least 98.1% efficacy at 12 and 24 hours after re-infestation over the full 12 weeks (but only 45.8% at 8 hours after re-infestation by week 12) — but measured no transmission endpoint; and a fluralaner study in wild Peromyscus mice (Pelletier 2020, PMID 32054498) is a wildlife-reservoir intervention, not dog evidence. Lyme vaccination (OspA) is a different prevention route, home on hub topic #55, and general flea/tick efficacy is Shelf #7 — this shelf is only about transmission blocking.
Watch out: All carded studies are manufacturer programmes using laboratory infestations; no field study has measured Lyme infection incidence in treated owned dogs, and none of these trials could measure clinical Lyme disease (the infected controls stayed well). Late-interval and missed-dose protection are untested here.
Synthesis of Baker CF et al. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016. PMID: 27865266; Honsberger NA et al. Vet Parasitol. 2016. PMID: 26906926; Prullage J et al. Parasit Vectors. 2025. PMID: 40259302. Fenced: Wengenmayer C et al. Parasit Vectors. 2014. PMID: 25406442 (speed of kill, no transmission endpoint); Pelletier J et al. Parasit Vectors. 2020. PMID: 32054498 (wildlife reservoir study, not dogs). Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #27 in the build order
Does canine influenza vaccination prevent disease in dogs — or reduce its severity, duration and shedding — for the H3N8 and H3N2 subtypes?
POSSIBLE proposed stamp — gate-verified and displayed under the developer's blinded-trial rule
POSSIBLE: Canine influenza vaccines soften the disease rather than prevent infection — and every card on this shelf says exactly that. Across three challenge studies covering both subtypes and three platforms — two of them randomised (Deshpande 2009, Classe 2024) and one, Lee 2010, a challenge study whose record states no randomisation — vaccinated dogs had significantly less severe and shorter clinical signs, shed less virus for fewer days, and had milder lung lesions than controls: the inactivated H3N8 vaccine (Deshpande 2009; clinical-sign severity P<.001, shedding magnitude and duration P<.0001), an inactivated avian-origin H3N2 vaccine whose vaccinates showed no clinical signs at all on challenge (Lee 2010), and an RNA-particle H3N2 vaccine that significantly reduced sign duration, shedding, lung consolidation and suppurative pneumonia (Classe 2024). No card shows sterilising protection, no field-effectiveness trial exists, and all three studies are small manufacturer-programme challenges in purpose-bred puppies — POSSIBLE. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #27); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Deshpande 2009: inactivated H3N8 vaccine significantly reduced clinical-sign severity (P<.001) and shedding (P<.0001) after challenge
Randomised vaccination–challenge study (H3N8, inactivated vaccine)
Who: Canine-influenza-seronegative beagle pups, 6 to 8 weeks old: one group vaccinated with two doses of an inactivated H3N8 canine influenza vaccine 3 weeks apart, a second group given adjuvanted placebo. All pups were challenged with a virulent H3N8 isolate 13 days after the second vaccination and monitored for clinical signs of respiratory disease, virus shedding and lung consolidation; antibody titres were measured by haemagglutination inhibition. The abstract does not state group sizes.
Result: Vaccinated pups developed haemagglutination-inhibition antibody titres after vaccination. The severity of clinical signs (P<.001) and the magnitude and duration of virus shedding (P<.0001) were significantly lower in vaccinated pups compared with control pups. The authors conclude the vaccine provides protection against virulent canine influenza challenge in dogs.
Watch out: Read the endpoint precisely: severity and shedding were reduced — infection was not prevented, and no percentages or group sizes appear in the abstract, so the size of the benefit cannot be quoted from this record. A licensure challenge in young purpose-bred pups, challenged 13 days after the second dose (peak immunity), says nothing about protection a year later or in adult owned dogs.
Deshpande MS et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of a canine influenza virus (H3N8) vaccine in dogs following experimental challenge. Vet Ther. 2009;10:103-112. PMID: 20037964. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Antibodies, Viral · Antigens, Viral · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Hemagglutination Inhibition Tests · Immunohistochemistry · Influenza A Virus, H3N8 Subtype · Influenza Vaccines · Lung · Male · Orthomyxoviridae Infections · Vaccines, Inactivated · Virus Shedding
Lee 2010: inactivated H3N2 vaccine — vaccinates showed no clinical signs on challenge, with milder lung lesions and shorter, lighter shedding
Vaccination–challenge study (H3N2, inactivated vaccine)
Who: Beagle puppies given two intramuscular injections of a formalin-inactivated avian-origin H3N2 canine influenza vaccine with a synthetic polymer adjuvant, 2 weeks apart, or left unvaccinated; two weeks after the second vaccination the dogs were challenged intranasally with virulent H3N2 virus. Antibody responses were measured by haemagglutination inhibition and ELISA; clinical signs, virus shedding and histopathological lung lesions were compared. The abstract does not state group sizes.
Result: A significant increase in antibody titre was displayed 2 weeks after the second vaccination. Clinical signs, virus shedding and histopathological lesions in the lungs were exhibited in unvaccinated puppies after challenge; the vaccinated animals did not show any clinical signs and showed milder pathological lung lesions and shorter shedding duration with lower loads than controls. The authors conclude the vaccine produced an antibody response and protection from avian-origin canine influenza challenge.
Watch out: A qualitative abstract — 'no clinical signs' in vaccinates is a strong sentence, but with no group sizes, counts or P values in the record it cannot be weighted like the quantified studies, and shedding was reduced, not abolished: vaccinated dogs still shed virus, which matters for outbreak control claims.
Lee C et al. Protective efficacy and immunogenicity of an inactivated avian-origin H3N2 canine influenza vaccine in dogs challenged with the virulent virus. Vet Microbiol. 2010. PMID: 20034748. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype · Influenza Vaccines · Orthomyxoviridae Infections · Vaccines, Inactivated · Virulence
Classe 2024: RNA-particle H3N2 vaccine significantly reduced sign duration, shedding, lung consolidation and suppurative pneumonia (20 vs 20 dogs)
Randomised placebo-controlled vaccination–challenge study (H3N2, RNA-particle vaccine)
Who: Dogs randomised to two subcutaneous doses, 21 days apart, of a placebo vaccine (n=20) or an alphavirus RNA-particle canine influenza H3N2 vaccine (n=20); three weeks later they were challenged intranasally with virulent H3N2 and observed daily for 10 days for clinical signs, with daily nasal swabs for shedding; at day 10 the lungs were examined for consolidation. A separate multi-region field safety study observed dogs for 14 days after each of two doses.
Result: Vaccination demonstrated a significant reduction in the duration of clinical signs, the duration and amount of virus shed, lung consolidation, and the incidence of suppurative pneumonia compared with placebo. In the safety study the vaccine was deemed safe, with lethargy the most reported adverse event, at a rate of 1.6%.
Watch out: The quantified design (20 per arm, placebo-controlled) is the best on this shelf, but the abstract reports significance without effect sizes, and the product is a novel RNA-particle platform from its manufacturer's programme — the same platform family as the rabies candidate on Shelf #24. The record carries no MeSH headings (noted per this library's identifier standard).
Classe HM et al. Efficacy and Safety in Dogs Following Administration of an Alphavirus RNA Particle Canine Influenza H3N2 Vaccine. Vaccines. 2024. PMID: 39460305. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: none in the record.
Synthesis: severity and shedding fall in every challenge study; infection is not prevented and field effectiveness is unmeasured
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Deshpande 2009 (H3N8 inactivated), Lee 2010 (H3N2 inactivated), Classe 2024 (H3N2 RNA-particle). One further study is fenced below.
Result: The consistent claim the evidence supports is mitigation: vaccinated dogs challenged with either canine influenza subtype get less sick, for fewer days, with less lung damage and less virus shed. That is a real benefit in kennels, shelters and outbreaks — shorter shedding plausibly slows spread — but no study here measured transmission, outbreak size, or effectiveness in owned dogs, and none showed infection prevented. A cochallenge study of the H3N8 vaccine against canine influenza plus Streptococcus equi subsp. zooepidemicus (Larson 2011, PMID 21346059) is fenced rather than carded: its PubMed record's abstract sets out the design without reporting outcome figures, so this library cannot put verified numbers on it.
Watch out: Do not let 'the flu shot works' be quoted from this shelf as infection prevention: the honest sentence is 'vaccinated dogs challenged with canine influenza had significantly milder, shorter disease and shed less virus.' Subtype match also matters — H3N8 evidence does not cover H3N2 and vice versa; each card names its subtype.
Synthesis of Deshpande MS et al. Vet Ther. 2009. PMID: 20037964; Lee C et al. Vet Microbiol. 2010. PMID: 20034748; Classe HM et al. Vaccines. 2024. PMID: 39460305. Fenced: Larson LJ et al. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2011. PMID: 21346059 (cochallenge study; abstract reports design without outcome figures). Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #28 in the build order
Does a single sustained-release moxidectin injection protect dogs against heartworm for its full extended interval in the field — and does the injection solve the monthly-compliance problem?
POSSIBLE proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
POSSIBLE: The sustained-release moxidectin injection's own field evidence is one small study with a striking result: in hyperendemic Canary Islands hunting kennels (heartworm prevalence 11–57%), all 20 treated dogs given a SINGLE injection stayed heartworm-negative on antigen and Knott's testing at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, while kennel prevalence around them stayed at 14–47% (Quintana-Mayor 2024; the authors conclude protection for up to 18 months). The molecule's end-of-interval efficacy against even the resistant JYD-34 isolate (99.5%) is laboratory evidence housed on Shelf #1 and cross-pointed, not re-carded here. What this shelf adds is the delivery claim — one injection removes the monthly-dosing compliance failure that drives most real-world heartworm cases, a point the moxidectin review literature supports qualitatively. But the field study had no parallel untreated control group and only 20 dogs of one breed in one region, so the extended-duration field claim is POSSIBLE. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #28); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Quintana-Mayor 2024: one SR moxidectin injection — 20 of 20 dogs still heartworm-negative at every test through 24 months in hyperendemic kennels
Field study (single-arm, hyperendemic kennels)
Who: Field study across 11 hunting kennels in the Canary Islands, a hyperendemic region: 109 outdoor Canary Hound dogs, none receiving heartworm prophylaxis, with Dirofilaria immitis prevalence ranging from 11.1% to 57.1% (average 36.7%). Among them, 20 clinically healthy, heartworm-negative dogs were randomly selected to receive a single subcutaneous injection of sustained-release moxidectin microspheres (Guardian SR) at 0.17 mg/kg. Antigen and Knott's tests were performed at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months.
Result: All dogs completed the study without adverse reactions and remained heartworm-negative throughout. By the end of the study, kennel heartworm prevalence ranged from 14.3% to 46.7% (average 35.4%) — transmission pressure around the treated dogs persisted for the whole period. The authors conclude that a single subcutaneous dose of moxidectin SR at the recommended dosage may prevent patent heartworm infection in dogs for up to 18 months in hyperendemic regions, that further studies are required to confirm the findings, and that extending the efficacy period could improve owner compliance.
Watch out: No parallel untreated control group was followed — the persistent kennel prevalence is an ecological backdrop, not a randomised comparator — and 20 dogs of a single breed in a single region is a thin base for a duration claim. Note the authors' own caution: despite negative tests at 24 months, they conclude 'up to 18 months'. The record carries no MeSH headings (noted per this library's identifier standard).
Quintana-Mayor AI et al. Efficacy of Sustained-Release Formulation of Moxidectin (Guardian SR) in Preventing Heartworm Infection over 18 Months in Dogs Living in a Hyperendemic Area. Animals. 2024. DOI: 10.3390/ani14203001. PMID: 39457932. Registry ID: none — field studies of this kind are not registered. MeSH: none in the record.
Synthesis: the injection's efficacy is Shelf #1's evidence; this shelf's claim is duration in the field plus the compliance mechanism — POSSIBLE
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the card above: Quintana-Mayor 2024 (20 treated dogs, hyperendemic field setting). The laboratory efficacy base and the compliance literature are fenced/cross-pointed below, not re-carded.
Result: This shelf is the delivery-method branch of Shelf #1 (heartworm prevention, LIKELY), and the one-home rule keeps the molecule's proof there: the end-of-interval challenge study against the macrocyclic-lactone-resistant JYD-34 isolate — 99.5% efficacy when infection was timed 2 days before the end-of-period injection (Bowman 2017, PMID 29143654) — is carded on Shelf #1 and is not repeated here. What belongs to this shelf alone: (1) field duration — a single injection kept 20 of 20 dogs negative through at least 18 months under continuous hyperendemic exposure; (2) the compliance mechanism — the moxidectin review literature reports that compliance with the 6- and 12-month extended-release injectables was higher than with monthly preventives in retrospective analyses (Mwacalimba 2024, PMID 38978634, a narrative review, fenced here rather than carded), which matters because non-compliance, not drug failure, is the major driver of heartworm cases where prevention is available.
Watch out: Do not cite this shelf for the molecule's efficacy — that verdict lives on Shelf #1. And do not stretch the field study past its design: one region, one breed, 20 dogs, no control arm. A controlled field trial or a second region's data would be needed to raise the duration claim above POSSIBLE.
Synthesis of Quintana-Mayor AI et al. Animals. 2024. PMID: 39457932. Cross-pointed (carded on Shelf #1): Bowman DD et al. Parasit Vectors. 2017. PMID: 29143654. Fenced: Mwacalimba K et al. Front Vet Sci. 2024. PMID: 38978634 (narrative review — compliance direction only). Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Cats · Shelf #29 in the build order
Does macrocyclic-lactone prevention (selamectin) keep cats free of heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis)?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and displayed under the developer's blinded-trial rule
LIKELY: The feline half of the selamectin development programme (McTier 2000) is small but unambiguous: in two controlled studies, cats inoculated with heartworm larvae and given a single topical dose of selamectin (minimum 6 mg/kg) 30 days later were 100% protected against adult heartworm development, while 88% of vehicle-control cats became infected — at the low feline worm burdens (geometric mean 2.1 worms) that are nonetheless enough to cause serious lung disease in this species. The record is indexed as a randomized controlled trial and used an inert-vehicle negative control. What the shelf cannot claim: field effectiveness in owned cats, and any duration beyond the monthly dosing the label assumes — the study tested a single dose against a single inoculation. Cats are not small dogs for this parasite — few worms, no safe adulticide — which is why a prevention shelf exists for them at all. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #29); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
McTier 2000: a single selamectin dose was 100% effective in cats; 88% of vehicle-control cats developed adult heartworms
Randomised controlled laboratory challenge studies (two, cats)
Who: Heartworm-free cats in two controlled laboratory studies (within a six-study programme spanning dogs and cats), inoculated with Dirofilaria immitis infective larvae and treated topically 30 days after inoculation with unit doses providing a minimum of 6 mg/kg selamectin, or with a negative control containing the inert formulation vehicle. Some cats were shampooed 24 hours after treatment. Animals were examined for adult heartworms between 140 and 199 days after inoculation. The record is indexed as a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Result: Adult heartworms developed in 88% of control cats (geometric mean count 2.1 worms). Selamectin was 100% effective against heartworm infection in cats when administered as a single topical unit dose of 6 mg/kg at 30 days after infection. Shampooing at 24 hours after treatment did not reduce efficacy. The authors conclude that at the recommended dosage and interval, a single topical administration of selamectin was 100% effective in preventing development of D. immitis in cats.
Watch out: A laboratory inoculation, a single dose, and a 100% figure from small controlled groups — the honest reading is 'completely protective under challenge conditions', not a promise about every owned cat. The two feline studies are one programme's data; there is no independent feline replication and no field-effectiveness trial. The low control worm burden (geometric mean 2.1) is itself the feline story: cats are semi-resistant hosts in whom even one or two worms matter clinically.
McTier TL, Shanks DJ, Watson P, McCall JW, Genchi C, Six RH, et al. Prevention of experimentally induced heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis) infections in dogs and cats with a single topical application of selamectin. Vet Parasitol. 2000. PMID: 10940527. Registry ID: none — pre-registration-era animal trial. MeSH: Administration, Topical · Animals · Anthelmintics · Cat Diseases · Cats · Dirofilaria immitis · Dirofilariasis · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Drug Administration Schedule · Italy · Ivermectin · United States
Synthesis: prevention is the whole feline strategy, and the challenge evidence for it is complete — LIKELY
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the card above: McTier 2000, the two feline studies within the selamectin programme (the canine studies from the same paper are carded on Shelf #1).
Result: Under controlled inoculation, monthly-class prevention with selamectin stopped every feline infection (100% efficacy at 30 days post-inoculation dosing) in a host where 88% of untreated controls became infected at low burdens. Because cats tolerate only small worm numbers and lack a safe adulticide option, this prevention result carries more clinical weight per worm than the equivalent canine figure. LIKELY: one programme, small groups, laboratory conditions — but a total effect on the exact endpoint the shelf claims, with an indexed randomised design and a vehicle control.
Watch out: The shelf verifies prevention efficacy, not which cats need it — that turns on local mosquito-driven prevalence and indoor/outdoor exposure. It also says nothing about the combination and newer products marketed for cats; their data were not carded here.
Synthesis of McTier TL et al. Vet Parasitol. 2000. PMID: 10940527. Registry ID as on the individual card. Cross-point: Shelf #1 (heartworm prevention in dogs, including the resistance-isolate story).
Prevention · Cats · Shelf #30 in the build order
Do dental chews or diets reduce plaque, calculus and gingivitis in cats?
POSSIBLE proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
POSSIBLE: Two small crossover studies, eighteen years apart in design lineage, agree that adding a tested dental chew to a dry diet reduces plaque and calculus accumulation and gingivitis severity in cats. Ingham 2002 (indexed as a randomized controlled trial) used a two-period crossover with four-week phases and found the daily chew effective on all three measures; Gorrel 1998 found significantly less plaque and calculus in 15 client-owned cats when the same kind of chew was added to a dry diet. Neither abstract prints effect magnitudes, and neither establishes blinded scoring — so the claim is directional, the stamp is POSSIBLE, and the shelf is explicit that 'ordinary kibble cleans teeth' is not what any of this shows: the trials tested specific chews added to a diet, and the dry-versus-wet question is not answered by the carded records. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #30); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Ingham 2002: in a two-period crossover, a daily dental chew reduced plaque, calculus and gingivitis severity in cats
Randomised controlled crossover trial (indexed RCT)
Who: Cats fed either a dry diet only or the same dry diet supplemented with dental chews, in a two-period crossover design with four-week test phases (the record's abstract does not report the number of cats). Setting: controlled feeding study; accumulation of dental substrates and gingivitis development scored in both periods. The record is indexed as a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Result: The daily addition of dental chews to a dry diet was effective in reducing plaque and calculus accumulation on tooth surfaces, as well as reducing the severity of gingivitis, compared with the dry diet alone. The abstract reports the direction and effectiveness of the effect without percentages or index values. The authors frame such adjuncts as improving gingival health between professional oral health assessments, not replacing them.
Watch out: No magnitudes in the record — a reader cannot tell whether the reduction is large or barely detectable, and the card does not guess. Four-week phases in a crossover measure accumulation rate, like the canine clean-tooth studies on Shelves #8 and #57; they do not show long-term periodontal outcomes.
Ingham KE, Gorrel C, Bierer TL. Effect of a dental chew on dental substrates and gingivitis in cats. J Vet Dent. 2002. PMID: 12593097. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Animal Feed · Animals · Cat Diseases · Cats · Cross-Over Studies · Dental Plaque · Dental Plaque Index · Female · Gingivitis · Oral Hygiene · Periodontal Index
Gorrel 1998: 15 client-owned cats accumulated significantly less plaque and calculus when a chew was added to their dry diet
Crossover feeding study (client-owned cats)
Who: Fifteen client-owned cats in a two-leg crossover comparison: a nutritionally complete dry diet supplemented with one dental hygiene chew daily, versus the same dry diet alone. Plaque and calculus accumulation and gingival inflammation were assessed in both legs. Setting: owned cats in a practice-based study rather than a research colony.
Result: Daily addition of the chew to the dry diet resulted in significantly less plaque and calculus accumulation on tooth surfaces than the diet alone. The authors report that daily feeding of the chew helped maintain dental hygiene in cats, while noting that regular professional therapy is still indicated. No percentages are given in the record.
Watch out: Fifteen cats, no stated randomisation of leg order or blinded scoring in the record, and again no magnitudes. Its value on this shelf is independence and setting — client-owned cats, a different research group — pointing the same way as Ingham 2002. Neither study tests the diet itself: a plain dry diet is the control condition in both, which is the opposite of evidence that kibble cleans teeth.
Gorrel C, Inskeep G, Inskeep T. Benefits of a 'dental hygiene chew' on the periodontal health of cats. J Vet Dent. 1998. PMID: 10597159. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Animal Feed · Animals · Cat Diseases · Cats · Cross-Over Studies · Dental Deposits · Gingivitis · Oral Hygiene
Synthesis: a tested chew helps, modestly and measurably; the kibble claim is not supported — POSSIBLE
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Ingham 2002 (controlled crossover) and Gorrel 1998 (client-owned crossover, 15 cats).
Result: Two small crossover studies agree in direction: adding a specific dental chew to a dry diet reduces plaque and calculus accumulation and gingivitis severity in cats. Neither reports effect sizes, neither establishes blinded assessment, and both are short accumulation studies — enough for POSSIBLE on the chew claim, and nothing at all for the broader claim that dry food itself prevents dental disease, which no carded record tests. Cross-points: Shelf #8 and Shelf #57 carry the canine equivalents, where magnitudes are reported and the same surrogate-endpoint caveat applies.
Watch out: Dental chews are adjuncts measured in weeks. A cat with established periodontal disease — the commonest disease of adult cats — needs professional assessment; this shelf is about slowing accumulation in a mouth that is currently healthy.
Synthesis of Ingham KE et al. J Vet Dent. 2002. PMID: 12593097; Gorrel C et al. J Vet Dent. 1998. PMID: 10597159. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Cats · Shelf #31 in the build order
Do non-adjuvanted (recombinant) rabies vaccines lower a cat's risk of injection-site sarcoma compared with inactivated adjuvanted vaccines?
POSSIBLE proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
POSSIBLE (observational — Tier C, for the developer personally): The two multicentre case-control studies do not fully agree, and the shelf says so. Srivastav 2012 found the site-specific signal the prevention practice rests on: for sarcomas in the rear-limb region, cases were significantly less likely to have received recombinant (non-adjuvanted) vaccines than inactivated ones — odds ratio 0.1, with 95% confidence intervals from 0 to 0.4 or 0 to 0.7 depending on control group and exposure window (relative odds; the study measures association, not incidence) — while also finding that no vaccine was risk-free and that long-acting corticosteroid injections clustered in interscapular cases. Kass 2003, the larger earlier study, found no vaccine brand or type within antigen class associated with sarcoma formation at all. The prevention claim that survives both: where a non-adjuvanted recombinant rabies vaccine is available it is the lower-risk choice on the only study that separated the types — a modest, honestly contested claim, which is why this is POSSIBLE and Tier C. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #31); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Srivastav 2012: rear-limb sarcoma cases were far less likely to have received recombinant than inactivated vaccines (OR 0.1)
Case-control study (observational)
Who: Case-control study from a large pathology database: 181 cats with soft tissue sarcomas (cases), 96 cats with tumours at non-vaccine sites (control group I) and 159 cats with basal cell tumours (control group II). Vaccine and other injectable histories were documented by questionnaire and analysed by anatomical region and exposure period. Observational — no randomisation is possible for a rare delayed harm.
Result: In the broad rear-limb region, case cats were significantly less likely to have received recombinant vaccines than inactivated vaccines; odds ratios from logistic regression equalled 0.1, with 95% confidence intervals ranging from 0 to 0.4 and 0 to 0.7 depending on control group and exposure period (relative odds, not an incidence difference). In the broad interscapular region, long-acting corticosteroid injections (dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, triamcinolone) were significantly more frequent in cases than controls. The authors emphasise that no vaccines were risk-free; the study's value is in weighing relative merits of products.
Watch out: A case-control odds ratio from questionnaire histories: wide intervals (the lower bound rounds to 0), recall and record quality limits, and a signal that appears in one anatomical region — the rear limb is also where recombinant rabies vaccines are conventionally given, so product and site are partly entangled. The finding supports choosing non-adjuvanted products; it does not quantify any individual cat's risk, and sarcoma remains rare on any product.
Srivastav A, Kass PH, McGill LD, Farver TB, Kent MS. Comparative vaccine-specific and other injectable-specific risks of injection-site sarcomas in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2012. PMID: 22916856. Registry ID: none — observational case-control study. MeSH: Adrenal Cortex Hormones · Animals · Case-Control Studies · Cat Diseases · Cats · Female · Injections · Male · Neoplasms, Basal Cell · Prevalence · Prospective Studies · Sarcoma · Vaccination · Vaccines · Vaccines, Inactivated · Vaccines, Synthetic
Kass 2003: the larger earlier case-control study found no vaccine brand or type associated with sarcoma formation
Multicentre case-control study (observational)
Who: Prospective multicentre case-control study in the United States and Canada: cats with confirmed soft tissue sarcomas or basal cell tumours submitted as biopsy specimens, with medical histories obtained from the submitting veterinarians. Time-window statistical analyses under several case definitions tested vaccine brands, manufacturers, other injectables, administration practices and host factors. Observational.
Result: No single vaccine brand or manufacturer within antigen class was associated with sarcoma formation, and factors related to vaccine administration were not associated either, with the possible exception of vaccine temperature before injection. Two injectable medications — long-acting penicillin and methylprednisolone acetate — were administered more frequently to case cats than controls. The authors conclude the findings do not support hypotheses that specific brands or types of vaccine within antigen class, syringe reuse, concomitant viral infection, trauma history or residence raise or lower sarcoma risk.
Watch out: This null is the counterweight the shelf must carry next to Srivastav 2012: within-antigen-class comparisons here lump products that Srivastav later separated by technology (recombinant vs inactivated) and by injection region. Two case-control studies, two designs, partly different questions — the disagreement is genuine and unresolved, and the balance line says so rather than picking a winner.
Kass PH, Spangler WL, Hendrick MJ, McGill LD, Esplin DG, Lester S, et al. Multicenter case-control study of risk factors associated with development of vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003. PMID: 14621215. Registry ID: none — observational case-control study. MeSH: Animals · Canada · Case-Control Studies · Cat Diseases · Cats · Female · Incidence · Male · Neoplasms, Basal Cell · Prospective Studies · Risk Factors · Sarcoma · Soft Tissue Neoplasms · United States · Vaccination
Synthesis: choosing non-adjuvanted products is the defensible lower-risk move — on observational, partly conflicting evidence
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Srivastav 2012 and Kass 2003, the two multicentre case-control studies of feline injection-site sarcoma. No trial evidence exists or could exist for this harm.
Result: What the pair establishes: injection-site sarcoma follows injections generally (long-acting drug injections appear in both studies' signals), no vaccine is risk-free, and the one analysis that separated vaccine technologies by site found recombinant non-adjuvanted vaccination associated with markedly lower odds than inactivated vaccination in the rear limb (OR 0.1, wide intervals) — against a larger earlier study that found no type effect at all. The prevention practice this supports is modest and twofold: prefer non-adjuvanted products where they exist (the canarypox rabies vaccine carded on Shelf #24, and the non-adjuvanted replicon designs now arriving), and keep injections in sites where a sarcoma, if it ever came, can be removed. POSSIBLE, Tier C, observational throughout.
Watch out: Do not read OR 0.1 as 'ten times safer' for an individual cat: it is a relative odds estimate from one region-specific analysis with intervals reaching from 0 to 0.7, against a null from the larger study. The absolute risk of injection-site sarcoma is low with every product; rabies vaccination itself is not optional in most jurisdictions, and this shelf is about product and site choice, never about skipping vaccination.
Synthesis of Srivastav A et al. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2012. PMID: 22916856; Kass PH et al. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003. PMID: 14621215. Registry IDs as on the individual cards. Cross-point: Shelf #24 (rabies duration of immunity, including the non-adjuvanted canarypox and RNA-particle vaccines). Tier C — observational harm-adjacent evidence.
Prevention · Horses · Shelf #32 in the build order
How long does immunity from equine influenza vaccination last — is protection still present 12–15 months after a primary course?
POSSIBLE proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
POSSIBLE: The duration claim rests on one genuine long-interval challenge and one serological duration study, and the shelf keeps them distinct. Mumford 1994 vaccinated New Forest ponies three times (two doses seven weeks apart, a third six months later) and challenged them with aerosolised A/Equine 2/Sussex/89 a full 15 months after the third dose: four of seven vaccinates were completely protected clinically and two of seven against infection as well, no vaccinated pony coughed, and virus excretion was almost eliminated — against unvaccinated controls in whom clinical disease occurred. Heldens 2001, with a commercial combination vaccine, showed single radial haemolysis titres still high a year after the third vaccination — serology, not challenge, but in 12-month agreement with the challenge result. Two caveats set the stamp: the challenge groups are tiny (seven vaccinates, five controls), and the 15-month challenge used a 1989 European-lineage strain matched to that era's vaccine — duration against drifted modern strains is the standing uncertainty for every influenza vaccine. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #32); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Mumford 1994: 15 months after the third influenza dose, 4 of 7 ponies were completely protected clinically and none coughed
Experimental vaccination–challenge duration study
Who: Seven young New Forest ponies vaccinated against equine influenza (A/Equine 1/Prague 56 and A/Equine 2/Miami 63, with tetanus toxoid) at seven-week and six-month intervals, challenged by aerosol administration of A/Equine 2/Sussex/89 fifteen months after the third vaccination; five unvaccinated ponies served as controls. Clinical signs, virus excretion and serology recorded. Setting: experimental challenge at a research institute.
Result: Four of the seven vaccinated animals were completely protected from clinical disease, two of them also protected against infection, and none of the vaccinated ponies coughed. There was a significant reduction in the duration and amount of virus excretion compared with controls, and virus excretion was almost eliminated. The authors conclude that although protection was not complete, this level of immunity, maintained fifteen months after the third vaccination, would be sufficient to prevent an epizootic of the disease.
Watch out: Seven vaccinates and five controls, one challenge strain, and a vaccine containing 1956 and 1963 prototype strains challenged with a 1989 field strain — the study measures duration against an antigenically related virus of its era. It supports 'immunity persists beyond the annual booster interval' for matched strains; it cannot certify any modern product against currently circulating clades. The same paper's tetanus arm is carded on Shelf #34.
Mumford JA, Wilson H, Hannant D, Jessett DM. Antigenicity and immunogenicity of equine influenza vaccines containing a Carbomer adjuvant. Epidemiol Infect. 1994. PMID: 8160328. Registry ID: none — pre-registration-era animal study. MeSH: Animals · Antibodies, Viral · Hemagglutination Inhibition Tests · Horse Diseases · Horses · Influenza A Virus, H3N8 Subtype · Orthomyxoviridae Infections · Seasons · Tetanus Toxoid · Vaccination
Heldens 2001: influenza SRH titres remained high a full year after the third vaccination with a combination vaccine
Serological duration-of-immunity study
Who: Horses and ponies immunised with a commercial inactivated combination vaccine (equine herpesvirus types 1 and 4, reovirus types 1 and 3, equine influenza A H3N8 strains A/Equine/1/Prague/56, A/Equine/2/Newmarket/1/93 and A/Equine/2/Newmarket/2/93, and tetanus toxoid) in a three-dose primary course. Haemagglutination-inhibition and single radial haemolysis antibodies were followed after each dose. Serological duration study — no influenza challenge was performed (the study's herpesvirus challenge belongs to Shelf #35's question, not this one).
Result: Especially after the second and third vaccinations, high levels of HI and SRH antibodies were found — titres remaining above the levels considered protective (a greater than 85% increase over controls, or an SRH titre above 150 mm²) — and these protective titres were found to last for at least one year after the third vaccination. By contrast, reovirus antibody levels were already low one year after the third dose. The tetanus component of the same study is carded on Shelf #34.
Watch out: Antibody titres are a correlate, not a challenge: SRH levels track influenza protection reasonably in horses, but 'titres above the protective threshold at 12 months' is a weaker claim than Mumford's 15-month challenge, and the shelf weights it accordingly. This card's influenza content is serology only; do not borrow the same study's herpesvirus challenge result into this shelf.
Heldens JG, Weststrate MW, van den Hoven R. Area under the curve calculations as a tool to compare the efficacy of equine influenza vaccines — a retrospective analysis of three commercially available vaccines (study of a combination EHV/influenza/tetanus vaccine). Vet Q. 2001. PMID: 11765243. Registry ID: none — pre-registration-era animal study. MeSH: Animals · Area Under Curve · Herpesviridae Infections · Herpesvirus 1, Equid · Herpesvirus 4, Equid · Horse Diseases · Horses · Influenza A Virus, H3N8 Subtype · Orthomyxoviridae Infections · Retrospective Studies · Tetanus · Vaccines, Combined · Vaccines, Inactivated
Synthesis: challenge-proven protection at 15 months, serology agreeing at 12 — POSSIBLE
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Mumford 1994 (15-month aerosol challenge, 7 vaccinates vs 5 controls) and Heldens 2001 (12-month serological persistence after a three-dose course).
Result: Equine influenza immunity outlasts the annual booster: a three-dose course left ponies substantially protected against aerosol challenge at 15 months (4 of 7 completely protected clinically, virus excretion almost eliminated), and a commercial combination vaccine held SRH titres above the protective threshold for at least 12 months. POSSIBLE — the challenge evidence is real but small and era-specific, the serology is supportive rather than decisive, and strain drift means duration figures belong to matched strains. Annual boosters remain the regulatory default for good reasons (population coverage, drift, competition rules); this shelf's claim is only that the underlying immunity does not expire at month twelve.
Watch out: Nothing here licenses stretching booster intervals in practice: the challenge strain matched its era's vaccine antigens, groups were tiny, and 'sufficient to prevent an epizootic' (the authors' phrase) is a population claim, not a promise for an individual horse exposed to a drifted strain at a show.
Synthesis of Mumford JA et al. Epidemiol Infect. 1994. PMID: 8160328; Heldens JG et al. Vet Q. 2001. PMID: 11765243. Registry IDs as on the individual cards. Cross-point: Shelf #34 (tetanus duration — the tetanus arms of these same two studies).
Prevention · Horses · Shelf #33 in the build order
Does psyllium (with magnesium sulphate) clear sand accumulation from the equine large colon — and does feeding psyllium prevent it?
POSSIBLE proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
POSSIBLE — and the shelf is careful about what kind of claim this even is: every carded study TREATS existing sand accumulation; routine prophylactic feeding of psyllium to horses without accumulation has no randomised base at all, and the record says so. What the trials support is narrower and still useful. Niinistö 2014 randomly allocated 34 horses with radiographic sand accumulation to psyllium, magnesium sulphate, or the combination, given daily by nasogastric tube for four days: resolution below a 25 cm² radiographic area in 9 of 12 combination horses versus 3 of 12 on psyllium alone and 2 of 10 on magnesium sulphate alone (combination significantly better, P < 0.05). Niinistö 2018's prospective controlled study (20 treated, 20 untreated controls) found the same combination cleared significantly more sand (P < 0.001 by area; P = 0.004 by horse). Kaikkonen 2016's 246-horse retrospective adds the route lesson: daily nasogastric administration for 3–7 days resolved significantly more accumulations than at least ten days of home feeding. So: combination therapy given by tube works for documented accumulation; the popular practice of feeding psyllium a week a month 'just in case' is untested by any card here. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #33); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Niinistö 2014: combination therapy resolved sand in 9 of 12 horses versus 3 of 12 on psyllium and 2 of 10 on magnesium sulphate alone
Randomised controlled treatment trial (indexed RCT)
Who: Thirty-four horses with radiographic diagnoses of sand accumulation in the large colon, randomly allocated to psyllium 1 g/kg bodyweight (12 horses), magnesium sulphate 1 g/kg (10 horses), or both combined (12 horses), administered once daily by nasogastric intubation for four days. Radiographic sand area in cm² (and accumulation length) measured before and after treatment; resolution defined as a remaining area under 25 cm². The record is indexed as a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Result: The proportion of horses from which sand was resolved (remaining area < 25 cm²) was significantly higher (P < 0.05) with the combination than with psyllium or magnesium sulphate alone: 9 of 12 (75%) on the combination, versus 3 of 12 (25%) on psyllium alone and 2 of 10 (20%) on magnesium sulphate alone. In absolute terms the combination resolved roughly 50–55 percentage points more accumulations than either agent alone. The authors conclude the combination of psyllium and magnesium sulphate is a safe and effective treatment for naturally occurring sand accumulations.
Watch out: Random allocation is stated; blinding of the radiograph readers is not, and the groups are small (10–12 per arm), so the exact percentages carry wide uncertainty even though the ordering — combination clearly ahead — is consistent with the 2018 study. Four days of nasogastric dosing is hospital or yard-call medicine, not a feeding practice; do not let this card be cited for tubs of psyllium fed at home.
Niinistö KE, Ruohoniemi MO, Freccero F, Raekallio MR. Investigation of the treatment of sand accumulations in the equine large colon with psyllium and magnesium sulphate. Vet J. 2014 (record: Vet J 2018 print; epub 2014). PMID: 25458886. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Animals · Cathartics · Colon · Colonic Diseases · Drug Therapy, Combination · Horse Diseases · Horses · Intestinal Obstruction · Magnesium Sulfate · Psyllium · Radiography
Niinistö 2018: the psyllium–magnesium sulphate combination cleared significantly more sand than no treatment in a controlled prospective study
Prospective controlled treatment study
Who: Forty horses with radiographically diagnosed large-colon sand accumulations: a treated group of 20 receiving psyllium and magnesium sulphate in water by nasogastric tube for four days, and an untreated control group of 20. Sand area (cm²) and number of horses with residual accumulation under 20 cm² compared between groups. Prospective controlled study design; random allocation is not stated in the record.
Result: Mean sand area in the treated group was significantly smaller than in controls (difference in medians 1.5 cm²; P < 0.001), and significantly more horses had a residual sand area under 20 cm² in the treated group (difference between proportions 12 of 20 horses; 95% CI 1.6–22.7; P = 0.004). All treated horses were discharged, and no complications from the treatment were detected. The authors conclude the combination should be considered for treatment when an accumulation is diagnosed radiographically.
Watch out: The untreated-control comparison answers 'better than doing nothing' — the comparison the 2014 trial then sharpens into 'combination beats either agent alone'. Allocation method is unstated here, so this card supports rather than carries the shelf. Note the threshold difference between the two Niinistö studies (25 cm² in 2014, 20 cm² in 2018): the figures are concordant, not interchangeable.
Niinistö K, Hewetson M, Kaikkonen R, Sykes BW, Raekallio M. Comparison of the effects of enteral psyllium, magnesium sulphate and their combination for removal of sand from the large colon of horses. Vet J. 2014 (record: Vet J 2018 print). PMID: 30103912. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Animals · Cathartics · Colonic Diseases · Colon · Drug Therapy, Combination · Horse Diseases · Horses · Intestinal Obstruction · Magnesium Sulfate · Prospective Studies · Psyllium
Kaikkonen 2016: in 246 horses, 3–7 days of nasogastric treatment beat at least 10 days of home psyllium feeding
Retrospective comparative study
Who: Retrospective record review of 246 horses treated for large-colon sand accumulations of at least 75 cm² (the largest accumulations, where treatment choice matters most). Two strategies compared: nasogastric intubation daily for 3–7 days (170 horses) versus psyllium fed at home for at least 10 days (57 horses); the remaining horses received other management. Outcome: resolution of the accumulation on follow-up radiography.
Result: Treatment by nasogastric intubation resolved a higher proportion of accumulations than home feeding of psyllium, which was more likely to require further treatment before resolution. Recurrence was examined as a secondary outcome. The authors' practical conclusion pairs with the Niinistö trials: for a documented large accumulation, administered treatment clears sand more reliably than owner-fed psyllium.
Watch out: Retrospective and confounded by indication — horses sent home to be fed may have differed from hospitalised horses in accumulation character, finances or concurrent disease, and the record does not adjust that away. Read this card as the route-and-supervision lesson (treatment given beats treatment fed, in records of large accumulations), not as a randomised comparison. It also says nothing about prophylactic feeding, which none of the three records tests.
Kaikkonen R, Niinistö K, Lindholm T, Raekallio M. Comparison of psyllium feeding at home and nasogastric intubation of psyllium and magnesium sulfate in the horse. J Equine Vet Sci / Acta Vet Scand record. 2016. PMID: 27733202. Registry ID: none — retrospective study. MeSH as in the record (sand accumulation, psyllium, nasogastric intubation, retrospective).
Synthesis: tube-given combination therapy clears documented sand; prophylactic feeding is untested
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Niinistö 2014 (randomised, 34 horses), Niinistö 2018 (prospective controlled, 40 horses), Kaikkonen 2016 (retrospective, 246 horses).
Result: For a horse with radiographically documented large-colon sand accumulation, four days of psyllium plus magnesium sulphate by nasogastric tube resolves the accumulation in about three of four cases (9 of 12), clearly better than either agent alone (3 of 12 and 2 of 10) and better than no treatment in controlled comparison; in the largest record set, administered treatment also outperformed home psyllium feeding. POSSIBLE: one small randomised trial, concordant controlled and retrospective evidence, no stated blinded radiograph reading. The prevention claim riders actually make for psyllium — feeding it periodically so sand never accumulates — is not tested by any carded record and this shelf does not make it; true prevention on sand soils is management (feeding off the ground, sand-free turnout), which no trial here evaluates either.
Watch out: Sand colic prevention and sand accumulation treatment are different claims and this shelf serves only the second. A horse with a 75 cm²-plus accumulation is a treatment case with a real obstruction risk; the retrospective data suggest supervised administration, not a feed supplement, is the evidence-backed route.
Synthesis of Niinistö KE et al. Vet J. 2014/2018. PMID: 25458886; Niinistö K et al. Vet J. 2014/2018. PMID: 30103912; Kaikkonen R et al. 2016. PMID: 27733202. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Horses · Shelf #34 in the build order
Does tetanus toxoid vaccination give horses durable protection — antitoxin above the protective level beyond 12 months?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
LIKELY — on the correlate, honestly labelled: No randomised tetanus challenge trial exists in horses and none ethically could, because tetanus is sporadic, environmental and usually fatal. What exists is a tight chain: antibody at or above 0.01 IU/ml is the accepted protective level for tetanus antitoxin; Heldens 2001 measured tetanus antibody peaking after the third dose of a combination vaccine and remaining above that protective level for at least a year; Mumford 1994 measured the same protection lasting at least 20 months after a three-dose course (the tetanus arm of the influenza duration study on Shelf #32); and the clinical record runs the right way — across 155 adult horses and 21 foals treated for tetanus at 20 European centres (van Galen 2017; mortality 68.4% and 66.7%), appropriately vaccinated cases were rare and fared better, and in van Galen 2008's 31 equids not one case had been appropriately vaccinated. A correlate-based duration claim plus concordant case series is LIKELY, not proof-grade — and the shelf would rather say that than pretend a challenge trial hides somewhere. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #34); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Heldens 2001: tetanus antibody stayed above the protective level (≥0.01 IU/ml) for at least a year after the third dose
Serological duration-of-immunity study
Who: Horses and ponies immunised with a commercial inactivated combination vaccine containing tetanus toxoid alongside equine herpesvirus, reovirus and influenza components, in a three-dose primary course. Tetanus antibody was measured after each vaccination and followed over time; protection referenced to the accepted antitoxin level of 0.01 IU/ml. Serological duration study.
Result: Tetanus antibody levels reached the highest point after the third vaccination, and horses remained protected (antitoxin at or above 0.01 IU/ml) for at least one year after that third dose. The authors note the protective antibody level documented for the tetanus component alongside the study's influenza findings (the influenza serology is carded on Shelf #32). The practical reading: a completed three-dose primary course carries serological protection through the first annual booster interval, with margin unmeasured beyond a year in this study.
Watch out: A correlate study: nobody challenged these horses with tetanus toxin, and 0.01 IU/ml is an extrapolated protective threshold (from human and experimental work), not an equine challenge-derived cut-off. The shelf treats the threshold as the field's accepted standard and labels the claim accordingly — that is the strongest evidence tetanus vaccinology offers, in any species.
Heldens JG, Weststrate MW, van den Hoven R. Area under the curve calculations as a tool to compare the efficacy of equine influenza vaccines — a retrospective analysis of three commercially available vaccines (combination EHV/influenza/tetanus vaccine study). Vet Q. 2001. PMID: 11765243. Registry ID: none — pre-registration-era animal study. MeSH: Animals · Area Under Curve · Herpesviridae Infections · Herpesvirus 1, Equid · Herpesvirus 4, Equid · Horse Diseases · Horses · Influenza A Virus, H3N8 Subtype · Orthomyxoviridae Infections · Retrospective Studies · Tetanus · Vaccines, Combined · Vaccines, Inactivated
Mumford 1994: tetanus antitoxin protection was maintained for at least 20 months after the third vaccination
Serological duration-of-immunity study (tetanus arm)
Who: The tetanus-toxoid arm of the New Forest pony duration study carded for influenza on Shelf #32: young ponies received a combined influenza–tetanus vaccine at seven-week and six-month intervals (three doses), and tetanus antitoxin antibodies were followed serologically after the course, alongside the influenza challenge at 15 months. Setting: experimental institute study.
Result: Protective levels of tetanus antitoxin — antibody at or above the 0.01 IU/ml protective level — were maintained for at least 20 months following the third vaccination. That is eight months beyond the conventional first annual booster, measured in the same animals whose influenza immunity was challenge-tested at 15 months. The authors report the duration for both vaccine components as exceeding the intervals then in common use.
Watch out: Small pony group, serology only, and 'at least 20 months' is where measurement stopped being reported, not where protection ended. Twenty months of measured antitoxin persistence does not rewrite booster policy — wound management and pre-foaling boosters have their own logic — but it does mean a horse a few months overdue on its booster is very unlikely to be unprotected, which is the question owners actually ask.
Mumford JA, Wilson H, Hannant D, Jessett DM. Antigenicity and immunogenicity of equine influenza vaccines containing a Carbomer adjuvant. Epidemiol Infect. 1994. PMID: 8160328. Registry ID: none — pre-registration-era animal study. MeSH: Animals · Antibodies, Viral · Hemagglutination Inhibition Tests · Horse Diseases · Horses · Influenza A Virus, H3N8 Subtype · Orthomyxoviridae Infections · Seasons · Tetanus Toxoid · Vaccination
van Galen 2017: among 176 equine tetanus cases across 20 European centres, appropriately vaccinated horses were rare — and fared better
Multicentre retrospective case series
Who: Multicentre retrospective case series: 155 adult horses and 21 foals diagnosed with tetanus at 20 European clinics and hospitals between 2000 and 2014. Records reviewed for signalment, history (including vaccination status), clinical signs, treatment, complications, hospitalisation duration and survival to discharge, with prognostic-factor analyses in adults and foals separately.
Result: Overall mortality was 68.4% in adult horses and 66.7% in foals. The authors report that few appropriately vaccinated horses were seen among the cases, and that vaccination status was among the factors associated with outcome — alongside recumbency at admission (negative), an absent third eyelid response, and treatment-era effects (mortality fell in the second half of the study period, and adults hospitalised for at least six days had higher survival). The pattern is what effective vaccination predicts: in a population where most horses are vaccinated, tetanus cases concentrate in the unvaccinated and the lapsed.
Watch out: A case series cannot yield an efficacy percentage — there is no denominator of vaccinated horses who never developed tetanus, and 'appropriately vaccinated' is judged from clinical records of variable completeness. Its role here is corroboration: if toxoid protection were illusory or short-lived, referral centres would see vaccinated horses among their tetanus cases in proportion to coverage; they do not.
van Galen G, Saegerman C, Rijckaert J, Amory H, Armengol R, et al. Retrospective evaluation of 155 adult equids and 21 foals diagnosed with tetanus at 20 European clinics and hospitals (2000-2014). J Vet Intern Med. 2017. PMID: 28960891. Registry ID: none — retrospective case series. MeSH as in the record (tetanus, equids, retrospective, survival).
van Galen 2008: in 31 equids with tetanus, none had been appropriately vaccinated; survival was 32%
Retrospective case series
Who: Retrospective study of 31 equids (horses, ponies and donkeys) diagnosed with tetanus, reviewing presumed causes, initial signs, prognosis and the influence of vaccination history, hyperimmune plasma treatment and age. A single-centre/regional record series predating the 2017 multicentre study.
Result: None of the 31 equids had been appropriately vaccinated. The survival rate was 32% (10 of 31). Administration of hyperimmune plasma was associated with a favourable outcome in this small series — a treatment observation, not a prevention finding. The authors' prevention point is the zero: in a vaccinated population, a complete absence of appropriately vaccinated animals among the cases is the signature of a vaccine that works.
Watch out: Thirty-one cases, retrospective, and the hyperimmune-plasma association is exactly the kind of small-series treatment signal this library does not card as evidence. The vaccination zero is concordant with the 2017 series of 176 cases; together they corroborate, they do not quantify.
van Galen G, Delguste C, Sandersen C, Verwilghen D, Grulke S, Amory H. Tetanus in the equine species: a retrospective study of 31 cases. Tijdschr Diergeneeskd / equine record. 2008. PMID: 18615902. Registry ID: none — retrospective case series. MeSH as in the record (tetanus, equidae, retrospective).
Synthesis: protection lasts at least 12–20 months serologically, and cases concentrate in the unvaccinated — LIKELY
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Heldens 2001 and Mumford 1994 (tetanus antitoxin persistence ≥12 and ≥20 months after a three-dose course) and van Galen 2017/2008 (207 equine tetanus cases in total; appropriately vaccinated cases rare to absent).
Result: The chain is complete even without a challenge trial: a defined protective antibody level (≥0.01 IU/ml), measured persistence of that level for at least a year (Heldens) and at least 20 months (Mumford) after a primary course, and the clinical mirror image — tetanus, a disease with roughly two-thirds mortality despite treatment, occurs almost exclusively in horses that were never appropriately vaccinated. LIKELY: correlate-based duration plus concordant case series is the ceiling of what tetanus evidence can be, and this shelf says so rather than dressing it as trial proof.
Watch out: Duration figures describe antibody, measured in small groups, after a full three-dose primary course — they do not cover single-dose histories, aged horses, or donkeys specifically, and they do not displace booster recommendations around wounds, surgery and foaling, where the stakes of a gap are the disease itself.
Synthesis of Heldens JG et al. Vet Q. 2001. PMID: 11765243; Mumford JA et al. Epidemiol Infect. 1994. PMID: 8160328; van Galen G et al. J Vet Intern Med. 2017. PMID: 28960891; van Galen G et al. 2008. PMID: 18615902. Registry IDs as on the individual cards. Cross-point: Shelf #32 (equine influenza duration — the influenza arms of the Heldens and Mumford studies).
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #51 in the build order
How long does immunity last after canine core (distemper, parvovirus, adenovirus) modified-live vaccination — is annual revaccination needed?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
LIKELY: Core modified-live immunity in dogs lasts for years, not one year — and that is shown by challenge, not just blood tests. Dogs kept in strict isolation for 3 years after their puppy vaccinations were 100% protected against clinical disease on challenge with adenovirus, parvovirus and distemper (Gore 2005); dogs challenged 55 to 57 months after vaccination were protected against parvovirus and hepatitis disease and mortality, and against distemper mortality (Abdelmagid 2004); and dogs not revaccinated for as long as 9 years still carried protective antibody titres and resisted challenge with all three viruses (Schultz 2010). Annual core revaccination therefore adds nothing measurable — the evidence base under the modern schedule (puppy series, a booster at one year, then core boosters no more often than every three years). The long-duration data rest substantially on one research programme and on purpose-bred dogs in isolation, which is why this is LIKELY rather than PROBABLE. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #51); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Gore 2005: three years after vaccination, 100% of dogs were protected against clinical disease on challenge with adenovirus, parvovirus and distemper
Vaccination–challenge study (3-year duration of immunity)
Who: Twenty-three seronegative pups vaccinated at 7 and 11 weeks of age with a multivalent modified-live vaccine containing canine adenovirus type 2, canine parvovirus and canine distemper virus, then kept in strict isolation for 3 years; eighteen seronegative pups, randomised into groups of six, served as challenge controls. After 3 years the dogs were challenged sequentially with virulent canine adenovirus type 1, parvovirus and distemper virus, with a separate group of six control dogs challenged for each virus.
Result: Clinical signs of adenovirus (CAV-1), parvovirus and distemper infections were prevented in 100% of vaccinated dogs, demonstrating that the multivalent modified-live test vaccine provided protection against virulent challenge with all three viruses in dogs 7 weeks of age or older for a minimum of 3 years following the second vaccination.
Watch out: Strict isolation for 3 years is both the strength and the limit of this design: no natural re-exposure boosted these dogs, so the 3-year protection is the vaccine's own — but purpose-bred seronegative pups in isolation are not owned dogs in the field, and 'minimum 3 years' means the study ended at 3 years, not that immunity did.
Gore TC et al. Three-year duration of immunity in dogs following vaccination against canine adenovirus type-1, canine parvovirus, and canine distemper virus. Vet Ther. 2005. PMID: 15906266. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Adenoviridae · Adenoviridae Infections · Animals · Antibodies, Viral · Distemper · Distemper Virus, Canine · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Male · Parvoviridae Infections · Parvovirus, Canine · Vaccination · Viral Vaccines
Abdelmagid 2004: challenged 55–57 months after vaccination, all 10 dogs were protected against parvovirus and hepatitis disease and death, and against distemper death
Vaccination–challenge study (55–57-month duration of immunity)
Who: Dogs vaccinated subcutaneously with a commercially available multivalent vaccine containing modified-live canine distemper virus, canine adenovirus type 2, canine parvovirus type 2b and canine parainfluenza virus antigens, with initial vaccination at 7 to 8 weeks of age, then subjected to sequential experimental challenge 55 to 57 months later. The abstract states 10 vaccinates for the challenge outcomes.
Result: All 10 vaccinates were protected against clinical diseases and mortality following parvovirus and infectious canine hepatitis experimental infections. All vaccinates were protected against mortality and 90% against clinical disease following distemper challenge. The authors conclude the data support at least a 4-year duration of immunity for the three core fractions in the combination vaccine.
Watch out: Ten vaccinates is a small challenge group, and the distemper arm shows the honest edge of duration: mortality protection held at 100% while clinical-disease protection was 90% — one dog got sick but did not die, nearly five years out.
Abdelmagid OY et al. Evaluation of the efficacy and duration of immunity of a canine combination vaccine against virulent parvovirus, infectious canine hepatitis virus, and distemper virus experimental challenges. Vet Ther. 2004. PMID: 15578450. Registry ID: none — animal challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Adenoviruses, Canine · Animals · Antibodies, Viral · Distemper · Distemper Virus, Canine · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Hepatitis, Infectious Canine · Male · Parainfluenza Vaccines · Parvoviridae Infections · Parvovirus, Canine · Random Allocation · Time Factors · Treatment Outcome · Vaccination · Vaccines, Attenuated · Vaccines, Combined · Viral Vaccines · Virulence · Virus Diseases
Schultz 2010: dogs not revaccinated for as long as 9 years still had protective titres and resisted challenge with distemper, parvovirus and adenovirus
Programme duration-of-immunity study (serology plus challenge, up to 9 years)
Who: Dogs that had not been revaccinated for as long as 9 years after their core viral vaccinations, examined for serum antibody to canine distemper virus, canine parvovirus type 2 and canine adenovirus type 1, with challenge studies in selected animals; the paper also reviews duration of immunity for core viral vaccines in dogs and cats and the role of maternally derived antibody in young-animal deaths.
Result: The dogs had serum antibody to distemper, parvovirus and adenovirus at levels considered protective, and when challenged with these viruses they resisted infection and/or disease. The authors conclude that even a single dose of modified-live core vaccine (against distemper, adenovirus-2 and parvovirus), administered at 16 weeks or older, could provide long-term immunity in a very high percentage of animals. Old dogs and cats rarely die from vaccine-preventable infectious disease when they were vaccinated and immunised as young adults.
Watch out: This is a research programme's accumulated experience rather than a single randomised trial — the design detail lives in the programme's primary reports (two are carded above) — and 'resisted infection and/or disease' deliberately spans both sterilising and clinical protection. The 9-year figure is the longest interval examined, not a measured expiry date.
Schultz RD et al. Age and long-term protective immunity in dogs and cats. J Comp Pathol. 2010. PMID: 19959181. Registry ID: none — animal studies of this kind are not registered. MeSH: Age Factors · Aging · Animals · Cats · Dogs · Immunologic Memory · Time Factors · Vaccination · Vaccines
Synthesis: core immunity is measured in years — the 3-year booster interval rests on challenge evidence, not convention
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Gore 2005 (3-year challenge), Abdelmagid 2004 (55–57-month challenge), Schultz 2010 (serology and challenge up to 9 years). The programme's 2006 narrative review is fenced below.
Result: Three independent challenge demonstrations converge: complete clinical protection at 3 years, near-complete protection at almost 5 years, and protective titres with challenge resistance out to 9 years. Nothing on this shelf supports annual core revaccination, and the programme's review of roughly 1,000 vaccinated dogs across all major US manufacturers (Schultz 2006, PMID 16707236 — a narrative review, fenced rather than carded) reports published minimum durations of immunity of 3 years or longer for all core products, the basis for the guideline schedule of a one-year booster then revaccination no more often than every 3 years. Non-core vaccines are a different matter — the same review puts their duration at a year or less — and they are not this shelf's question.
Watch out: Duration of immunity is not a promise for every individual dog: non-responders exist, which is why the puppy series ends at 16 weeks or later (Shelf #52's maternal-antibody question) and why titre testing, not calendar habit, is the individual check. Immunocompromised dogs and rabies — a legally regulated vaccine with its own duration shelf (#24) — are outside this claim.
Synthesis of Gore TC et al. Vet Ther. 2005. PMID: 15906266; Abdelmagid OY et al. Vet Ther. 2004. PMID: 15578450; Schultz RD et al. J Comp Pathol. 2010. PMID: 19959181. Fenced: Schultz RD. Vet Microbiol. 2006. PMID: 16707236 (narrative review of the duration-of-immunity programme). Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #52 in the build order
When can a puppy actually respond to core vaccination — how does maternal antibody create a window in which a puppy is neither protected nor vaccinable, and why does the series run to 16 weeks?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
LIKELY: The maternal-antibody window is measured, not theorised. Pollock & Carmichael (1982) showed that colostrum delivers about 90% of a puppy's maternal antibody, that parvovirus maternal antibody decays with a half-life of 9.7 days — and that the two thresholds do not match: a haemagglutination-inhibition titre of 1:80 protected puppies against challenge, but ANY detectable antibody (1:10) was enough to block vaccination. Between those titres lies the window in which a puppy is neither protected nor vaccinable, and its length varies by litter because starting titres vary. Carmichael (1984) confirmed the practical consequence: seronegative pups 9 to 18.5 weeks old all responded to a single dose, while pups with low residual maternal antibody responded variably. With a roughly 10-day half-life, a high-titre puppy needs many weeks to fall below the interference threshold — which is why the core series repeats every 2 to 4 weeks and does not end before 16 weeks. No trial randomises schedules against disease outcomes; the stamp covers the mechanism and the schedule it dictates. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #52); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Pollock & Carmichael 1982: parvovirus maternal antibody halves every 9.7 days — and the blocking threshold (1:10) sits far below the protection threshold (1:80)
Experimental transfer/decline/interference study (parvovirus)
Who: Pups of an immune bitch, followed for transfer, decline and vaccine interference of maternally derived canine parvovirus antibody: placental versus colostral transfer was measured, haemagglutination-inhibition (HI) titres tracked after suckling, protection tested by oronasal challenge with virulent parvovirus, and immunisation attempted with modified-live feline panleukopenia virus, inactivated feline panleukopenia virus and inactivated parvovirus vaccines. (The record's abstract prints 'modified-liver' for modified-live, reproduced in substance on this card.)
Result: Colostral transfer accounted for approximately 90% of the maternally derived parvovirus antibody; after suckling, pups' HI titres averaged 50% of their dam's titre. Maternally derived antibody declined with a half-life of 9.7 days. Pups with HI titres of 1:80 or greater were immune to oronasal challenge with virulent parvovirus — but any detectable HI antibody (titre 1:10 or greater) interfered with active immunisation by all three vaccines tested.
Watch out: The gap between 1:80 (protected) and 1:10 (still blocking) is the whole clinical problem: a puppy can spend weeks susceptible AND unvaccinable, and no single calendar age closes the window for every litter, because the starting titre is the dam's. The interference result was shown with the vaccine types available in 1982; modern high-titre modified-live parvovirus vaccines are designed to break through lower levels of maternal antibody, but the threshold structure this study measured is still the one the schedules are built around.
Pollock RVH, Carmichael LE. Maternally derived immunity to canine parvovirus infection: transfer, decline, and interference with vaccination. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1982. PMID: 7056660. Registry ID: none — animal studies of this era are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Antibodies, Viral · Colostrum · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Immunity, Maternally-Acquired · Maternal-Fetal Exchange · Parvoviridae · Pregnancy · Viral Vaccines · Virus Diseases
Carmichael 1984: a single dose immunised every seronegative pup aged 9–18.5 weeks — but responses in pups with low maternal antibody were variable
Vaccination-response study (single dose, ages 9–18.5 weeks)
Who: Pups 9 to 18.5 weeks old given a single dose of one of four commercial live canine-origin parvovirus vaccines, including pups with low levels of maternally derived antibody and unvaccinated contact controls; antibody responses were measured by haemagglutination inhibition and neutralisation tests, and clinical signs monitored.
Result: All four vaccines evoked high levels of antibody in seronegative pups, but response was variable in those with low levels of maternally derived antibody. Vaccinal virus spread to unvaccinated contact controls and elicited essentially equivalent titres. No clinical signs of parvovirus infection were observed in vaccinates or controls.
Watch out: 'Low' maternal antibody still produced variable takes — the interference threshold from the 1982 study is low enough (any detectable antibody) that even the tail of decay is unreliable, which is exactly why schedules repeat doses instead of trusting one late dose, and why a final dose at 16 weeks or later is the standard backstop.
Carmichael LE, Joubert JC, Pollock RVH. Response of puppies to canine-origin parvovirus vaccines. Mod Vet Pract. 1984. PMID: 6328258. Registry ID: none — animal studies of this era are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Antibodies, Viral · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Hemagglutination Inhibition Tests · Immunity, Maternally-Acquired · Neutralization Tests · Parvoviridae · Parvoviridae Infections · Vaccination · Vaccines, Attenuated · Viral Vaccines
Dall'Ara 2021: the quick in-clinic test and the gold-standard test disagree on puppy maternal antibody — 91.9% 'protected' by HI versus 40.4% by ELISA
Assay-comparison study (maternal antibody measurement)
Who: Serum samples from 136 unvaccinated puppies and 16 vaccinated bitches, tested for canine parvovirus antibody by the gold-standard haemagglutination inhibition (HI) test and by an in-clinic ELISA kit, to judge whether the kit can time vaccination by detecting interfering maternal antibody; five puppies with high HI and low in-clinic ELISA titres were retested after vaccination.
Result: Both assays found protective antibody levels in all 16 vaccinated bitches. In unvaccinated puppies the assays diverged sharply: protective maternal-antibody titres were found in 91.9% of puppies by HI but only 40.4% by the in-clinic ELISA, and only the ELISA titres showed the expected decrease in titres and in the percentage of protected puppies over the first weeks of age. Vaccination of the five discordant puppies resulted in seroconversion. The authors conclude the in-clinic test is reliable for protective antibody in adult dogs and may be a useful tool to detect and quantify puppy maternal antibody.
Watch out: A measurement shelf-note, not an efficacy result: 'protected' depends on which test and which threshold you use, and the five-puppy vaccination follow-up is a demonstration, not a trial. The record carries no MeSH headings (noted per this library's identifier standard).
Dall'Ara P et al. Discrepancy Between In-clinic and Haemagglutination-Inhibition Tests in Detecting Maternally-Derived Antibodies Against Canine Parvovirus in Puppies. Front Vet Sci. 2021. PMID: 33732742. Registry ID: none — studies of this kind are not registered. MeSH: none in the record.
Synthesis: the window is arithmetic — a ~10-day half-life against two mismatched thresholds is why the series runs to 16 weeks
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Pollock & Carmichael 1982 (transfer, decay and interference thresholds), Carmichael 1984 (single-dose responses by age and antibody status), Dall'Ara 2021 (measurement of maternal antibody in practice).
Result: Put the measured numbers together: a puppy starts at about half its dam's titre; that antibody halves roughly every 10 days; it stops protecting at a titre around 1:80 but keeps blocking vaccination down to about 1:10. A puppy from a well-immune dam can therefore pass through several weeks in which parvovirus could infect it and a vaccine cannot help it — and the calendar date when that ends differs by litter. Repeated doses every 2 to 4 weeks are successive attempts to catch each puppy just after its own window closes, and the final dose at 16 weeks or later exists because by then decay has run long enough that virtually every puppy can respond — the schedule the WSAVA/AAHA guidelines standardised on this experimental base. The duration of the immunity that results is Shelf #51's question and is not re-carded here.
Watch out: The thresholds and half-life were measured for parvovirus; distemper maternal antibody decays on its own timetable (the map's programme range across viruses is roughly 8 to 14 days), so the parvovirus window is the longest and the binding one — schedules keyed to it cover the others.
Synthesis of Pollock RVH, Carmichael LE. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1982. PMID: 7056660; Carmichael LE et al. Mod Vet Pract. 1984. PMID: 6328258; Dall'Ara P et al. Front Vet Sci. 2021. PMID: 33732742. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #53 in the build order
Does lifelong lean feeding (about 25% calorie restriction) extend lifespan and delay chronic disease and osteoarthritis in dogs?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
LIKELY — Tier C (lifespan claim; for the developer's personal verdict): One randomised, paired, lifetime feeding study is the strongest prevention experiment in companion-animal medicine. Forty-eight Labrador puppies were paired with littermates, and from 8 weeks of age one of each pair ate 25% less than its pair-mate FOR LIFE: the restricted dogs' median lifespan was significantly longer, the onset of clinical signs of chronic disease was generally delayed, and body fat, triglycerides, insulin and glucose ran lower (Kealy 2002; the abstract reports the significance without printing the two median ages). The same cohort's hip study puts hard numbers on the quality-of-life half: radiographic hip osteoarthritis first appeared at a median of 6 years in control-fed dogs versus 12 years in restricted-fed dogs (Smith 2006). The limits are structural: one cohort, one breed, 48 dogs, a research colony, never replicated in owned dogs — and a lifespan claim is Tier C, so the stamp is proposed for the developer's personal verdict. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #53); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Kealy 2002: 25% lifelong food restriction significantly lengthened median lifespan and delayed chronic-disease signs in 48 paired Labradors
Randomised paired lifetime feeding study (lifespan primary report)
Who: Forty-eight Labrador Retrievers in a paired feeding study: dogs were paired (with littermates, by sex and weight in the programme's design), and one dog in each pair was fed 25% less food than its pair-mate from 8 weeks of age until death. Serum biochemistry, body-condition scoring and body composition were measured annually until 12 years of age; age at onset of chronic disease and median (age when 50% were deceased) and maximum (age when 90% were deceased) lifespans were evaluated.
Result: Compared with control dogs, food-restricted dogs weighed less and had lower body fat content and lower serum triglycerides, triiodothyronine, insulin and glucose concentrations. Median life span was significantly longer for dogs in which food was restricted. The onset of clinical signs of chronic disease generally was delayed for food-restricted dogs. The authors conclude that 25% restriction in food intake increased median life span and delayed the onset of signs of chronic disease in these dogs.
Watch out: The PubMed abstract reports that the median lifespan difference was significant but does not print the two median ages — the widely quoted figures come from the paper's full text and are not restated here, per this library's rule that card figures come from the record verified at drafting. One cohort of one breed in a research colony, fed a single diet: the direction is randomised and lifetime-long, the generalisation to owned dogs of all breeds is inference. This is a lifespan claim, so the shelf is Tier C and goes to the developer personally.
Kealy RD et al. Effects of diet restriction on life span and age-related changes in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2002;220:1315-1320. PMID: 11991408. Registry ID: none — animal studies of this era are not registered. MeSH: Aging · Animals · Body Composition · Chronic Disease · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Food Deprivation · Life Expectancy · Longevity · Male · Random Allocation · Time Factors
Smith 2006: the same cohort — hip osteoarthritis first appeared at median 6 years in control-fed dogs versus 12 years in restricted-fed dogs
Longitudinal cohort report from the same randomised feeding study (hip osteoarthritis)
Who: The same 48 Labrador Retrievers from 7 litters: puppies paired with littermates by sex and weight at 6 weeks and randomly assigned within pairs, from 8 weeks of age, to ad libitum feeding or 25% less of the same diet for life on a pairwise basis. Hip joints were radiographed in the standard ventrodorsal hip-extended view at multiple intervals before 1 year of age and annually thereafter; a board-certified radiologist unaware of group assignment scored the films for osteoarthritis.
Result: Prevalence of radiographic hip osteoarthritis rose linearly in all dogs, from 15% at 2 years to 67% by 14 years. Restricted-fed dogs had lower prevalence and later onset: median age at first identification of radiographic hip osteoarthritis was 6 years in the control-fed group versus 12 years in the restricted-fed group, a significant difference. The authors conclude that lifetime maintenance of 25% diet restriction delayed onset and reduced severity of hip osteoarthritis, favourably affecting both duration and quality of life.
Watch out: Radiographic osteoarthritis is an imaging endpoint, not a pain or mobility score — the study shows the joints aged six years later on film, and the clinical-benefit reading (the authors' 'quality of life' framing) goes one step beyond the measurement. Same single-cohort limits as the lifespan card.
Smith GK et al. Lifelong diet restriction and radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis of the hip joint in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2006. PMID: 16948575. Registry ID: none — animal studies of this era are not registered. MeSH: Age Factors · Animals · Cohort Studies · Diet, Reducing · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Hip Dysplasia, Canine · Longitudinal Studies · Male · Osteoarthritis, Hip · Quality of Life · Radiography · Random Allocation · Severity of Illness Index
Synthesis: one lifetime randomised study says lean dogs live longer and their hips age half as fast — LIKELY, Tier C
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Kealy 2002 and Smith 2006 — two reports of a single randomised paired-feeding cohort of 48 Labradors followed from 8 weeks of age until death.
Result: This shelf's claim is deliberately narrow: in the only lifetime randomised feeding experiment in dogs, eating 25% less than a littermate for life significantly extended median lifespan, delayed chronic-disease onset, and delayed radiographic hip osteoarthritis by a median of six years (first seen at 12 versus 6 years). For practice the intervention reads as 'keep the dog lean for life', not 'feed exactly 25% less than a sibling' — the study's contrast was against ad libitum-fed controls, so the transferable point is lean-versus-free-fed, and most owned dogs sit between those poles. Because the claim is extended lifespan, the shelf is Tier C and its stamp awaits the developer's personal verdict.
Watch out: Never replicated — there is no second lifespan feeding trial in dogs, and there may never be one, since the experiment takes 14 years. Single breed, single diet, colony conditions, and an ad libitum control arm that overstates the gap versus typical owned-dog feeding. The stamp LIKELY reflects a randomised lifetime design with a hard endpoint, discounted for being one study of 48 dogs.
Synthesis of Kealy RD et al. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2002. PMID: 11991408; Smith GK et al. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2006. PMID: 16948575. Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #54 in the build order
Does what a giant-breed puppy is fed — calcium, energy, protein — change its risk of developmental orthopedic disease?
POSSIBLE proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
POSSIBLE: The experimental record points at two exposures and exonerates a third. Great Dane pups fed three times the recommended calcium developed osteochondrosis-like cartilage lesions — retained cartilage with disturbed endochondral ossification — plus retarded bone maturation and remodelling, while pups fed recommended calcium did not (Goedegebuure & Hazewinkel 1986, histology and bone-labelling study). Protein, by contrast, made no difference: Great Dane pups fed isoenergetic diets at 31.6%, 23.1% or 14.6% protein for 18 weeks showed no differences in calcium metabolism or skeletal development, and the authors conclude a causative role for dietary protein in osteochondrosis is unlikely (Nap 1991). The older overnutrition experiments (Hedhammar's 1974 Great Dane series) are fenced — their records carry no abstracts — but their titles and this programme together support the practical rule: in a growing giant-breed puppy, excess calcium and excess energy are the hazards; protein within studied ranges is not. Small, old, single-breed histology studies cap this at POSSIBLE. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #54); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Goedegebuure & Hazewinkel 1986: Great Dane pups fed 3x recommended calcium developed osteochondrosis-like lesions and retarded bone remodelling
Controlled feeding study with histological endpoints (excess calcium)
Who: Young Great Dane pups chronically fed either a supplement bringing calcium to three times the recommended content (high-calcium group) or a diet following recommended requirements (normal-calcium group); skeletons were examined at the end of the feeding period with histology, histomorphometry and bone-labelling techniques, and the parathyroid glands and thyroid C-cells were assessed. The abstract does not state group sizes.
Result: In the high-calcium group, significant skeletal changes were found. Articular and physeal cartilage changes consisted of various-sized irregularities of retained cartilage with disturbances in endochondral ossification — changes comparable to osteochondrotic lesions. Osseous lesions were characterised by retarded maturation and retarded remodelling of trabecular and cortical bone, a higher percentage of total bone volume, and a decreased number of osteoclasts. Initially the parathyroid glands were less active and thyroid C-cells more numerous in the high-calcium group; by the end of the study these endocrine differences were far less pronounced.
Watch out: A pathology study, not a clinical trial: the endpoints are microscopic lesions in sacrificed pups, the abstract gives no lesion counts or group sizes, and 'three times recommended' is a large excess — the study shows calcium excess CAN produce these lesions in Great Danes, not the exact dietary level at which risk begins in other breeds or in commercial diets.
Goedegebuure SA, Hazewinkel HAW. Morphological findings in young dogs chronically fed a diet containing excess calcium. Vet Pathol. 1986. PMID: 3776015. Registry ID: none — animal studies of this era are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Bone Diseases · Bone and Bones · Calcium, Dietary · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Growth Plate · Male
Nap 1991: dietary protein level (14.6% to 31.6%) made no difference to calcium metabolism or skeletal development in Great Dane pups
Controlled feeding study (protein levels, isoenergetic)
Who: Seventeen Great Dane pups, 7 weeks of age, divided into three groups and fed for 18 weeks on isoenergetic dry food (approximately 15 kJ metabolisable energy per gram) containing 31.6%, 23.1% or 14.6% protein on a dry-matter basis; growth (height at shoulder, body weight), plasma albumin and urea, calcium metabolism and skeletal development were compared.
Result: No differences were found among the high-, normal- and low-protein groups for height at the shoulder. Significant differences were found between the high- and low-protein groups for body weight and plasma albumin, and among all three groups for plasma urea. The differences in protein intake per se had no demonstrable consequences for calcium metabolism and skeletal development. The authors conclude that a causative role for dietary protein in the development of osteochondrosis in dogs is unlikely.
Watch out: Note the design discipline: the diets were isoenergetic, so this study separates protein from calories — it does not say unlimited food is safe, and its 18 weeks in 17 pups cannot exclude small skeletal effects. What it does retire is the common claim that high protein itself causes developmental orthopedic disease.
Nap RC et al. Growth and skeletal development in Great Dane pups fed different levels of protein intake. J Nutr. 1991. PMID: 1941203. Registry ID: none — animal studies of this era are not registered. MeSH: Animal Feed · Animals · Blood Proteins · Body Weight · Bone Development · Breeding · Calcium · Calcium, Dietary · Creatinine · Dietary Proteins · Dogs · Eating · Female · Male · Serum Albumin · Urea
Synthesis: feed the growth, not the maximum — calcium and energy are the exposures, protein is not — POSSIBLE
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Goedegebuure & Hazewinkel 1986 (excess calcium, histology) and Nap 1991 (protein levels, 17 pups, 18 weeks). The Hedhammar overnutrition series is fenced below.
Result: The Utrecht programme's two controlled answers compose the growth-nutrition rule for giant breeds: excess calcium disturbs endochondral ossification in the growing skeleton, and protein across a wide range does not. The energy half of the rule rests on Hedhammar's 1974 experimental series, 'Overnutrition and skeletal disease: an experimental study in growing Great Dane dogs' (Acta Vet Scand Suppl; nine parts, PMIDs 4826271-4826275), fenced here because the records carry no abstracts and this library does not card what it cannot read — the series is named so a reader can find the primary reports. Controlled energy plus recommended (not supplemented) calcium, in a diet formulated for large-breed growth, is the prevention this evidence supports.
Watch out: Everything carded here is Great Danes — the most susceptible breed, deliberately chosen as the sensitive model. Effect sizes in less susceptible breeds, and from the milder excesses of real-world feeding, are extrapolations. Modern large-breed growth diets already embody this research (controlled calcium and energy density); the shelf's live targets are calcium supplements and ad libitum energy on top of them.
Synthesis of Goedegebuure SA, Hazewinkel HAW. Vet Pathol. 1986. PMID: 3776015; Nap RC et al. J Nutr. 1991. PMID: 1941203. Fenced: Hedhammar A et al. Acta Vet Scand Suppl. 1974. PMIDs: 4826271, 4826272, 4826273, 4826274, 4826275 (no abstracts in the records). Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #55 in the build order
Does OspA Lyme vaccination prevent Borrelia burgdorferi infection in dogs?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and displayed under the developer's blinded-trial rule
LIKELY: Two randomised tick-challenge studies — Conlon 2000 run as a blinded, controlled study; Grosenbaugh 2016 randomised, with no blinding stated in its record — say the OspA vaccine blocks infection itself, not just disease. In Conlon 2000, thirty Borrelia-negative puppies were randomised to two lots of a nonadjuvanted recombinant OspA vaccine (20 dogs) or no vaccine (10), then challenged with wild-caught ticks from an endemic area: every control became infected (spirochete isolation 10/10, infection-pattern antibodies 10/10, clinical signs 2/10), and the vaccine blocked infection in all 20 vaccinates. In Grosenbaugh 2016, thirty beagles were randomised to vaccine or no vaccine: 13 of 15 unvaccinated dogs were culture-positive after challenge, versus 2 of 15 vaccinates whose positive cultures cleared by 91 days — and the vaccine reduced histological synovial lesions. The endpoint throughout is infection; most infected dogs never become ill, so the clinical-disease dividend is inferred, partly bridged by the joint-lesion data. Cross-point: Shelf #26 covers the other transmission block — isoxazoline acaricides killing the tick; this shelf is the antibody doing the work inside the tick. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #55); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Conlon 2000: recombinant OspA vaccine blocked infection in 20/20 dogs after a tick challenge that infected 10/10 controls
Blinded randomised tick-challenge study (two vaccine lots vs control)
Who: Thirty purpose-bred, Borrelia burgdorferi-negative mixed-breed dogs, 10 to 12 weeks of age, randomly divided in a blinded, controlled study into three groups of ten: two groups received two doses of two different lots of a nonadjuvanted recombinant OspA vaccine (Recombitek Lyme, Merial), and the third served as nonvaccinated controls. Three weeks after the second vaccination, all dogs were challenged with blacklegged deer ticks (Ixodes scapularis) harvested from a B. burgdorferi-endemic area in Rhode Island. Efficacy was read by clinical signs, ELISA and Western blot antibodies, spirochete isolation and PCR from biopsy specimens, and xenodiagnosis.
Result: Vaccinates responded with high antibody levels that did not rise after challenge; they showed no clinical signs, negative spirochete isolation on biopsy, and an OspA-only Western blot pattern — the vaccine blocked infection with B. burgdorferi in all vaccinated dogs (20/20). Control dogs demonstrated clinical signs (2/10), antibodies characteristic of infection (10/10), isolation of spirochetes (10/10), and PCR detection of spirochetes (9/10). The authors conclude the vaccine protected 100% of vaccinates against infection after a severe challenge that infected 100% of control dogs, and proved highly safe and effective in this study.
Watch out: A severe laboratory challenge with ticks from a highly endemic area is not a backyard exposure — 100% control infection is a stress test, so field protection will look less perfect. And the endpoint is infection: only 2 of 10 infected controls showed clinical signs, which is the standing honesty point for this whole shelf — vaccination reliably prevents infection, while the size of the clinical-disease benefit depends on how often infection would have made the dog ill. Manufacturer's vaccine and manufacturer's study.
Conlon JA et al. Efficacy of a nonadjuvanted, outer surface protein A, recombinant vaccine in dogs after challenge by ticks naturally infected with Borrelia burgdorferi. Vet Ther. 2000;1(2):96-107. PMID: 19757556. Registry ID: none — veterinary vaccine challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Antigens, Surface · Bacterial Outer Membrane Proteins · Bacterial Vaccines · Borrelia burgdorferi · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Ixodes · Lipoproteins · Lyme Disease · Lyme Disease Vaccines · Male
Grosenbaugh 2016: 13/15 unvaccinated beagles culture-positive after challenge vs 2/15 vaccinates (cleared by day 91); synovial lesions reduced
Randomised vaccination-challenge study (infection and synovial histopathology)
Who: Thirty purpose-bred beagles randomly divided into vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. The vaccinated group received two subcutaneous doses of a nonadjuvanted, purified B. burgdorferi OspA vaccine at a 21-day interval; dogs were then challenged by wild-caught, B. burgdorferi-infected ticks (Ixodes scapularis). Antemortem efficacy was read by clinical signs, serology, Borrelia isolation and PCR; postmortem histopathology of synovial tissue was compared with antemortem infection status.
Result: Borreliosis was demonstrated by Borrelia isolation from skin biopsies in 13 out of 15 unvaccinated dogs, and all unvaccinated dogs' Western blot profiles were consistent with infection. Two of 15 vaccinated dogs had at least one positive spirochete culture, which cleared 91 days post-challenge, and their Western blot profiles were consistent with vaccination alone. The study was designed to test, and its title reports, the vaccine's ability to reduce the incidence of histological synovial lesions following experimentally induced Lyme borreliosis — the bridge from blocking infection toward preventing joint pathology.
Watch out: Two vaccinated dogs did transiently culture positive — protection is very strong, not absolute, and a positive culture that clears may still matter for a dog's serology record (vaccinates remain distinguishable from infected dogs on Western blot, which the study used). The abstract itself reports the lesion outcome: all unvaccinated dogs had synovial lesions indicative of Lyme disease, and only one vaccinated dog had a cumulative joint score above the statistical cut-off score for the absence of synovial lesions.
Grosenbaugh DA et al. Demonstration of the ability of a canine Lyme vaccine to reduce the incidence of histological synovial lesions following experimentally-induced canine Lyme borreliosis. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2016. PMID: 27692092. Registry ID: none — veterinary vaccine challenge studies are not registered. MeSH: Animals · Antigens, Surface · Bacterial Outer Membrane Proteins · Bacterial Vaccines · Borrelia burgdorferi · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Lameness, Animal · Lipoproteins · Lyme Disease · Male · Synovial Membrane · Vaccination
Synthesis: OspA antibody kills the spirochete inside the feeding tick — infection blocked in two randomised challenge studies (Conlon blinded) — LIKELY
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Conlon 2000 (30 pups, two vaccine lots, blinded and randomised) and Grosenbaugh 2016 (30 beagles, randomised; infection plus synovial histopathology). Fenced context is named in the result text.
Result: OspA vaccination is a transmission-blocking strategy: antibody in the dog's blood is ingested by the feeding tick and kills Borrelia in the tick's gut before transmission — the same chokepoint Shelf #26 attacks from the acaricide side. Two randomised wild-tick challenge studies — Conlon blinded as well as randomised; Grosenbaugh randomised, its record stating no blinding — found infection blocked in 20 of 20 and effectively 13 of 15 vaccinates against control infection rates of 100% and 87%, with reduced synovial lesions in the study that looked. A small European challenge study of the Biocan B vaccine (Tuhácková 2005, PMID 16601776; 6 vaccinates, 2 controls; challenge by ticks collected in nature; borreliae found in all non-vaccinated tissues, and in two tissue samples from a vaccinated dog with low OspA antibody titres) points the same way and is fenced for size. The shelf's claim is infection prevention; clinical Lyme disease prevention follows only insofar as infection would have caused illness, which in dogs is the minority of infections.
Watch out: Both carded studies used a nonadjuvanted OspA vaccine in purpose-bred young dogs, but the two products are not described the same way in their records: Conlon's record calls its vaccine a recombinant nonadjuvanted B. burgdorferi OspA vaccine (Recombitek Lyme [Merial Limited]), while Grosenbaugh's record describes its vaccine only as a nonadjuvanted, purified, Borrelia burgdorferi OspA vaccine — no manufacturer named, and never called recombinant. Bacterin (whole-cell) Lyme vaccines rest on thinner challenge data and are not what this shelf verifies. Vaccination also does nothing for the other tick-borne infections (anaplasmosis, ehrlichiosis) — tick control stays necessary, which is why this shelf and Shelf #26 are complements, not substitutes.
Synthesis of Conlon JA et al. Vet Ther. 2000;1(2):96-107. PMID: 19757556; Grosenbaugh DA et al. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2016. PMID: 27692092. Fenced: Tuhácková J et al. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2005. PMID: 16601776. Cross-point: Shelf #26 (isoxazolines block Lyme transmission). Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #56 in the build order
Does an imidacloprid/flumethrin repellent collar prevent tick-borne infections (Ehrlichia, Babesia) in dogs?
LIKELY proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
LIKELY: In two randomised controlled studies, the imidacloprid 10%/flumethrin 4.5% collar did not merely reduce tick numbers — it stopped pathogen transmission entirely. Over more than a year of fortnightly releases of Ehrlichia canis-infected Rhipicephalus sanguineus ticks into the dogs' sleeping quarters, none of 8 collared dogs became infected, while 34 of 35 untreated control dogs did (Stanneck & Fourie 2013; acaricidal efficacy 90–100% throughout). In a Babesia canis challenge, all 8 untreated dogs became infected and clinically ill, and none of 8 collared dogs did, with 96% of ticks dead within 48 hours despite 44% of the ticks carrying Babesia (Fourie 2013). The limits are on the shelf's face: manufacturer studies, small groups, one of them non-blinded, laboratory infestations rather than field exposure — which is why this is LIKELY, not PROBABLE. Cross-point: Shelf #26 covers systemic isoxazolines, which kill ticks after they attach; this collar repels and kills on contact, upstream of transmission. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #56); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Stanneck & Fourie 2013: over 12+ months of fortnightly Ehrlichia-infected tick releases, 0/8 collared dogs infected vs 34/35 untreated dogs
Randomised controlled long-term transmission study (Ehrlichia canis)
Who: A parallel-group, single-centre, randomised, non-blinded, controlled long-term efficacy study: 8 dogs fitted with imidacloprid 10%/flumethrin 4.5% collars (Seresto) and an untreated control group of 8, with Ehrlichia canis-infected Rhipicephalus sanguineus ticks released into the dogs' sleeping quarters at 14-day intervals up to Day +378. Infected control dogs were continuously replaced to keep the control sample size constant — 39 control dogs were required in total — and the final clinical examination and blood sampling occurred on Day +420. Infection was confirmed by IFA and PCR on all scheduled blood samples; acaricidal efficacy was read from tick counts.
Result: Up to Day +378, none of the collar-treated dogs were infected with E. canis, whereas 34 of the 35 untreated dogs enrolled before Day +371 were infected. The acaricidal efficacy of the collar ranged from 90% to 100% for the duration of the assessment period — the full labelled duration of the collar, under continuous re-challenge.
Watch out: Non-blinded, and the replacement design means the control denominator (35 enrolled) is not a single cohort followed for a year — read the 34/35 as 'essentially every untreated dog exposed became infected', not as a one-year incidence in 35 dogs followed from day zero. Laboratory sleeping-quarters infestation is heavier and steadier than most field exposures. Manufacturer's product, manufacturer's study.
Stanneck D, Fourie JJ. Imidacloprid 10%/flumethrin 4.5% collars (Seresto, Bayer) successfully prevent long-term transmission of Ehrlichia canis by infected Rhipicephalus sanguineus ticks to dogs. Parasitol Res. 2013. PMID: 23774841. Registry ID: none — veterinary product studies are not registered. MeSH: Administration, Topical · Animals · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Ehrlichia canis · Ehrlichiosis · Fluorescent Antibody Technique · Imidazoles · Insect Repellents · Neonicotinoids · Nitro Compounds · Polymerase Chain Reaction · Polymers · Pyrethrins · Rhipicephalus sanguineus · Tick Infestations · Time Factors · Treatment Outcome
Fourie 2013: Babesia canis challenge — 8/8 untreated dogs infected and clinically ill, 0/8 collared dogs infected
Controlled transmission-challenge study (Babesia canis)
Who: Eight dogs treated with an imidacloprid/flumethrin collar (Seresto) 28 days before infestation with adult Dermacentor reticulatus ticks infected with Babesia canis, compared with an untreated control group of 8. Infection was read by blood smears, specific antibody serology (IFA) and PCR/RLB; tick mortality was counted at 48 hours and 4 days post challenge; 44% of the challenge ticks were infected with B. canis.
Result: All 8 dogs in the untreated control group became infected with B. canis, detected in blood smears as early as day 6 post tick-application; all developed clinical signs of babesiosis and were rescue-treated with imidocarb dipropionate, and all were serology- and PCR/RLB-positive. None of the 8 collar-treated dogs became infected — no specific B. canis antibodies and no babesial DNA. The collar killed 96.02% of ticks within 48 hours of challenge and 100% within 4 days; despite the high tick infection rate, the infected ticks were unable to transmit to the treated group.
Watch out: A one-month post-application challenge: this study proves transmission blocking shortly after fitting, while the Stanneck card carries the duration claim — the two studies are complements, and neither is a field trial in owned dogs. Small groups (8 per arm) mean the confidence interval around '0 of 8' is wide even though the contrast with 8 of 8 is stark.
Fourie JJ, Stanneck D, Jongejan F. Prevention of transmission of Babesia canis by Dermacentor reticulatus ticks to dogs treated with an imidacloprid/flumethrin collar. Vet Parasitol. 2013. PMID: 23158840. Registry ID: none — veterinary product studies are not registered. MeSH: Acaricides · Animals · Antibodies, Protozoan · Arachnid Vectors · Babesia · Babesiosis · DNA, Protozoan · Dermacentor · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Imidazoles · Male · Neonicotinoids · Polymerase Chain Reaction · Pyrethrins · Tick Infestations · Treatment Outcome
Synthesis: contact repellency blocks transmission for two different pathogens and tick species — LIKELY
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Stanneck & Fourie 2013 (Ehrlichia canis via Rhipicephalus sanguineus, >12 months) and Fourie 2013 (Babesia canis via Dermacentor reticulatus, 1 month post-fitting). Both study the same imidacloprid/flumethrin collar.
Result: The two studies cover different pathogens, different tick genera, and different timescales, and both found complete transmission blocking: no collared dog became infected in either study, against near-universal infection in untreated dogs. Mechanistically the collar works upstream — repellency plus rapid contact kill (96% of ticks dead within 48 hours in the Babesia study) — so the pathogen never gets its feeding window. That is the complementary strategy to Shelf #26's systemic isoxazolines, which kill the tick after attachment and a blood meal begin. The practical dividend of an 8-month collar is compliance: there is no monthly dose to forget during tick season.
Watch out: Both studies come from the manufacturer's research programme and were run under laboratory infestation; independent field trials in owned dogs would strengthen this shelf and none are carded here. The collar studied is this specific product and formulation — the shelf verifies nothing about other collars, including deltamethrin collars, whose best evidence is against sandfly-borne leishmaniosis rather than tick-borne disease.
Synthesis of Stanneck D, Fourie JJ. Parasitol Res. 2013. PMID: 23774841; Fourie JJ et al. Vet Parasitol. 2013. PMID: 23158840. Cross-point: Shelf #26 (isoxazolines block Lyme transmission). Registry IDs as on the individual cards.
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #57 in the build order
Does feeding a purpose-formulated dental diet reduce plaque, calculus and gingivitis in dogs compared with ordinary dry food?
POSSIBLE proposed stamp — gate-verified and approved by the developer
POSSIBLE: Two randomised feeding comparisons say a purpose-formulated dental food accumulates less plaque than ordinary dry food. Logan 2002 fed dogs for six months and found 39% less plaque accumulation and 36% less gingivitis with the dental food than with a typical dry food (relative reductions; the record prints no absolute index values). Jensen 1995, six combined trials in 120 dogs with groups randomly assigned after cleaning, found significantly less plaque, stain and calculus on the formulated food at 21 days (p = 0.001). Both are accumulation-rate studies on surrogate endpoints — plaque and gingivitis scores, not tooth loss or periodontal surgery — and neither record states assessor blinding, which is why the stamp is POSSIBLE and not higher. This is the passive arm of dental prevention; the active arm (brushing) is Shelf #8. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #57); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Logan 2002: over six months, a dental food cut plaque accumulation by 39% and gingivitis by 36% versus a typical dry food
Randomised controlled feeding trial (6 months)
Who: Dogs in a controlled research feeding comparison, fed daily for six months on either a specifically formulated and processed dental food or a typical dry food (the record's abstract does not report group sizes). Setting: research colony feeding trial, plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation scored over the full six months.
Result: Daily feeding of the dental food significantly reduced plaque accumulation by 39% and gingivitis by 36% compared with daily feeding of the typical dry food — relative reductions in index scores; the abstract reports no absolute index values. The authors conclude that a food which decreases plaque accumulation and reduces gingivitis contributes to canine oral health maintenance.
Watch out: The endpoints are plaque and gingivitis indices over six months — the accumulation rate after feeding, not periodontal attachment loss, tooth survival, or need for professional cleaning, none of which this trial measured. The comparison is one formulated dental food against one typical dry food; it does not follow that any large-kibble or 'dental' labelled food performs the same.
Logan EI, Finney O, Hefferren JJ. Effects of a dental food on plaque accumulation and gingival health in dogs. J Vet Dent. 2002. PMID: 11985120. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Animal Feed · Animals · Dental Plaque · Dental Plaque Index · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Gingivitis · Male · Oral Hygiene · Periodontal Index · Treatment Outcome
Jensen 1995: six combined trials, 120 dogs — the formulated food left significantly less plaque, stain and calculus (p = 0.001)
Randomised multicentre feeding trials (six combined, clean-tooth model)
Who: One hundred and twenty dogs at two research sites, 215 evaluations in total. Dogs were balanced in groups of five according to baseline plaque index scores and the groups randomly assigned to a food formulated to reduce plaque, stain and calculus, or to a commercially available dry control food. All dogs were professionally cleaned on day 0 and received no other foods, treats or snacks.
Result: Twenty-two teeth were graded for plaque on day 7 and for stain and calculus on day 21. Dogs fed the treatment food had significantly less plaque, stain and calculus accumulation (p = 0.001) than dogs fed the control food, across the six combined trials. The authors conclude that plaque, stain and calculus accumulation can be reduced by dietary means.
Watch out: A 21-day clean-tooth model measures how fast substrates re-accumulate after a professional cleaning — it is the standard regulatory-style design for dental claims, but it is short, and it does not show what years of feeding do to periodontal disease. Baseline balancing by plaque score is not the same as blinding; the record does not state that the graders were masked.
Jensen L, Logan E, Finney O, Lowry S, Smith M, Hefferren J. Reduction in accumulation of plaque, stain, and calculus in dogs by dietary means. J Vet Dent. 1995. PMID: 9693645. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Analysis of Variance · Animal Feed · Animals · Dental Calculus · Dental Plaque · Diet Therapy · Dog Diseases · Dogs · Female · Male · Tooth Discoloration
Synthesis: a formulated dental food slows plaque and gingivitis — POSSIBLE
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Logan 2002 (six-month feeding comparison) and Jensen 1995 (six combined clean-tooth trials, 120 dogs).
Result: Two randomised comparisons of a purpose-formulated dental food against ordinary dry food point the same way: less plaque accumulation (39% relative over six months in Logan; significantly less plaque, stain and calculus at 21 days in Jensen, p = 0.001) and less gingivitis (36% relative in Logan). The diet effect is real on the measures taken; the measures are surrogates, the horizons are weeks to months, and neither record establishes blinded scoring — hence POSSIBLE rather than LIKELY. Together with Shelf #8 (brushing and treats), this shelf completes the dietary side of canine dental prevention.
Watch out: Nothing here tests 'dental' marketing claims generally — both trials used specific formulated foods fed as the sole diet after a professional cleaning. A dog already carrying established periodontal disease needs dentistry, not a different kibble.
Synthesis of Logan EI et al. J Vet Dent. 2002. PMID: 11985120; Jensen L et al. J Vet Dent. 1995. PMID: 9693645. Registry IDs as on the individual cards. Cross-point: Shelf #8 (brushing frequency and dental treats).
Prevention · Dogs · Shelf #58 in the build order
Do oral probiotics or postbiotics reduce plaque accumulation or bad breath in dogs?
POSSIBLE proposed stamp — gate-verified and displayed under the developer's blinded-trial rule
POSSIBLE: A small, young evidence base with an unusually honest shape. For bad breath, two double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trials of the same oral postbiotic (24 dogs each, 14 days) found volatile sulfur compounds lowered by 27% relative to placebo across the first study (p = 0.004) and, in a lower-dose validation study, a −26% relative change versus placebo at day 14 (p = 0.04) — in that second study the effect was mainly preventing the rise seen in placebo dogs (+38% by day 14). For plaque itself, the only trial is a randomised pilot (Misztal-Kunecka 2026) in dogs after professional cleaning: gingival bleeding, plaque and calculus indices all significantly better on the probiotic at 56 days (p = 0.008, 0.020, 0.018), but the record reports no group sizes, no absolute values, and no blinding or placebo. Breath is a marker, not periodontal disease; every trial is small and short. Pilot-grade overall: POSSIBLE. Drafted Nov 9, 2026 (VetMed build, hub order #58); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Misztal-Kunecka 2026: after dental cleaning, a probiotic group beat controls on bleeding, plaque and calculus indices at 56 days
Randomised pilot study (56 days, post-cleaning)
Who: Dogs that had undergone professional dental cleaning, randomised to a probiotic preparation or control for 56 days (the record's abstract reports neither the group sizes nor the breeds/setting beyond the post-procedural context). Outcomes were the Gingival Bleeding Index, Dental Plaque Index and Dental Calculus Index.
Result: Statistically significant differences favoured the probiotic group on every evaluated parameter: Gingival Bleeding Index lower (p = 0.008), Dental Plaque Index (p = 0.020) and Dental Calculus Index (p = 0.018) after 56 days of administration. The authors describe the work as a randomised pilot study and its findings as preliminary clinical evidence of an adjunctive benefit after cleaning. The abstract reports p-values only — no absolute index values and no effect sizes.
Watch out: Pilot-grade by the authors' own description: the record does not state group sizes, a placebo, or any blinding, and with p-values but no magnitudes a reader cannot tell a large effect from a small one. This is the only plaque-outcome trial of a live probiotic on this shelf — the stronger-designed evidence below is about breath compounds, not plaque.
Misztal-Kunecka A, Podgórska A. Innovative Application of Probiotic Bacteria to Reduce Dental Plaque in Dogs: A Pilot Study. Life (Basel). 2026. PMID: 42795366. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: none in the record
Sordillo 2025: double-blind placebo-controlled trial — a postbiotic lowered breath sulfur compounds 27% relative to placebo in 14 days
Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial (14 days)
Who: Twenty-four dogs, stratified into two groups by starting volatile sulfur compound (VSC) levels, receiving a novel canine oral health postbiotic or a placebo as a powder topper over standard chow for 14 days. VSCs were measured by halimeter on days 0, 7 and 14; perceived malodor was scored on a 10-point scale.
Result: The postbiotic significantly decreased VSCs from baseline by day 7 (−22%, p = 0.002), while VSCs in the placebo group rose over the study. Across the study the postbiotic lowered VSC levels by 27% compared with placebo (a relative difference, p = 0.004) and fully prevented an increase from baseline. Twice as many postbiotic dogs as placebo dogs had perceptibly improved breath on day 7 on the 10-point survey.
Watch out: Twenty-four dogs and 14 days, from the product's own development programme; the endpoint is breath chemistry and perceived odor — an oral-health marker, not a periodontal outcome. The placebo group's breath worsened over the fortnight, which flatters the relative comparison; the from-baseline fall (−22% at day 7) is the cleaner figure.
Sordillo A, Casella L, Turcotte R, Sheth RU. A Novel Postbiotic Reduces Canine Halitosis. Animals (Basel). 2025. PMID: 40509062. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: none in the record
Sordillo 2026: lower-dose validation — postbiotic prevented the breath-compound rise seen on placebo (−26% relative at day 14)
Double-blinded, placebo-controlled validation study (14 days)
Who: Twenty-four dogs stratified by starting VSC levels, receiving the same oral postbiotic at a reduced dose (150 mg) or placebo as a powder topper over standard chow for 14 days. VSCs measured by halimeter and malodor scored on a 10-point scale on days 0, 7 and 14. A previous 24-dog study at 250 mg (carded above as the 2025 trial's predecessor finding) is described within this record.
Result: VSC levels rose in the placebo group by 24% at day 7 (P = .006) and 38% at day 14 (P = .002), while the postbiotic prevented VSC increases on both days, giving a −26% change compared with placebo at day 14 (P = .04). Perceived malodor trended about one point lower on the postbiotic than placebo (P = .06). The authors conclude the effect is reproducible and maintained at the lower dose.
Watch out: At the reduced dose the demonstrated effect is preventing deterioration, not lowering breath compounds from baseline — the two findings are not interchangeable, and the card keeps them separate. Same team, same product, same 24-dog fortnight design: replication within one programme is worth less than independent replication, which does not yet exist.
Sordillo A, Turcotte R, Sheth RU. Canine Halitosis Improved With a Postbiotic: A Validation Study. J Vet Dent. 2026. PMID: 42095656. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: none in the record
Synthesis: breath compounds — two small double-blind trials; plaque — one unblinded pilot — POSSIBLE
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: Misztal-Kunecka 2026 (randomised pilot, plaque outcomes), Sordillo 2025 and Sordillo 2026 (double-blind placebo-controlled trials, breath outcomes, 24 dogs each).
Result: Split the claim in two. Breath: two double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trials from one programme agree that the postbiotic keeps volatile sulfur compounds down over 14 days (27% relative to placebo; −26% relative in the lower-dose validation, where placebo breath worsened by 38%). Plaque and gingivitis: a single randomised pilot without stated blinding or placebo found significantly better indices after cleaning, with no magnitudes reported. Nothing on this shelf measures periodontal disease itself. Small, short, single-programme — POSSIBLE, and the shelf to revisit when an independent group reports.
Watch out: Do not let the tidy breath result carry the plaque claim: different products (a postbiotic powder vs a live probiotic preparation), different endpoints, different design quality. Owners asking 'does it work?' deserve the split answer this shelf gives.
Synthesis of Misztal-Kunecka A, Podgórska A. Life (Basel). 2026. PMID: 42795366; Sordillo A et al. Animals (Basel). 2025. PMID: 40509062; Sordillo A et al. J Vet Dent. 2026. PMID: 42095656. Registry IDs as on the individual cards. Cross-point: Shelf #8 (brushing and treats), Shelf #57 (dental diets).
The prevention build list
One hundred prevention shelves, in build order: small animal first (dogs, then cats), then large animal (horses, then cattle), then companion exotics.
Small Animal
Dogs
Cats
Large Animal
Horses
Cattle
- Teat sealant at dry-off (mastitis prevention) — in preparation
- Monensin for ketosis prevention (transition cows) — in preparation
- Selective dry cow therapy — in preparation
- BRD metaphylaxis on arrival — in preparation
- Milk-fever prevention — negative-DCAD diets — in preparation
- BVD vaccination — fetal protection — in preparation
- Colostrum management and replacers (failure of passive transfer) — in preparation
- J5 E. coli mastitis vaccination — in preparation
- Footbaths for digital dermatitis — in preparation
- BRD viral vaccination — in preparation
- Pinkeye (IBK) vaccination — in preparation
- Staph. aureus mastitis vaccination — in preparation
- Teat disinfection — in preparation
- Propylene glycol at calving prevents ketosis — in preparation
- Oral calcium at calving (milk-fever prevention) — in preparation
- Vitamin E + selenium prevents retained placenta — in preparation
- Dam vaccination prevents calf scours — in preparation
- Tylosin feeding prevents liver abscesses (feedlot) — in preparation
Companion Exotics
Small mammals
- Rabbits — RHDV2 vaccination — in preparation
- Rabbits — spaying prevents uterine adenocarcinoma — in preparation
- Ferrets — deslorelin implant and adrenal disease — in preparation
- Rats — spaying prevents mammary (and pituitary) tumours — in preparation
- Guinea pigs — vitamin C prevents scurvy — in preparation
- Rabbits — hay-based diet prevents dental disease — in preparation
- Ferrets — distemper vaccination — in preparation
- Ferret heartworm prevention — in preparation
- Rabbits — fenbendazole prevents E. cuniculi infection — in preparation
- Rabbits — coccidiosis prevention — in preparation
- Sugar gliders — diet prevents metabolic bone disease — in preparation
- Ferrets — rabies vaccination — in preparation
- Rabbits — myxomatosis vaccination — in preparation
Birds
- Avian polyomavirus vaccination — in preparation
- Beak and feather disease (PBFD) vaccination — in preparation
- Formulated diets prevent vitamin A deficiency (psittacines) — in preparation
- Aspergillosis prophylaxis in captive birds — in preparation
- West Nile virus vaccination in captive birds — in preparation
- Enrichment prevents feather-damaging behaviour — in preparation
Reptiles
- UVB light prevents metabolic bone disease — in preparation
- Leopard geckos — UVB and vitamin D — in preparation
- Corn snakes — UVB raises vitamin D status — in preparation
- Gut-loading and calcium dusting of feeder insects — in preparation
- Tortoises — pyramiding is husbandry, not fate — in preparation
- Chameleons — vitamin A/D and UV in indoor husbandry — in preparation
- UV provision by species (Ferguson zones) — in preparation
- Green iguanas — diet prevents nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism — in preparation
Backyard poultry
- Marek's disease vaccination — in preparation
- Coccidiosis vaccination — in preparation
- Newcastle disease — thermostable I-2 vaccine for backyard flocks — in preparation
- Salmonella Enteritidis vaccination in laying hens — in preparation
- Infectious bursal disease (Gumboro) vaccination — in preparation
- Avian influenza (H5) vaccination — in preparation
- Infectious bronchitis vaccination — in preparation
- Infectious laryngotracheitis vaccination — in preparation
- Mycoplasma gallisepticum vaccination (ts-11 and successors) — in preparation
- Competitive exclusion (the Nurmi concept) — in preparation
The full library — open to everyone
Every shelf VetMed has verified is free to read, no account needed — the prevention shelves in full above, and the treatment and care shelves here. This list grows as new shelves are verified and approved.
Dogs
Cats
Dogs and cats
Horses
Cattle
Sheep & goats
Pigs
Rabbits
Ferrets
Rats & Rodents
Birds
Backyard Poultry
Reptiles
Founding members
Reading VetMed is free for everyone, and no account is ever needed. Veterinarians who would like to be counted may register free: you take the next member number, and your number and name join this list. Membership is a founding roll, nothing more — the library stays open to all.
Register free
License numbers are recorded as provided at registration and checked only for the format of the issuing country; VetMed does not verify them against licensing-board databases and does not claim to.
VetMed