{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018110958276020175, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004355800091701055, 'mean_word_length': 5.34156976744186, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Veterinary Products Committee working group report on feline and canine vaccination.

* The working group was set up by the Veterinary Products Committee in response to current concern in both the public domain and in the scientific community about possible health risks related to the routine vaccination of cats and dogs. The working group concluded that vaccination plays a very valuable role in the prevention and control of the major infectious diseases in cats and dogs. Although adverse reactions to vaccination, including lack of efficacy, occasionally occur, the working group concluded that the overall risk/benefit analysis strongly supports their continued use. * Although for some diseases there is evidence of a longer duration of immunity following vaccination than the one year which is typically recommended on the product literature, there is currently insufficient information to propose revaccination intervals other than those proposed by the manufacturer and approved by the regulatory process. * Notwithstanding this, in view of the occasional occurrence of adverse reactions, the working group recommends that the product literature indicates that the regime for booster vaccinations is based on a minimum duration of immunity rather than a maximum. The working group further recommends that the product literature should state that a risk/benefit assessment should be made for each individual animal by the veterinary surgeon in consultation with the owner with respect to the necessity for each vaccine and the frequency of its use. * The evidence suggests that cats appear to be susceptible to the occasional development of sarcomas at sites of injection and there is some further evidence to suggest that, although other products may be involved, this may be more associated with the use of vaccines containing aluminium-based adjuvants. The working group therefore recommends that a generic warning to this effect should appear on the product literature for all feline vaccines administered by injection. The working group also highlighted the need for professional and educational bodies in the UK to bring to the attention of veterinary practitioners appropriate methods for prevention, diagnosis and treatment of this serious condition. * The working group considered in depth the monitoring of adverse reactions, including the advantages and disadvantages of surveillance schemes. A range of options for carrying out further epidemiological (analytical) studies was also considered. However, the working group emphasised that surveillance schemes, and the UK Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) Suspected Adverse Reaction (SAR) Surveillance Scheme in particular, provided a very valuable resource. The large database within the VMD scheme (collected since 1985) was analysed as part of this report. Figures were derived in terms of incidence (reporting rate) of certain clinical signs per 10,000 doses, and risk factors as identified by statistical analysis. However, due to a number of constraints, the analysis was not fully comprehensive and the interaction of possible risk factors was not determined. * Product-related control charts were developed in order to detect changes in incidence rates of adverse reactions (per 10,000 doses sold) both within and between different vaccines. Such charts provide a powerful way to detect changing trends in incidence and, when used in conjunction with product characteristics, they may identify possible causes. In general, the data showed that the incidence of adverse reactions to cat and dog vaccines per 10,000 doses of product sold was relatively low. Although under-reporting is a feature of such surveillance schemes, it does appear that, overall, vaccination of cats and dogs should be considered safe and effective. * Finally, the working group was conscious, while preparing this report, of the extensive media coverage that has been given to the issue of the safety of human vaccines, in particular the mumps, measles and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The working group emphasises that the conclusions and recommendations included in this report relate only to the vaccines used in cats and dogs. The issues identified are specific to the diseases and species examined and no attempt should be made to draw analogous conclusions in relation to vaccines administered to humans.