Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Veterinary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State vets caution against replacing rabies revaccination with titer exemptions
Summary
State veterinarians and committee members expressed concern about using post‑vaccination titer tests to substitute for routine rabies revaccination; experts said current titer tests and timing in the bill are not validated for long‑term exemptions and recommended more study and amended timing.
The committee revisited HB 1488, which would add titer‑based testing language as a means for some pet owners to avoid routine rabies revaccination. State veterinarians testified that current titer tests (run by USAMRIID and the University of Kansas labs) are designed to show an immune response after vaccination and are not validated in the United States as a reliable, standalone test to issue long‑term rabies exemptions.
Dr. Mark Prescott (state veterinarian) and Dr. Nate Harvey (assistant state veterinarian) warned the committee about two technical problems: first, the common titer tests are intended to verify an immune response after vaccination (useful for travel certificates) but were not calibrated to serve as a long‑term exemption standard; second, the immunologic timing in the bill (baseline test then a 7–14‑day follow‑up) is problematic because the primary and secondary immune responses have different timing and longer‑term declines that vary across individuals and breeds. Dr. Harvey explained the primary immune response and the anamnestic (secondary) response and said the proposed timing in statute would not reliably predict long‑term immunity.
Committee members raised the ethical and public‑safety stakes. Representative Bixby and others argued rabies is nearly always fatal and that altering the default vaccination schedule without robust, validated challenge studies would be risky. Several members questioned whether a reliable protective titer could be established across breeds and ages without large, ethically fraught challenge trials.
The committee concluded it would not adopt major changes immediately and encouraged sponsors to refine language, consult labs about validation, and consider limited pilots or tighter, validated protocols rather than a statutory substitute for vaccination.
Next steps: Staff and sponsors to develop amendment language and to consult with the testing labs and veterinary community before further action.
