Why in-house vaccine titering is gaining traction in practice

In-house vaccine titering is moving from a niche talking point to a more visible option in small animal general practice. Recent dvm360 coverage, tied to a Vet Blast podcast episode featuring Adam Christman, DVM, MBA, with Hunter Finn, DVM, and Noga Schiller, DVM, frames rapid in-clinic antibody testing as a way to personalize vaccine recommendations, strengthen conversations with pet parents, and potentially reduce unnecessary revaccination for some patients. (dvm360.com)

The broader backdrop is a long-running push in companion animal medicine toward risk-based vaccination rather than one-size-fits-all booster schedules. WSAVA’s 2024 vaccination guidelines emphasize that core vaccines remain essential, but they also recognize a role for serology in documenting protection against select core viral diseases. Specifically, the guideline supports positive antibody test results as evidence of protection for canine distemper virus, canine adenovirus, canine parvovirus, and feline panleukopenia virus. At the same time, WSAVA notes that this approach does not extend cleanly to all feline respiratory viruses, where antibody detection does not correlate as reliably with protection or duration of immunity. (wsava.org)

That distinction is central to the current conversation. In the dvm360 discussion, Schiller describes titer testing as a check of humoral immunity, meaning antibody levels currently present in the patient. For the diseases most commonly included in companion animal titer panels, the argument is that detectable antibodies can meaningfully inform whether a patient is protected. But even supporters acknowledge the limitation: a negative result does not always mean the animal lacks protection, because cell-mediated immunity is harder to assess in practice. The University of Wisconsin’s CAVIDS laboratory makes a similar point, distinguishing quick in-clinic antibody screens from true quantitative, functional titers, while noting that in-clinic tests can still be useful screening tools when applied appropriately. (dvm360.com)

Industry messaging is also shaping the narrative. Commercial point-of-care platforms such as Biogal’s VacciCheck promote in-clinic testing as a validated way to assess protection for core canine and feline pathogens, and cite alignment with WSAVA guidance for core viral diseases. That matters because adoption in practice often depends not just on the science, but on workflow: same-visit results, easier client communication, and a billable preventive service that can differentiate a hospital in a crowded market. Still, veterinary teams should separate manufacturer claims from guideline language and from reference-lab standards, particularly when discussing test performance, duration of immunity, and what a positive or negative result actually means. (biogal.com)

Not everyone in organized veterinary guidance is equally enthusiastic about routine use. AAHA’s canine vaccination recommendations are more restrained, stating that routine titer testing to determine whether revaccination is needed at standard intervals is not usually advised. The organization says exceptions may include dogs with prior adverse vaccine responses, suspected vaccine-related autoimmune disease, or situations where pet parents are hesitant about boosters. AAHA also stresses that titers can be difficult to interpret, can vary across assays and laboratories, and should not be oversold as a universal answer to vaccine decision-making. (aaha.org)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, in-house titering may be most useful as a selective tool rather than a replacement for established vaccination protocols. It can support individualized preventive care, help address booster hesitancy, and provide added confidence in cases involving prior vaccine reactions or medically complex patients. But it also introduces new responsibilities: staff training on which diseases are appropriate for serologic assessment, careful explanation that rabies rules still depend on vaccination status rather than antibody results, and clear protocols for what to do with negative or borderline findings. In other words, the value is likely highest in practices that use titers to improve decision-making and communication, not in practices that present them as a blanket substitute for revaccination. (wsava.org)

There’s also a business and trust component. Finn’s comments in the dvm360 discussion reflect a broader shift in client expectations: pet parents increasingly want to understand why a vaccine is being recommended for their individual animal, not just follow a standard template. Offering in-house titering may help some hospitals meet that expectation and reinforce a more collaborative model of care. For teams already navigating vaccine hesitancy, that may be the real near-term significance of this trend. (dvm360.com)

What to watch: The next question is whether in-house titering remains a niche service for selected cases or becomes a more routine part of preventive care packages for adult dogs and cats, especially as guideline groups, diagnostic companies, and practices continue to debate where convenience, evidence, and client demand should meet. (dvm360.com)