djs_jaaha_56_5_COVER.indd

VETERINARY PRACTICE GUIDELINES

2020 AAHA/AAFP Feline Vaccination Guidelines*

Amy E. S. Stone, DVM, PhD

, Gary O. Brummet, DVM, Ellen M. Carozza, LVT, Philip H. Kass, DVM, MPVM, MS, PhD,

DACVPM (Specialty in Epidemiology), Ernest P. Petersen, DVM, PhD, DABVP (Feline), Jane Sykes, BVSc (Hons), P hD,

DACVIM, MBA, Mark E. Westman, BVSc (Hons), PhD, MANZCVS (Animal Welfare), GradCert Ed Stud (Higher Ed)

ABSTRACT

The guidelines are a consensus report on current recommendations for vaccination of cats of any origin, authored by a

Task Force of experts. The guidelines are published simultaneously in the Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery (volume

22, issue 9, pages 813–830, DOI: 10.1177/1098612X20941784) and the Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association

(volume 56, issue 4, pages 249–265, DOI: 10.5326/JAAHA-MS-7123). The guidelines assign approved feline vaccines to

core (recommended for all cats) and non-core (recommended based on an individualized risk-beneﬁt assessment) cate-

gories. Practitioners can develop individualized vaccination protocols consisting of core vaccines and non-core vaccines

based on exposure and susceptibility risk as deﬁned by the patient’s life stage, lifestyle, and place of origin and by

environmental and epidemiologic factors. An update on feline injection-site sarcomas indicates that occurrence of this

sequela remains infrequent and idiosyncratic. Staff education initiatives should enable the veterinary practice team to be

proﬁcient in advising clients on proper vaccination practices and compliance. Vaccination is a component of a preventive

healthcare plan. The vaccination visit should always include a thorough physical exam and client education dialog that

gives the pet owner an understanding of how clinical staff assess disease risk and propose recommendations that help

ensure an enduring owner-pet relationship. (J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2020; 56:249–265. DOI 10.5326/JAAHA-MS-7123)

AFFILIATIONS

From the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Florida,

Gainesville, Florida, USA (A.E.S.S.); Veterinary Teaching Hospital, College of

Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana,

Illinois, USA (G.O.B.); Nova Cat Clinic, Arlington, Virginia, USA (E.M.C.);

Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary

Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, USA (P.H.K.);

Animal Hospital of Parkland, Tacoma, Washington (E.P.P.); University of Cal-

ifornia, Davis, Davis, California, USA (J.S.); and Sydney School of Veterinary

Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia (M.E.W.).

KEYWORDS

Vaccination pr inciples; vaccines; lifestyle; risk assessment; veterinarian;

injection site; rabies; leuk emi a; guidelines; maternally derived antibodies

Correspondence: [email protected]ﬂ.edu (A.E.S.S.)

* Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc., Elanco Animal Health,

Merck Animal Health, and Zoetis Petcare supported the development of

the 2020 AAHA/AAFP Feline Vaccination Guidelines and resources

through an educational grant to AAHA.

†

A. E. S. Stone was chair of the 2020 AAHA/AAFP Feline Vaccination

Guidelines Task Force.

These guidelines were prepared by a Task Force of experts convened by

the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) and the American

Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP) and were subjected to a formal

peer-review process. This document is intended as a guideline only, not an

AAHA or AAFP standard of care. These guidelines and recommendations

should not be construed as dictating an exclusive protocol, course of

treatment, or procedure. Variations in practice may be warranted based on

the needs of the individual patient, resources, and limitations unique to

each individual practice setting. Evidence-based support for speciﬁc rec-

ommendations has been cited whenever possible and appropriate.

Other recommendations are based on practical clinical experience and

a consensus of expert opinion. Further research is needed to document

some of these recommendations. Because each case is different, vet-

erinarians must bas e their decisions on the best a vailable scientiﬁc

evidence in conjunction with their own knowledge and experience.

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid); FCV (feline calicivirus); FeLV (feline leu-

kemia virus); FHV-1 (feline herpesvirus type 1); FIP (feline infectious

peritonitis); FISS (feline injection-site sarcoma); FPV (feline panleuko-

penia virus); Ig (immunoglobulin); IM (intramuscular); MDA (maternally

derived antibodies); SC (subcutaneous); WSAVA (World Small Animal

Veterinary Association)

ª 2020 by American Animal Hospital Association, American Association of Feline Practitioners, and International Society of Feline Medicine JAAHA.ORG 249

Introduction

As a medically essential and cost-effective method of infectious

disease control, vaccination continues to be a mainstay of feline

practice and a critical component of an individualized preventive

healthcare plan. These guidelines provide the most current infor-

mation and recommendations for feline vaccination as determined

by a Task Force of experts in feline practice. The recommendations

are evidence-guided, based on current peer-reviewed literature and

data, and complemented by clinical insights collectively derived from

decades of experience. The guidelines update the 2013 AAFP Feline

Vaccination Advisory Panel Report and utilize similar recommenda-

tions from the 2016 WSAVA [World Small Animal Veterinary As-

sociation] Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats.

1,2

Both of

these previously published resources should still be considered rel-

evant and actionable complements to the 2020 guidelines.

The guidelines continue the established approach of considering

inclusion of core (recommended for all cats) and non-core (rec-

ommended based on an individualized risk-beneﬁt assessment)

vaccines in an individualized protocol. As explained in the guidelines,

a patient-speciﬁc vaccination plan should consider environmental

risk factors and life stage and lifestyle factors that determine the

likelihood of infectious disease exposure and susceptibility. For

example, not all feline patients originate from a home environment,

and conversely, most cats described as “indoor only” might ﬁnd

themselves periodically exposed to other cats. The guidelines discuss

other presentation scenarios that can potentially affect a risk-beneﬁt

assessment and include updates on feline injection-site sarcomas

(FISSs) and other vaccination-related reactions.

A key component of the guidelines are comprehensive, easy-to-

reference tables listing approved core and non-core feline vaccines and

the relevant considerations for their use. The guidelines are com-

plemented by an online resource center at aaha.org/felinevaccination

and supplemental materials at catvets.com/vaccination. The online

resources include frequently asked questions about vaccination that

clinicians and pet owners raise as well as a vaccine protocol calculator

that uses a cat’s life stage and lifestyle information to suggest an

appropriate, indivi dualized vaccination protocol.

The guidelines discuss in some detail the importance of staff and

client education in implementing vaccination protocols and rec-

ommendations for feline patients. This emphasis is noteworthy in

view of the fact that many pet owners, especially cat owners, associate

professional veterinary care primarily with two events, vaccination

and treatment of acute conditions.

Thus, a healthcare visit for the

purposes of vaccination becomes an opportunity to more broadly

discuss an overall preventive healthcare strateg y with the pet owner.

Implicit in this approach is an explanation of how the clinician

considers life stage, lifestyle, patient health status, environmental,

and epidemiologic factors in making vaccination recommendations.

The vaccination event then occurs in the context of a practitioner-

client discussion on how preventive healthcare forms the basis for

the pet owner to maintain a long, rewarding relationship with the

animal in his or her care.

Vaccination Principles

Active immunization, achieved through proper vaccination, plays a

critical role in the control of infectious diseases, both for individual

cats and for the cat population as a whole. Some vaccines also reduce

the potential for spread of zoonotic infections to humans (e.g., ra-

bies). The beneﬁts of routine, widespread vaccination are clear: the

incidence of serious disease caused by pathogenic organisms, such as

feline panleukopenia virus (FPV), can be reduced dramatically when

widespread vaccination is practiced. However, the quality of vaccine-

induced immunity is inﬂuenced by the patient’s environment, the

characteristics of the vaccine, the pathogen, and the patient’s

immune competence. Accurate prediction of the outcome of vacci-

nation or the likelihood of exposure to a pathogen is impossible.

Therefore, it is important that veterinarians inform cat owners that

vaccination is not a guarantee of protection.

In general, kittens are more susceptible to infection and disease

than adults. Thus, they represent a primary target population for

immunization. As part of a routine wellness program, the vaccination

needs of all cats should be assessed annually, in conjunction with a

comprehensive physical examination, modifying vaccination and

other control recommendations as necessary based on the current

risk (see “Vaccination Risk-Beneﬁt Assessment”).

Kittens born to immune queens lack signiﬁcant transplacentally

acquired antibodies

and instead absorb speciﬁc maternally derived

antibodies (MDA) through colostrum, which provides important

protection during early life. Most absorption occurs within 24 hours

of birth. However, this MDA also interferes with active immuniza-

tion. Serum MDA inhibits immunoglobulin (Ig)G production

within the neonate through negative feedback mechanisms. It also

neutralizes vaccine antigens and prevents them from stimulating an

immune response. MDA then declines at a variable rate. Maternally

derived IgG in kittens in one study was lowest at around 3–4 weeks

of age, and serum IgG and IgA increased dramatically at 5–7 weeks

of age.

These results suggested that kittens may be susceptible to

infectious diseases at about 1 month of age, perhaps as much as

2 weeks earlier than puppies.

Nevertheless, it is critical to recognize that there is considerable

individual variation in the rate of decline of MDA, and some kittens

maintain high concentrations for months.

The persistence of MDA

is one of the most common reasons for vaccine failure. The amount

250 JAAHA | 56:5 Sep/Oct 2020

of MDA in a kitten at any one time point cannot be predicted be-

cause it varies depending on the titer of the dam and the amount of

colostrum ingested after birth. As a result, a series of vaccinations is

administered to kittens every 2–4 weeks through 16–18 weeks of age in

order to increase the chance that successful immunization will occur

soon after the decline of MDA to sufﬁciently low titers. The series is

started no sooner than 4 weeks of age, because neonates are more

likely to develop vaccine organism–associated disease and may not

respond well to vaccination. During administration of the series, a

window exists when MDA concentrations are high enough to in-

terfere with immunization but are not sufﬁcient to prevent natural

infection. This window of susceptibility can be minimized by de-

creasing the interval between vaccinations in the series, althoug h use

of intervals less than 2 weeks can interfere with successful immu-

nization, especially with attenuated live vaccines.

Once vaccination has been successfully achieved after the de-

cline of MDA, it is generally recommended that a booster vaccine be

given 3–4 weeks later (this is especially important for inactivated

vaccines, although a boostering effect will also occur following

revaccination with attenuated live vaccines). This means that the

series must be extended 3–4 weeks beyond the period in which the

decline in MDA occurs, with the ﬁnal vaccination dose being a booster.

In the past, it was recommended that revaccination be performed

1 year after the initial kitten series, and then for most vaccines every

3 years thereafter. However, owing to studies that suggest up to one-

third of kittens may fail to respond to a ﬁnal core vaccine at

16 weeks and may have blocking MDA at 20 weeks, the WSAVA

recommends that the 1 year vaccine (feline viral rhinotracheitis-

calicivirus-panleukopenia only) be replaced with revaccination at

6 months of age.

2,6,7

In this update, this Task Force has adopted the same recom-

mendation of revaccination against FPV, feline herpesvirus type 1

(FHV-1), and feline calicivirus (FCV) at 6 months of age to potentially

reduce the window of susceptibility in kittens with MDA toward the

end of the kitten series (16–18 weeks). The Task Force recognizes that

this means an additional visit will still be necessary for adminis-

tration of the annual feline leukemia virus (FeLV) and rabies vac-

cinations in young cats.

The risk of infection and disease varies with factors such as the age

and health of the cat, magnitude of exposure to the infectious agent,

the pathogenicity of the agent, and the vaccination history of the cat.

Some of the factors that impact an individual animal’s ability to re-

spond to vaccination include interference from MDA, congenital or

acquired immunodeﬁciency, concurrent disease, inadequate nutri-

tion, chronic stress, and very young or old age. Some vaccines (e.g.,

those for FPV) induce a stronger protective response than others (e.g.,

those for FHV-1). Because vaccine-induced protection is variable and

not absolute, vaccination should not be used as the only form of

protection, and other control measures, such as those that reduce

exposure to infectious agents, should also be employed.

Types of Feline Vaccines

Vaccines, including those from different manufacturers that are li-

censed to protect against the same pathogen, should not be assumed

as equivalent. Differences in processes and technology used to

produce vaccines, as well as additives such as adjuvants, and vaccine

route of administration inﬂuence efﬁ cacy, safety, and duration of

immunity. Vaccines may be inactivated, attenuated live, or recom-

binant (Table 1). All veterinary vaccines, before licensing, are

assessed for efﬁcacy, safety, potency, and purity. Vaccine efﬁcacy is

often expressed as preventable fraction,deﬁned as the proportion of

vaccinated animals that do not develop a disease after challenge (so-

called sterilizing immunity, e.g., FPV, FeLV, and rabies vaccines),

compared with unvaccinated animals that do develop the disease. It

can also be expressed as mitigatable fraction (proportion with re-

duction in severity of clinical signs, e.g., FHV-1 and FCV vaccines).

Other claims include reduction of pathogen shedding, prevention of

a speci ﬁc clinical sign, or prevention of mortality. The level or de-

gree of protection claim can therefore be limited.

Inactivated vaccines are vaccines in which the target pathogen is

“killed” and therefore unable to replicate in the host. Although these

vaccines are unable to revert to virulence, they often contain adju-

vants and other excipient proteins to promote an adequate immune

response, which have been implicated in acute and delayed adverse

reactions in cats. Inactivated vaccines produce weaker immune re-

sponses of shorter duration when compared with attenuated live

vaccines, and more frequent booster immunizations may be required

(generally annually). W ith the ex c eption of rabies, two initial doses of

vaccine 3–4 weeks apart in the absence of MDA are absolutely essential

to produc e an effective immune r esponse, and if more than 6 weeks

elapses between these doses, it is recommended in other guidelines

reports that the series be repeated.

2,8

Full protection may not develop

until 2–3 weeks after the last dose. Inactivated vaccines ar e generally

considered safer than attenuated live vaccines for use during pregnancy

and in immunosuppressed animals, although systemic allergic reac-

tions could still jeopardize pregnancy.

Attenuated live vaccines (modiﬁed live vaccines) contain mi-

croorganisms that are artiﬁcially manipulated so as to reduce their

virulence or are ﬁeld strains of low virulence. Repeated passage

through cell culture is the most common means of attenuation.

Because organisms in attenuated live vaccines replicate in the host,

they stimulate an immune response that more closely mimics

protection from natural infection. There is generally a more rapid

onset of immunity than with inactivated vaccines, and, in the

2020 AAHA/AAFP Feline Vaccination Guidelines

JAAHA.ORG 251

absence of MDA, only one dose of vaccine may be sufﬁcient to

provide protection. Partial immunity after vaccination with a single

dose of attenuated live FPV vaccines can occur within hours.

9–11

addition, live vaccine organisms that are shed can immunize other

animals in a population. However, the potential for vaccine or-

ganism–induced disease exists. This is most likely to occur in

immunosuppressed animals, su ch as n eonate s that are younger

than 4 weeks old. In addition, use of attenuated live vaccines is

more likely to result in the generation of false-positive results as

indicated by diag nostic tests that are designed t o dete ct the

target pathogen (antigen or nucleic acid). With prolonged

shedding of live vaccine o rganisms, this can be a problem for

weeks after vaccination. All bacter ial and viral vaccines licensed

for intranasal administration in cats are attenuated live, as are a

number of parenter al vaccines.

Recombinant vaccines are created through manipulation of the

deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of a pathogen in the laboratory, with

reduction in pathogen virulence. Types of recombinant vaccines

include subunit, deletion mutant, vectored, and DNA vaccines.

Currently, the only available recombinant vaccines for cats in North

America are vectored vaccines, which use a recombinant canarypox

virus as a vector. In these vaccines, DNA of the pathogen that en-

codes for an immunogenic antigen is incorporated into the canar-

ypox genome, which then undergoes aborted (limited) replication

in the host with expression of the immunogen, in turn inciting a

protective immune response. Compared with inactivated vaccines,

canarypox vectors offer a more rapid onset of immunity and may be

more effective in the face of persistent MDA. Canarypox-vectored

vaccines also do not requir e adjuvant and have been associated with a

reduced risk of injection-site sarcomas in cats.

However , one study

suggested that the degree of protection induced by the recombinant

canarypoxFeLVvaccinemaynotbeasrobustasthatinducedby

whole inactivated FeLV vaccines,

which might produce sterilizing

immunity.

However, moderate to severe immunosuppression

TABLE 1

Types of Feline Vaccines and Their Attributes

252 JAAHA | 56:5 Sep/Oct 2020

may have impacted the results, so further studies are required to

determine whether a clinically impor tant difference e xists.

To facilitate vaccine selection, vaccines for dogs and cats have been

divided into core vaccines, non-core vaccines, and those generally not

recommended. Core vaccines are for all cats with an unknown vacci-

nation history. The targeted diseases cause signiﬁcant morbidity and

mortality and are widely distributed. In general, vaccination for core

diseases results in good protection. The Task Force recommends

vaccines for FHV-1, FCV, FPV, rabies, and FeLV (cats younger than 1

year old) as core vaccines (Table 2, pet cats; Table 3, shelter-housed

cats). N on-core vaccines are optional vaccines that should be consid-

ered in the light of exposure risk; that is, based on geographic dis-

tribution and the lifestyle of the cat (Table 4). Optional or non-core

vaccines for cats include FeLV (for cats older than1 year), Chlamydia

felis, and Bordetella bronchiseptica vaccines.

The not generally recommended category of vaccines pertains to

diseases of low clinical signiﬁcance or that respond readily to treatment;

vaccines for which evidence of efﬁcacy in the ﬁeld is minimal; or

vaccines that may produce a relatively higher incidence of adverse

events with limited beneﬁt. The Task Forc e lists the feline infectious

peritonitis (FIP) vaccine as not general ly rec om mended (Table 5). This

vaccine is labeled for administration from 16 weeks of age, whereas

many kittens become infected with coronaviruses well before this age. It

also contains a serotype II strain of FIP virus. Serotype I FIP virus

strains predominate in the ﬁeld and do not have cross-reactiv e neu-

tralizing epitopes with serotype II strains. Therefor e, as noted in the

previous iteration o f these guidelines,

1,33

there remains insufﬁcient e v-

idence that this vaccine induces clinically relevant protection in the

ﬁeld.

The decision to vaccinate, even with core vaccines, should be

based on a risk-beneﬁt assessment for each cat and for each vaccine

antigen. Beneﬁts of vaccination should be balanced against the risk

of adverse events, likelihood of exposure, and disease severity. Every

effort should be made to ensure that cats are healthy before vacci-

nation. However, concurrent illness (including retroviral infections)

does not necessarily preclude vaccination.

The 2020 AAFP Feline

Retrovirus Testing and Management Guidelines state that vaccines

should not be avoided in cats with retroviral infection because they

can develop more severe clinical disease related to FPV and upper

respiratory tract infections after natural exposure compared with

uninfected cats.

Potential Therapeutic Beneﬁts of Vaccination

Active immunization can enhance non-speciﬁc immunity, leading to

reduction in disease caused by non-target pathogens. One study

showed that vaccination of cats with an intranasal FHV-1-FCV

vaccine was associated with reduction in clinical signs following

challenge with B bronchiseptica.

More studies are needed to assess

the non-target effects of different vaccine types. There is also interest

in whether vaccines might provide therapeutic beneﬁts in cats al-

ready infected with target pathogens. Improvement in chronic up-

per respiratory tract signs that were previously refractory to other

treatments was documented in 13 cats vaccinated with an intranasal

FHV-1-FCV vaccine.

Most vaccines, however, provide no thera-

peutic beneﬁt, as clearly documented for FeLV vaccines.

Vaccination Risk-Beneﬁt Assessment

The Task Force supports the WSAVA’s recommendation that veterinarians

should vaccinate every animal with core vaccines and give non-core

vaccines no more frequently than is deemed necessary .

The decision

whether or not to administer a vaccine to a cat, and how frequently , relies

on an individual case-by-case assessment by the veterinarian. This in-

volves consideration of the animal, the animal’s enviro nment, and the

pathogen in question. Additionally , risk-beneﬁt assessments should

consider the safety of the vaccine, other adverse effects of vaccination

(e.g., the effect of f eline immunodeﬁciency virus vaccination on in-clinic

diagnostic test kits), and the efﬁcacy of the vaccine. The result of this

assessment should be an individualized, evidence-guided rec ommenda-

tion to vaccinate or not to vaccinate.

Patient’s Characteristics

Age is an important factor in assessing an individual’sriskproﬁle. In

contrast to puppies, kittens born to immune queens appear to lack

transplacentall y acquired antibodies and instead absorb speciﬁcMDA

through colostrum,

whichprovidesimportantprotectionduringearly

life. Once MD A have waned, however , kittens become susceptible to

infection. Most infectious diseases are more prevalent in kittens than

adults, and therefore, kittens (in particular, those younger than 6

months old) represent a principal primary target population for vac-

cination. Conv ersely, adult cats generally ha ve a more robust adaptive

A Balancing Act

There is always a balance to be struck when considering risks as-

sociated with vaccination and beneﬁts of vaccination for the individual

patient:

A decision to vaccinate might involve a young cat resid-

ing in a multi-cat household with outdoor access, living

in an area with a known high prevalence of the pathogen

being vaccinated against.

A decision not to vaccinate might in v olve a s enior or geri-

atric cat residing in a single-cat household with no outdoor

access, and a vaccine that has poor efﬁcacy against a path-

ogen with low virulence or limited local prevalenc e.

2020 AAHA/AAFP Feline Vaccination Guidelines

JAAHA.ORG 253

TABLE 2

Core Vaccines for Pet Cats

254 JAAHA | 56:5 Sep/Oct 2020

TABLE 2

Table 2 continued

2020 AAHA/AAFP Feline Vaccination Guidelines

JAAHA.ORG 255

TABLE 3

Core Vaccines for Shelter-Housed Cats

256 JAAHA | 56:5 Sep/Oct 2020

immune r esponse when challenged (assuming they are healthy and not

immunocompromised), whether due to previous natural exposure or

vaccinatio n, and age-related resistanc e to challenge is particularly a

feature of FeLV infection.

Consequently, vaccination of mature cats is

generally considered less critical than vaccination of kittens. The pres-

ence of concurrent disease or stress causing immunosuppression should

also be a consideration prior to vaccination because this may affect an

animal’s susc eptibility to infection and response to vaccination.

Patient’s Environment

Population density and opportunity for exposure to infectious agents

are two critical issues that should form part of the risk-beneﬁ t

assessment. In general, cats and kittens living in larger multi-cat

households and environments (e.g., boarding, breeding, foster, or

shelter facilities) have a higher risk of infection than cats living in one-

or two-cat households. In addition to the possible presence of infected

animals acting as reservoirs for infection in multi-cat households, the

immunosuppressive effects of stress associated with high-density feline

housing may result in reactivation of some infections as well as in-

creased susceptibility to new infections. The introduction of new cats

into multi-cat households also increases the risk of infectious disease

not only to the cat entering the household but also to the whole group

because of possible direct exposure to new infectious agents.

When assessing the opportunity for exposure to a given pathogen

foranindividualcat,thelifestyleofthecatandothercatsinthesame

household needs to be considered. It is critical to determine whether the

cat is indoor -only or has outdoor access (including supervised outdoor

visits on a harness, or boarding) because cats with outdoor access may be

at increased risk of pathogen exposure. Indoor-only cats, however , may

stillbedeterminedtobeatriskofexposuretopathogens,eitherfrom

other cats in the household (i.e., subclinically infected or carrier cats), or

by fomite transmission of pathogens br ought in from out side on the

owner’s body , clothing, or s hoes. Indoor-only cats may also be exposed

to infectious agents when brought to a veterinary clinic for a wellness

examination. In theory , strictly indoor cats may be more susceptible to

developing some infectious diseases (such as FPV and FCV infection)

than cats with outdoor ac ce ss because they may not receive “natural

boosting of immunity” that occurs with natural exposure.

The geographic distribution of infectious agents may also result

in different risks of exposure (e.g., rabies), and therefore, questions

regarding future travel should be included in determining the risk of

exposure to speciﬁc infectious agents.

TABLE 5

Not Generally Recommended Vaccines for Pet Cats

TABLE 4

Non-Core Vaccines for Pet Cats

2020 AAHA/AAFP Feline Vaccination Guidelines

JAAHA.ORG 257

Infectious Agents

The likelihood of infection and disease is inﬂuenced by pathogen

factors such as virulence, strain variation, and challenge dose

(i.e., how many infectious units of exposure). The need for vacci-

nation is greatest against pathogens with high virulence, such as FPV,

and pathogens that cause widespread morbidity, such as FHV-1.

Creating an Individualized, Lifestyle-Based

Vaccination Plan

The vaccination needs of each cat should be evaluated individually

and rationally, based on health status, age, and possible, realistic

exposure to disease (Table 6). Owners and veterinarians must work

together to determine the likelihood of the animal coming into

contact with other animals that may spread disease, acquiring par-

asites that may harbor a disease-causing agent, or living in an area

where a disease is known to be endemic or very widespread.

Questions must be asked about the lifestyle of that speciﬁc c at as

well as any other cats in the household or potentially introduced into the

household. The travel, boarding, housing, and enrichment activities or

excursions outside of t he home should also be considered.

This risk

assessment for exposure to disease should be done at least once a year.

Thelifestageofthecatmustalsobeconsideredwithrespectto

possibility of exposure to disease and the health status of the animal.

Infectious diseases are more pr evalent in kittens, and in general, kittens

(younger than 6 months old) are more susceptible to infection.

Younger

cats also tend to behave more unpre dictably and require more enrich-

ment activities, which ma y increase their opportunity for exposure.

The health status of the individual cat, including any previously

documented adverse events to vaccines, also determines the vaccination

recommendations. The nutritional status, general health (i.e., any

concurrent infections or other disease) and the pregnancy status of

females may change the type and schedule of vac cinatio n for that in -

dividual cat (Table 6). As with lifestyle changes, changes in health status

must be evaluated at least yearly.

The population density, along with the opportunity for expo-

sure to other cats, is a major factor in determining the need for

vaccination. Larger multi-cat households are likely to have a greater

risk of infection and disease than households of one or two cats. The

introduction of new cats and the social dynamics of the group may

also cause immunosuppressive stress, leading to increased risk of

disease by new infection or recrudescence. Each cat in a multi-cat

environment must have a vaccination plan that balances the pro-

tection of the individual with that of the household population.

Cats entering boarding, breeding, foster , or shelter situations have

increased risk of disease exposure as well as systemic stress. Vaccination

may be warranted prior to entering these environments when possible

(see Tables 2 and 3). Additionally , vaccination intervals may need to be

shortened depending upon t hese possible scenarios.

As with multi-cat

households, the vaccination plan for the individual cat must be con-

sideredinrelationtotheentirepopulation.

One vaccination plan or protocol cannot be applied to every cat.

Each animal must be evaluated and an individualized plan created that

will most protect that particular cat. That plan must be reassessed

when changes in health and lifestyle occur, requiring client education

and compliance with at least yearly veterinary visits.

Feline Patient Populations

For the purpose of creating speciﬁc, individualized vaccination rec-

ommendations based on risk of exposure, the Task Force has identiﬁed

and deﬁned the following feline populations based on their environment

and lifestyle. The guidelines begin by discussing pet cats and then discuss

a number of feline populations that are considered to be at relatively high

risk of infectious disease exposure—namely, shelter cats, trap-neuter -

return/t rap-neut er -r elease cats, cattery cats, and foster cats.

Pet Cats

Pet cats include any cat kept by human beings as a source of

companionship and pleasure. Pet cats are further categorized by

TABLE 6

Risk Assessment Variables Determining an Individualized Vaccination Plan

258 JAAHA | 56:5 Sep/Oct 2020

housing status (indoor, outdoor, or indoor-outdoor cats) and

number of cats in the household (single-cat or larger multi-cat).

Although these distinctions are important, the most signiﬁcant is-

sue to consider regarding vaccination of pet cats is the individual cat’s

exposure risk and exposure frequency to other cats and feline in-

fectious diseases. Even indoor cats from single-cat households will

inevitably be exposed to other feline infectious pathogens

in situations such as a veterinary clinic visit, contact with other cats

entering the premises, or exposure to contaminated fomites intro-

duced by human contact. Client education for owners of these

patients should focus on risk of exposure to other cats rather than

on where the cat eats, sleeps, or spends most of its time.

For high-risk, multi-cat households, the probability of infectious

disease exposure and transmission is proportionate to the number or

density of cats on the premises.

It is important to educate clients about

the increased disease risks to this population of cats and to discuss in-

creased owner responsibility t o ensure appropriate preventive healthcare

initiatives associated with housing many cats in a conﬁned space.

Shelter Cats

These are cats living for indeterminate periods in centers for

relinquished or lost animals.

Trap-Neuter-Return/Trap-Neuter-Release Cats

These are community or feral cats of either sex that live entirely separate

from people and cannot safely be handled. Trap-neuter-release/trap-

neuter-return cats may survive completely independently of humans,

but some semiferal colonies receive support from individuals.

Cattery Cats

These cats are maintained in commercial facilities; for example,

breeding or boarding facilities, and pet stores with a showcase model.

Foster Cats

Foster cats are kittens or adult cats temporarily housed for rescue,

rehabilitation, and rehoming purposes. The most important con-

sideration in a foster cat household is ensuring that the permanent

population of the household is appropriately vaccinated to provide

protection from disease exposure originating with foster cats.

Serology and Diagnostics

The inter pretation of an antibody test result can be complex because

antibody testing is used for many reasons. Depending on the anti-

bodies tested for, antibody testing can be used for (1) diagnosis of

infection, (2) identiﬁcation of previous exposure to pathogens

(particularly in unvaccinated animals), and (3) assessment of im-

munity prior to or following vaccination (Table 7). Clinicians should

understand when and why to perform antibody testing and use this

knowledge to make evidence-based decisions prior to vaccination.

Hemagglutination inhibition (for FPV) and serum neutralization

(for FHV-1, FCV, and rabies) are the reference standards to determine

the presence of effective antibody-mediated immunity. These test

methodologies can only be performed in a laboratory setting using live

cell cultures (i.e., they cannot be performed in a practice using rapid

patient-side test kits). These diagnostic tests are predominantly re-

search tools used in vaccine efﬁcacy and prevalence studies.

It is important when attempting to demonstrate protective im-

munity in a patient using an in-clinic antibody test kit that the per-

formance of the kit be compared against the appropriate reference

standard in order to demonstrate correlation with protective immunity.

The presence of anti-FPV antibodies correlates strongly with

protection (Table 7). Currently, experts recommend antibody testing

for FPV to assess immunity and inform decisions about whether to

vaccinate.

6,40

Rapid in-clinic test kits to detect antibodies to FPV,

FHV-1, and FCV are available to veterinarians in North America and

have been validated in two different studies using the appropriate

reference tests.

47,48

Of concern, however, was the occurrence of some

anti-FPV antibody false-positive results in one study, which in

practice would lead to some unprotected cats not being vaccinated.

Adverse Postvaccination Reactions

Although the administration of biological products is never entirely

free of risk, currently available feline vaccines have an excellent safety

record. That said, the true prevalence of adverse reactions is likely to

be underestimated owing to underreporting by both veterinarians

and owners.

Therefore, it is important to report any known or

suspected negative events associated with vaccination. In the United

States, veterinarians are requested to contact the manufacturer

(Veterinary Technical Services) of the vaccine(s) considered to be

involved. Veterinarians may also report known or suspected adverse

events directly to the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the Center for

Veterinar y Biologics of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Serv ice can be contacted by the fol-

lowing means:

Website: https://www .aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/

veterinary-biologics/adv erse-e vent-r eporting/CT_Vb_adverse_event

Mail: Send the report form to the Center for Veterinary Bio-

logics, 1920 Dayton Avenue, PO Box 844, Ames, Iowa 50010

Telephone: (800) 752-6255.

At the time of vaccine administration, included in the patient’s

permanent medical record should be the name, ser ial number, ex-

piration date and manufacturer of the vaccine(s) given, date of

administration, name of the person administering the vaccine(s),

and the site and route of the vaccine administration. Adverse events

2020 AAHA/AAFP Feline Vaccination Guidelines

JAAHA.ORG 259

should be recorded in a manner that will clearly alert all staff

members during future visits.

Prevalence and Types of Adverse Reactions

Postvaccination adverse events in cats are considered rare.

In the

most substantial survey to date, any adverse reactions were recorded

for cats presented to Banﬁeld Pet Hospitals in the United States

between 2002 and 2005.

During this period, more than 1.25

million doses of various vaccines were administered to nearly

500,000 cats. Adverse reactions within 30 days of vaccination were

reported at a rate of 0.52% of cats vaccinated. The most commonly

reported vaccine reactions are lethargy, anorexia and fever for a few

days after vaccination, or local inﬂammation at the site of injec-

tion.

42,50,51

In the Ban ﬁeld Pet Hospital population, the risk of an

adverse reaction was greatest in cats around 1 year of age and/or

increased as the total volume of vaccine and number of vaccines

administered concurrently increased.

Hypersensitivity Reactions

Although anaphylaxis (type I hypersensitivity reaction) is rare

(approximately 1–5 per 10,000 vaccinations),

42,52

it may manifest as

vomiting, diarrhea, respiratory distress, facial or generalized pruri-

tus, facial swelling, and collapse.

51,53,54

Where revaccination is con-

sidered necessary in a cat that has experienced an allergic reaction,

using a different vaccine formulation and premedicating with an

antihistamine and glucocorticoid 20–30 minutes prior to vaccine

administration is recommended, followed by close observation of

the patient for several hours.

42,53

Other forms of hypersensitivity

reactions (types II, III, and IV) almost certainly also occur in cats

after vaccination, but these are rarely documented.

Postvaccination Monitoring

The Task Force recommends that veterinarians and owners monitor

the vaccination site for swelling or lumps using the “3-2-1” rule.

Biopsy of any mass present is warranted if it (1) remains present

3 months after vaccination, (2) is larger than 2 cm in diameter, or

(3) is increasing in size 1 month after vaccination.

1,55

It is recom-

mended to obtain an incisional biopsy on any masses meeting any of

these criteria. Fine-needle aspirates may not provide diagnostic

cellular tissue, whereas excisional biopsies rarely meet appropriate

margins (5 cm in two fascial planes) as required in the case of

injection-site sarcomas, thus increasing the morbidity and mortality

risks associated with sarcoma invasion.

Update on Feline Injection-Site Sarcomas

FISSs, largely caused by vaccines (although other materials have been

implicated), have been recognized since 1991.

Three decades later,

much about them remains unknown. Within the United States, FISS

TABLE 7

Possible Uses of In-Clinic Serology Testing

260 JAAHA | 56:5 Sep/Oct 2020

incidence estimates, although low, have varied by at least an order of

magnitude, and worldwide FISS incidence estimates vary by country

depending on the relative use of vaccine types (e.g., FeLV, rabies)

and population susceptibility.

The Task Force makes the following observations regarding

vaccination:

Neither vaccinating in the interscapular space nor decreasing

vaccine volume is recommended.

Distal limb injection is recommended to facilitate amputation

with 5 cm margins in two fascial planes in the case of injection-

site sarcoma (Figure 1).

More recently, ventral abdominal subcutaneous injections have

been used because of the perceived relative ease of tumor removal

without the need for a mputation.

Howev er, the need to remove

two fascial planes and 5 cm margins would still necessitate ag-

gressive tissue remo val fro m the abdomen and abdominal c avity.

Tail vaccination has also been reported as well tolerated and

elicited acc eptable serological responses to vac cination in the dis-

tal limbs.

To facilitate 5 cm margins in the c ase of injection-site

sarcoma, vaccinations must be administered in the distal tail,

something that may not be practical for most clinicians.

Follow the 3-2-1 rule for postvaccination swelling.

1,55

Obtain

incisional biopsies for appropriate diagnosis.

The 2013 AAFP Feline Vacc inati on Advisory Panel Report in-

clud ed recommendations for speciﬁc vaccine antigens to be ad-

ministered at speciﬁc anatomical locations in the distal limbs.

This

technique has helped facilitate the identiﬁcation of the vaccine an-

tigen used if a sarcoma developed subsequently at the injection site.

Since this technique has been widely adopted, these injection-site

recommendations have also led to a shift in the site of tumor for-

mation to the distal limbs, thus facilitating potentially life-saving

surgery for patients suffering from these invasive tumors.

The 2020

AAHA/AAFP Feline Vaccination Guidelines Task F or ce rec ognizes and

supports the value of the 2013 recommendations and recognizes that

practitioners may, at times, need to use medically appropriate discre-

tion regarding the anatomical location of vaccine administration.

Practitioners are strongly advised to keep complete, accurate rec or ds

for antigen administration site and route of vaccine administration.

The Task Force offers the following analysis of current research

about vaccine safety:

Experimental studies of vaccine-induced inﬂammation: These

studies provide weak evidence for detecting differential vaccination

effects on sarcoma incidence yet represent progenitors of the “more

vaccine-induced inﬂammation leads to increased sarcoma risk”

conjecture. One immediate problem is that it is unclear how to

deﬁne inﬂammation in the context of tumor induction. Macy and

Hendrick (1996) cite an unpublished study that deﬁned inﬂam-

mation as “the size of the local reaction.”

Grosenbaugh et al.

(2004) interpreted it as the presence of “injection-site reaction,”

which could have included “scab, crust, swelling, erosion, ulcera-

tion, or pain at the injection site or development of lameness.”

Day

et al. (2007) used histopathological scoring that included quanti-

fying neutrophils, lymphocytes, and macrophages (inﬂammatory

phase of tissue reaction); quantifying ﬁbroblasts, collagen, and

granulation tissue (repair phase); and assigning a “global severity

score” based on biopsy site reactivity and extension of involvement

of the tissue section.

Because the many manifestations of inﬂam-

mation in cats do not invariably lead to neoplasia, more sensitive

biomarkers such as DNA damage may one day be used to distin-

guish the potential for adjuvanted versus non-adjuvanted vaccines

to induce tumors.

But because none of the cats in the above

studies developed sarcomas, such experimental research does not

have logical standing to infer relative vaccine safety.

Associational studies of diagnoses: In the past 10 years, two studies

based on data from pathology registries have provided contradictory

ﬁndings. Wilcock et al. (2012) found no decrease in the proportion of

“post-vaccinal sarcomas” in feline skin and subcutaneous mass sub-

missions from 199 2 to 2010 in a Canadian registry despit e the intr o-

duction of a non-adjuvante d rabies vaccine in 2000.

In contrast, Graf

et al. (2018) studied the proportion of feline biopsies that were

FIGURE 1

Vaccination sites: Recommended injection sites in the distal limbs and

tail. ª iStock.com/GlobalP.

2020 AAHA/AAFP Feline Vaccination Guidelines

JAAHA.ORG 261

ﬁbrosarcomas submitted to Swiss pathology laboratories between 2009

and 2014 and noted “amarkeddropintherelativefrequencyofﬁ-

brosar c oma diagnoses after t he introduction of a non-adjuvanted FeLV

vaccine into the Swiss market” in 2007 (rabies vaccines ar e rarely used

now in Switzerland).

Such studies of diagnostic proportions ar e dif-

ﬁcult to interpret. Moreover , they are inﬂuenced not only b y disea se

incidence but also b y factors r elated to differ ential cost and motivation

for histopathologic diagnoses, which are subject to change o ve r time.

Therefor e, there are alwa ys competing explanations for ﬁndings.

Longitudinal studies of comparative incidence: A study by Srivastav

et al. (2012) is the only one to perform a comparative (case-contr ol)

analysis of vaccine types in common use in the past 10 years.

Unlike

previous epidemiologic studies, it provides tenuous evidence that non-

adjuvanted vaccines ma y be less likely to induce sarcomas than adju-

vanted vaccines. However, the work suffers from sample size limitations

and bias concerns.

Although it arguably serves as an epidemiologic-

methods blueprint for futur e inv estigations, it is insufﬁcient to justify a

wholesale r ecommendation for a single vaccine formulation with as yet

unforeseen consequences on population immunity. The Task Force

believes that there is currently insufﬁcient research to justify recom-

mending a single vaccine type. Since injection site sarc omas ar e a risk,

the Task Forc e recommends vaccination in the lower distal limbs to

facilitate clean margins if surgical amputation is required.

Frequently Asked Questions

A summary of frequently asked questions is available online at

aaha.org/felinevaccination and catvets.com/vaccination.

Staff and Client Education

The Veterinarian’s Role and Responsibilities

A veterinarian should assess every patient regardless of appoint-

ment type (wellness, acute care or follow-up visit) for current

vaccination status based on age and lifestyle. Informed by this

assessment, an individualized patient vaccination plan should

be developed or modiﬁed and then discussed and agreed upon

in collaboration with the cat owner.

In addition to overseeing the development of feline vaccination

protocols, the veterinarian should provide staff education on

the following:

o Zoonotic disease prevention.

o Separate administration sites for each vaccination (based on

consistent vaccination site guidelines for that practice).

o Potential life-threatening adverse events (i.e., anaphylaxis)

and minor adverse events (i.e., localized swelling) following

vaccination.

o Vaccine reconstitution and handling (the AAFP recommends

using vaccines within 30 minutes of reconstitution).

o Standard sharps safety procedures to prevent accidental nee-

dle sticks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

online training module, “You C all the S hots: Vaccine Storag e and

Hand l i n g ,” is a useful resource for staff training on vaccination.

Thepracticeshoulddesignateapersontobetheprimaryvaccine

coordinator for the facility. This person will be responsible for

ensuring all vaccines are stored and handled correctly. A second

staff member to ser ve as an alternate in the absence of the pri-

mary coordinator should be appointed (th is is par ticular ly im-

portant in c ase o f after-hours emergencies). Both coordinators

should be fully trained in routine and emergency policies and

procedures.

The healthcare team, led by the veterinarian, should emphasize

and educate clients that they are part of a team approach to vaccine

management, requiring the entire staff’s understanding of zoonotic

disease, core and non-core vaccines determined by the pet’s lifestyle,

hospital policy, state law, client compliance, and adverse vaccination

events.

Credentialed Veterinary Technician or Veterinary

Assistant Roles and Responsibilities

A veterinary technician or assistant often assumes the role of des-

ignated vaccine coordinator, assisting in vaccination storage and

inventory management. AAHA guidelines on vaccine storage and

handling, and the CDC Vaccine Storage and Handling Toolkit are

useful resources for this purpose.

64,65

The vaccine coordinator is

often responsible for reconstitution of vaccines and administration

of vaccinations as directed by the attending veterinarian in com-

pliance with state law.

This individual is also often given respon-

sibility for implementing feline-friendly handling techniques in the

hospital setting to minimize stress during examinations and vaccine

administration

and for maintaining effective client education and

follow-up, including verbal and wr itten instructions on potential

adverse events after vaccine administration and disease prevention.

Roles and Responsibilities of Reception and Other

Client-Service Personnel

The reception staff is typically charged with maintaining patient ﬁles

with vaccination information, including date administered, along

with the production lot serial number and expiration date of the

vaccine. Reception personnel are also responsible for contacting

clients and scheduling follow-up appointments for booster series and

yearly vaccinations in advance as directed by the prescribing veter-

inarian. Non-clinical staff should understand the potential life-

threatening and minor adverse events that can occur following

vaccination that require veterinary assistance.

262 JAAHA | 56:5 Sep/Oct 2020

Client Education

Pet owner clients are an essential member of a cat’s healthcare team.

Although clients can be instrumental in helping improve healthcare

for their cats, the Task Force recommends that vaccination be

performed by a veterinarian. Vaccination is a medical procedure.

Vaccines are available through sources other than a veterinarian, but

they may not protect a cat against disease unless properly stored,

handled, and administered. The principles of feline vaccination

outlined in the box below represent a basic client education over-

view for cat owners. To help educate clients about vaccine and

general health issues, both AAHA and the AAFP have handouts

available to members and non-members. Additionally, more ex-

tensive information is available at aaha.org/felinevaccination and

catvets.com/vaccination.

Summary

Vaccination protocols for cats should consist of recommended

core vaccines and discretionar y non-core vaccines as deﬁned and

listed in the guidelines. Vaccines in the latter category are given

based on a risk-beneﬁt assessment. Risk i s det ermined by the

patient’s life stage, lifest yle, clinical history, and health status

and by environmental and epidemiologic risk facto rs. Although

feline vaccination is universally practiced by primar y ca re co m-

panion animal practices, there is no single protocol suitable for

all feline patients. Rather, vaccination of c ats should be patient-

speciﬁc and guided by an individual risk-beneﬁt assessment us-

ing the criteria listed in the guidelines. In the case of some

vaccines, practitioners have a choice of different ty pes of anti-

gens, including those that are inact ivated, attenuated, and in

recombinant form. The patient’s clinical and vaccination status,

such as the possible presence of maternally derived immunity or

a histor y of adverse postvaccination reactions, are factors that

may inﬂuence t he choice of vaccine type.

Although most feline patients are household pets, practitioners

should anticipate situations in which higher-risk cats are presented

for vaccination, including those from shelter, cattery, feral, or foster

care origins. Adverse postvaccination reactions unavoidably occur in

a small percentage of cats. Because of their neoplastic etiology, FISSs

continue to be the most serious, if infrequent, vaccine-associated

adverse event. Detection of patterns in FISS incidence remains

elusive, and their occurrence continues to be idiosyncratic. Advising

clients in advance of the possibility of hypersensitivity or other re-

actions will help minimize their concerns. All members of the

practice team, including clinical and non-clinical personnel, should

have a well-informed understanding of the importance of vaccination

of feline patients and be able to advise clients of the practice’s ap-

proach to an individualized vaccination plan. The vaccination visit is

an ideal time for a client education dialog in which the clinical staff

Vaccination Talking Points for Clients

Vaccines help protect against speciﬁc infectious diseases. They stimulate the body’s immune system to recognize and ﬁght an infection. Without

vaccination, many cats would become seriously ill or die from preventable diseases. Some infections are more difﬁcult to prevent using vaccination than

others. For example, vaccination is very effective against feline panleukopenia infection but does not entirely protect against respiratory virus infections.

However, cats vaccinated against respiratory tract infections generally have milder illness and are far less likely to die from their disease.

A veterinarian is the best person to evaluate a cat’s individual vaccination needs. Many factors need to be taken into consideration when deciding

how often and for what diseases a feline patient needs to be vaccinated. These considerations include health status, age, and lifestyle of the cat; a

vaccine’s duration of immunity; what diseases are prevalent in the area; and the severity of endemic diseases. Even cats living exclusively indoors

require regular vaccination because they still may be exposed to diseases in many circumstances, such as when traveling or boarding, visiting a

veterinary practice, interacting with other cats, or through viruses carried on the pet owner’s hands or clothing.

Veterinarian-administered vaccination is particularly important with respect to rabies. Rabies is a fatal but preventable disease that can be spread to

humans by contact with saliva from an infected individual. If an unvaccinated cat is scratched or bitten by a wild animal, or if it bites a person, it should be

quarantined or euthanized. In many US states, it is against the law for anyone other than a licensed veterinarian to administer a rabies vaccine. Rabies

vaccination of cats is required by law in many but not all states. Ontario is the only Canadian province that requires rabies vaccination of cats. Even in areas

where it is not required, feline rabies vaccination is still recommended (i.e., it is a core vaccine).

Severe vaccine reactions are rare. Veterinarians should convey the appropriate risk-beneﬁt analysis of any vaccination. Cats may experience mild,

short-lived reactions (malaise) such as poor appetite, lethargy, and fever that will resolve without treatment. Clients should seek immediate veterinary

attention if their cat begins vomiting or scratching, develops bumps (hives) or facial swelling, or has difﬁculty breathing within a few hours of being

vaccinated. The client and veterinary practice team have the same goal: to provide the best possible care for the pet.

2020 AAHA/AAFP Feline Vaccination Guidelines

JAAHA.ORG 263

has an opportunity to discuss the role of vaccination as an essential

component of preventive healthcare tailored to the individual patient.

The Task Force gratefully acknowledges the contribution of Mark Dana

of Scientiﬁc Communications Services, LL C, and the Kanara Consul-

ting Group, LLC, in the preparation of the guidelines manuscript.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Amy E. S. Stone has received speaking fees from Boehringer

Ingel heim Animal Hea lth USA Inc. Jane Sykes receives hon oraria

and research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health

US A Inc., Elanco Animal Health, IDEXX Laboratories Inc., and

Merck Animal Health. Ernest P. Petersen was a stockholder of

Phoenix Central Laboratory prior to its sale to Zoetis Petcare (after

these guidelines wer e written) but was not employed at the lab nor on

the Boa rd of Gov ernor s, and was not in vol ved in the sale. The other

members of the Task Force hav e no conﬂicts of interest to declare.

FUNDING

Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc., Elanco Animal

Health, Merck Animal Health, and Zoetis Petcare supported the

development of the 2020 AAHA/AAFP Feline Vaccination Guidelines

and resources through an educational grant to AAHA.

ETHICAL APPROVAL

This work did not involve the use of animals and, therefore, ethical

approval was not necessarily required.

INFORMED CONSENT

This w ork did not involv e th e use of animals and, ther efore, informed

consent was not required. For any animals individually identiﬁable

within this publication, informed c onsent (either verbal or written) for

their use in the publication was obtained from the people inv olved.

REFERENCES

1. Scherk MA, Ford RB, Gaskell RM, et al. 2013 AAFP Feline Vaccination

Advisory Panel Report. J Feline Med Surg 2013;15:785–808.

2. Day MJ, Horzinek MC, Schultz RD, et al. WSAVA guidelines for the

vaccination of dogs and cats. J Small Anim Pract 2016;57:E1–45.

3. Volk JO, Felsted KE, Thomas JG, et al. Executive summary of the Bayer

veterinary care usage study. J Am Vet Med Assoc 211;238:1275–82.

4. Casal ML, Jezyk PF, Giger U. Transfer of colostral antibodies from queens

to their kittens. Am J Vet Res 1996;57:1653–8.

5. DiGangi BA, Levy JK, Grifﬁn B, et al. Effects of maternally-derived

antibodies on serologic responses to vaccination in kittens. J Feline

Med Surg 2012;14:118–23.

6. DiGangi BA, Levy JK, Grifﬁn B, et al. Prevalence of serum antibody titers

against feline panleukopenia virus, feline herpesvirus 1, and feline cal-

icivirus in cats entering a Florida animal shelter. J Am Vet Med Assoc

2012;241:1320–25.

7. Jakel V, Cussler K, Hanschmann KM, et al. Vaccination against feline

panleukopenia: implications from a ﬁeld study in kittens. BMC Vet Res

2012;8:62.

8. American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccination Task Force,

Welborn LV, DeVries JG, et al. 2011 AAHA canine vaccination guidelines.

J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2011;47:1–42.

9. Brun A, Chappuis G, Precausta P, et al. Immunisation against panleu-

kopenia: early development of immunity. Comp Immunol Microbiol In-

fect Dis 1979;1:335–9.

10. Larson LJ, Newbury S, Schultz RD. Canine and feline vaccinations and

immunology. In: Miller L, Hurley K, eds. Infectious disease management

in animal shelters. Ames (IA): Wiley-Blackwell; 2009:61–82.

11. Larson LJ, Schultz RD. Effect of vaccination with recombinant canine

distemper virus vaccine immediately before exposure under shelter-like

conditions. Vet Ther 2006;7:113–8.

12. Srivastav A, Kass PH, McGill LD, et al. Comparative vaccine-speciﬁc and

other injectable-speciﬁc risks of injection-site sarcomas in cats. JAmVet

Med Assoc 2012;241:595–602.

13. Patel M, Carritt K, Lane J, et al. Comparative efﬁcacy of feline leukemia

virus (FeLV) inactivated whole-virus vaccine and canarypox virus-

vectored vaccine during virulent FeLV challenge and immunosuppres-

sion. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2015;22:798–805.

14. Torres AN, O’Halloran KP, Larson LJ, et al. Feline leukemia virus im-

munity induced by whole inactivated virus vaccination. Vet Immunol

Immunopathol 2010;134:122–31.

15. Sharp NJ, Davis BJ, Guy JS, et al. Hydranencephaly and cerebellar hy-

poplasia in two kittens attributed to intrauterine parvovirus infection. J

Comp Pathol 1999;121:39–53.

16. Disease Information Fact Sheet: Feline Panleukopenia. J Feline Med Surg

2013;15: Supplementary File. This Disease Information Fact Sheet ac-

companies the 2013 AAFP Feline Vaccination Advisory Panel Report

published in J Feline Med Surg 2013;15:785–808.

17. Buonavoglia C, Marsiolio F, Tempesta M, et al. U s e of a feline panleuko-

penia modiﬁed live virus vaccine in cats in the primary-stage of feline

immunodeﬁciency virus infection. Zentralbl Veterinarmed B 1993;40:343–6.

18. Reubel GH, Dean GA, George JW, et al. Effects of incidental infections

and immune activation on disease progression in experimentally feline

immunodeﬁciency virus-infected cats. J Acquir Immune Deﬁc Syndr

1994;7:1003–15.

19. Chalmers WS, Truyen U, Greenwood NM, et al. Efﬁcacy of feline pan-

leucopenia vaccine to prevent infection with an isolate of CPV2b ob-

tained from a cat. Vet Microbiol 1999;69:41–5.

20. Nakamura K, Ikeda Y, Miyazawa T, et al. Characterisation of cross-

reactivity of virus neutralising antibodies induced by feline panleuko-

penia virus and canine parvoviruses. Res Vet Sci 2001;71:219–22.

21. Lappin MR. Feline panleukopenia virus, feline herpesvirus-1 and feline

calicivirus antibody responses in seronegative speciﬁc pathogen-free

kittens after parenteral administration of an inactivated FVRCP vac-

cine or a modiﬁed live FVRCP vaccine. J Feline Med Surg 2012;14:161–4.

22. Truyen U, Add ie D, Belák S, et al. Feline pan leukopeni a. ABCD

guidelines on prevention and management. J Feline Med Surg 2009;11:

538–46.

23. Huang C, Hess J, Gill M, et al. A dual-strain feline calicivirus vaccine

stimulates broader cross-neutralization antibodies than a single-strain

vaccine and lessens clinical signs in vaccinated cats when challenged

with a homologous feline calicivirus strain associated with virulent sys-

temic disease. J Feline Med Surg 2010;12:129–37.

24. Bradley A, Kinyon J, Frana T, et al. Efﬁcacy of intranasal administration

of a modiﬁed live feline herpesvirus 1 and feline calicivirus vaccine

264 JAAHA | 56:5 Sep/Oct 2020

against disease caused by Bordetella bronchiseptica after experimental

challenge. J Vet Intern Med 2012;26:1121–5.

25. Schultz RD. A commentary on parvovirus vaccination. J Feline Med Surg

2009;11:163–4.

26. Wilson S, Greenslade J, Saunders G, et al. Difﬁculties in demonstrating long

term immunity in FeLV vaccinated cats due to incr easing age-related resis-

tance to infection. BMC Vet Res 2012;8:125. DOI: 10.1186/1746-6148-8-125 .

27. Jirjis FF, Davis T, Lane J, et al. Protection against feline leukemia virus

challenge for at least two years after vaccination with an inactivated feline

leukemia virus vaccine. Vet Ther 2010:11:E1–6.

28. Grosenbaugh DA, Leard T, Pardo MC, et al. Comparison of the safety

and efﬁcacy of a recombinant feline leukemia virus (FeLV) vaccine de-

livered transdermally and an inactivated FeLV vaccine delivered subcu-

taneously. Vet Ther 2004;5:258–62.

29. Graf R, Guscetti F, Welle M, et al. Feline injection site sarcomas: data

from Switzerland 2009-2014. J Comp Pathol 2018;163:1–5.

30. Kass PH. Prevention of feline injection-site sarcomas: is there a scientiﬁc

foundation for vaccine recommendations at this time? Vet Clin North Am

Small Anim Pract 2018;48:301–6.

31. Klingborg DJ, Hustead DR, Curry-Galvin EA, et al. AVMA Council on

Biologic and Therapeutic Agents’ report on cat and dog vaccines. JAm

Vet Med Assoc 2002;221:1401–7.

32. Starr RM. Reaction rate in cats vaccinated with a new controlled-titer

feline panleukopenia rhinotracheitis-calicivirus-Chlamydia psittaci vac-

cine. Cornell Vet 1993;83:311–23.

33. Disease Information Fact Sheet: Feline Infectious Peritonitis. J Feline Med

Surg 2013;15: Supplementary File. This Disease Information Fact Sheet

accompanies the 2013 AAFP Feline Vaccination Advisory Panel Report

published in J Feline Med Surg 2013;15:785–808.

34. Little S, Levy J, Hartmann K, et al. 2020 AAFP feline retrovirus testing

and management guidelines. J Feline Med Surg 2020;22:5–30.

35. Fenimore A, Carter K, Fankhauser J, et al. Evaluation of intranasal

vaccine administration and high-dose interferon- alpha2b therapy for

treatment of chronic upper respiratory tract infections in shelter cats. J

Feline Med Surg 2016;18:603–11.

36. Helfer-Hungerbuehler AK, Spiri AM, Riond B, et al. No beneﬁtof

therapeutic vaccination in clinically healthy cats persistently infected

with feline leukemia virus. Vaccine 2015;33:1578–85.

37. Vogt AH, Rodan I, Brown M, et al. AAFP-AAHA feline life stage

guidelines. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2010;46:70–85.

38. Adams CL, Kurtz S. Skills for communicating in veterinary medici ne.

Parsippany (NJ): Dewpoint Publishing; 2017:112.

39. Kass PH, Dent TH. The epidemiology of feline infectious peritonitis in

catteries. Feline Pract 1995;23:27–32.

40. Lappin MR, Andrews J, Simpson D, et al. Use of serologic tests to predict

resistance to feline herpesvirus 1, feline calicivirus, and feline par vovirus

infection in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;220:38–42.

41. Boenzli E, Hadorn M, Hartnack S, et al. Detection of antibodies to the

feline leukemia virus (FeLV) transmembrane protein p15e: an alternative

approach for serological FeLV detection based on antibodies to p15e. J

Clin Microbiol 2014;52:2046–52.

42. Moore GE, DeSantis-Kerr AC, Guptill LF, et al. Adverse events after

vaccine administration in cats: 2560 cases (2002–2005). Vet Clin North

Am Small Anim Pract 2010;40:393–407.

43. Uhl EW, Heaton-Jones TG, Pu R, et al. FIV vaccine development and its

importance to veterinary and human medicine: FIV vaccine 2002 update

and review. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2002;90:113–32.

44. Yamamoto JK, Sanou MP, Abbott JR, et al. Feline immunodeﬁciency

virus model for designing HIV/AIDS vaccines. Curr HIV Res 2010;8:14–25.

45. Westman ME, Malik R, Hall E, et al. Determining the feline immuno-

deﬁciency virus (FIV) status of FIV-vaccinated cats using point-of-care

antibody kits. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 2015;42:43–52.

46. Levy JK, Crawford PC, Tucker SJ. Performance of 4 point-of-care

screening tests for feline leukemia virus and feline immunodeﬁciency

virus. J Vet Intern Med 2017;31:521–6.

47. DiGangi BA, Gray LK, Levy JK, et al. Detection of protective antibody

titers against feline panleukopenia virus, feline herpesvirus-1, and feline

calicivirus in shelter cats using a point-of-care ELISA. J Feline Med Surg

2011;13:912–8.

48. Mende K, Stuetzer B, Truyen U, et al. Evaluation of an in-house dot

enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect antibodies against feline

panleukopenia virus. J Feline Med Surg 2014;16:805–11.

49. Gaskell R, Gettinby G, Graham S, et al. Veterinary Products Committee

working group report on feline and canine vaccination. Vet Rec 2002;150:

126–34.

50. Day MJ. Vaccine side effects: fact and ﬁction. Vet Micro biol 2006;117:51–8.

51. Moore GE, HogenEsch H. Adverse vaccinal events in dogs and cats.

Vet

Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2010;40:393–407.

52. Clark N, Kushner NN, Barrett CB, et al. Efﬁcacy and safety ﬁeld trials of

a recombinant DNA vaccine against feline leukemia virus infection. JAm

Vet Med Assoc 1991;199:1433–43.

53. Richards JR, Elston TH, Ford RB, et al. The 2006 Amer ican Association

of Feline Practitioners Feline Vaccine Advisory Panel Report. JAmVet

Med Assoc 2006;229:1405–441.

54. Davis-Wurzler GM. Current vaccination strategies in puppies and kit-

tens. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2006;36:607–40, vii.

55. Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force. The current under-

standing and management of vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats. JAm

Vet Med Assoc 2005;226:1821–42.

56. Hendrick MJ, Goldschmidt MH. Do injection site reactions induce ﬁ-

brosarcomas in cats? J Am Vet Med Assoc 1991;199:968.

57. Hendricks CG, Levy JK, Tucker SJ, et al. Tail vaccination in cats: a pilot

study. J Feline Med Surg 2014;16:275–80.

58. Shaw SC, Kent MS, Gordon IK, et al. Temporal changes in characteristics

of injection-site sarcomas in cats: 392 cases (1990–2006) J Am Vet Med

Assoc 2009;234:376–80.

59. Macy DW, Hendrick MJ. The potential role of inﬂammation in the de-

velopment of postvaccinal sarcomas in cats. Vet Clin North Am Small

Anim Pract 1996;26:103–7.

60. Day MD, Schoon HA, Magnol JP, et al. A kinetic study of histopatho-

logical changes in the subcutis of cats injected with nonadjuvanted and

adjuvanted multi-component vaccines. Vaccine 2007;25:4073–84.

61. Kang S, Southard T, Hume KR. DNA damage is a feature of feline

injection-site sarcoma. Vet Comp Oncol 2016;15:518–24.

62. Wilcock B, Wilcock A, Bottoms K. Feline postvaccinal sarcoma: 20 years

later. Can Vet J 2012;53:430–4.

63. Weese JS, Jack DC. Needlestick injuries in veterinar y medicine. Can Vet J

2008;49:780–4.

64. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Vaccine Storage and

Handling Toolkit. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/admin/

storage/toolkit/storage-handling-toolkit.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2019.

65. Ford RB, Larson LJ, McClure KD, et al. 2017 AAHA canine vaccination

guidelines. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2017;53:243–51.

66. American Veterinary Medical Association. Rabies Vaccination State Law

Summary. Available at: https://www.avma.org/Advocacy/StateAndLocal/

Documents/Rabies-state-law-chart.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2019.

67. Rodan I, Sundahl E, Carney H, et al. AAHA and ISFM feline-friendly

handling guidelines. J Feline Med Surg 2011;13:364–75.

2020 AAHA/AAFP Feline Vaccination Guidelines

JAAHA.ORG 265