Issue #1

Welcome!

The Insider is your newsletter. Every month we'll bring you articles of interest – information to help you manage your practice successfully, long-term.

You'll find business advice and topics ranging from disease prevention to managing infectious disease, nutrition, technology, teamwork among office staff members… and many others. In most cases our writers are veterinarians – colleagues from Veterinary Operations here at Pfizer Animal Health.

Because this is your newsletter, the best ideas for articles come from you. What would you most like to read in The Insider? What can we include that will be most helpful as you build your practice and your business?

Please let us know. You can reach us at the address below. We look forward to hearing from you, and we hope you find The Insider interesting, practical and enjoyable.

Newsletters

April, 2011


The Insider welcomes feedback, story ideas and comments in general. To talk with us, please call your Inside Sales representative.

Pfizer Animal Health invests over $300M annually in R&D.

What makes Modified Live Virus Vaccines different?

Key Ideas to Consider When You Make Your Recommendation

The marketplace offers many options when you choose vaccines. Some are formulated by companies that do their own research, then develop them. Other vaccines are generics; they may have the same viruses listed, and use nearly identical USDA labels.

We'll take up some USDA labeling questions in another article, later on. The goal here is simply to help clarify the differences among vaccines. Put more plainly: Why should you choose one vaccine over the other?

While this article does not try to fully detail all the differences, it does provide a practical summary of those differences, and suggests some points to consider when you recommend a specific vaccine.

Differences can occur in several areas of vaccine development. In fact, it's possible for two vaccines that serve the same purpose to differ in each one of those areas -- and thus, to provide very different protection for the same pathogen.

Vaccine development and manufacturing begins with a single virus strain. That's the first difference. It's important to know whether the strain or virus that is chosen represents those that create true disease in cattle.

The next difference may be in cell line growth. Once the strain is chosen it must be grown on cells from a species or type of cell not naturally affected by the disease. For example, the 'modified live virus' for a bovine virus affecting lung tissue may have been created using equine kidney cells. The cell line that is chosen can make a difference in the virulence, safety and efficacy of the resulting 'modified' virus.

After the virus is modified, it has to be grown on media -- to multiply its numbers. The choice of media can also affect the antigenicity of the virus.

Another very critical difference is number of passages. To make a vaccine safe – incapable of producing disease -- it must be 'passed' through the above procedure to modify viral cell characteristics many times. The virus must be modified adequately; so, the more times you 'pass' a virus, the safer it becomes.

On the other hand, the more times it is 'passed' the less efficacious it may become. That is, safer -- but less protective. The best vaccines have the correct balance of safety and efficacy.

A vaccine may be low passage or high passage. Pfizer follows the low passage model. We titrate the passages by determining the lowest number of passages needed to attain safety and maximize efficacy. Pfizer actually takes the vaccine in development and tests it on susceptible animals. Then it may be returned for more passages, or go to full development.

When the point is reached where safety is no longer an issue, the minimum number of passages creates the greatest possible efficacy. This is called 'passage beyond virulence.' In contrast, another company might utilize high passage, which is less expensive than titrating the number of passages needed. This can result in a virus that's safe, but also less efficacious in protecting against disease -- because it is modified from the original virus so much more.

Another difference is the time at which the modified viruses are harvested from the media. If the maturity of the viral growth on media is not known, the effectiveness of the vaccine may not be optimum.

For example, when Mannheimia hemolytica is harvested and there are only cell walls and no leukotoxin, the vaccine will be less effective. This end point is not easy to determine. This is the reason why some autogenous vaccine serials are ineffective while others are not.

The last difference in MLV vaccines is the amount of antigen in the vaccine. A vaccine gets its label approval from USDA based on the lowest level of antigen needed to create the protection. This is known as the Minimum Immunizing Dose (MID). Another way to understand this is: What amount of virus must be present at the expiration date? Some vaccines may only include the minimum requirement. Others might have far more.

Not all of these parameters are easy to determine, and they certainly are not found on the label. You will need to do more research to determine some of these criteria.

In conclusion, there may be variations in any or all of these parameters that create differences in the finished product – and, ultimately, in the efficacy of the vaccine.


Practice Management

Running a business and running a veterinary practice require skills so different that they seem almost unrelated. Actually, they support each other.

It goes without saying that a great veterinarian will probably attract more clients. And yet, without an organized, effective business supporting your veterinary skills, you risk losing those hard-earned clients, and more, to another practice.

That's why you'll see the Practice Management logo, above, in every edition of The Insider. We'll use this space to share tips, tactics, ideas and options that can help you build your business and manage it more effectively.


Communication Matters

Let's be frank: Managing a veterinary practice in tough economic times can pose many challenges.

Client visits are down and many owners are struggling with difficult decisions when it comes to their beloved pet's care. These days more than ever, effective communication is a necessity, not an option.

More than 30 years of research in medical communication makes it clear: Communication and shared decisions are essential. We're the experts in veterinary care. But generally speaking, owners are the real experts when it comes to their pets.

Research shows that when clients are more involved in decision-making, it's far more likely that they will actually follow through with the treatment plan. The result:

  • Improved clinical outcomes for pets.
  • Increased client and veterinarian satisfaction.
  • Reduced likelihood of malpractice litigation.

Traditionally, veterinary colleges have done an exemplary job at preparing graduates with solid diagnostic and surgical skills. However, little attention had been paid to the area of communication.

Education in communication is now mandated by the AVMA as part of the core veterinary curriculum, and there are continuing education courses that allow even the most seasoned practitioner to improve communication skills.

The FRANK™ Veterinary Communication Program sponsored by Pfizer Animal Health is a workshop designed to help veterinarians improve their communication skills. Participants study the concepts, then practice in a clinical setting with simulated clients and peer feedback.

This column is the first in a series that will highlight many skills and concepts presented in the FRANK™ program. To enroll in a FRANK™ workshop, please visit our website: www.pfizerfrank.com