RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Reducing the number of animals used in experiments has become a priority for the governments of many countries. For these reductions to occur, animal-free alternatives must be made more available and, crucially, must be embraced by researchers. METHODS: We conducted an international online survey for academics in the field of animal science (N = 367) to explore researchers' attitudes towards the implementation of animal-free innovations. Through this survey, we address three key questions. The first question is whether scientists who use animals in their research consider governmental goals for animal-free innovations achievable and whether they would support such goals. Secondly, responders were asked to rank the importance of ten roadblocks that could hamper the implementation of animal-free innovations. Finally, responders were asked whether they would migrate (either themselves or their research) if increased animal research regulations in their country of residence restricted their research. RESULTS: While nearly half (40%) of the responders support governmental goals, the majority (71%) of researchers did not consider such goals achievable in their field within the near future. In terms of roadblocks for implementation of animal-free methods, ~ 80% of the responders considered 'reliability' as important, making it the most highly ranked roadblock. However, all other roadblocks were reported by most responders as somewhat important, suggesting that they must also be considered when addressing animal-free innovations. Importantly, a majority reported that they would consider migration to another country in response to a restrictive animal research policy. Thus, governments must consider the risk of researchers migrating to other institutes, states or countries, leading to a 'brain-drain' if policies are too strict or suitable animal-free alternatives are not available. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that development and implementation of animal-free innovations are hampered by multiple factors. We outline three pillars concerning education, governmental influence and data sharing, the implementation of which may help to overcome these roadblocks to animal-free innovations.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to quantify loss to follow-up (LTFU) in HIV care after delivery and to identify risk factors for LTFU, and implications for HIV disease progression and subsequent pregnancies. METHODS: We used data on pregnancies within the Swiss HIV Cohort Study from 1996 to 2011. A delayed clinical visit was defined as > 180 days and LTFU as no visit for > 365 days after delivery. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for LTFU. RESULTS: A total of 695 pregnancies in 580 women were included in the study, of which 115 (17%) were subsequent pregnancies. Median maternal age was 32 years (IQR 28-36 years) and 104 (15%) women reported any history of injecting drug use (IDU). Overall, 233 of 695 (34%) women had a delayed visit in the year after delivery and 84 (12%) women were lost to follow-up. Being lost to follow-up was significantly associated with a history of IDU [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-5.88; P = 0.007] and not achieving an undetectable HIV viral load (VL) at delivery (aOR 2.42; 95% CI 1.21-4.85; P = 0.017) after adjusting for maternal age, ethnicity and being on antiretroviral therapy (ART) at conception. Forty-three of 84 (55%) women returned to care after LTFU. Half of them (20 of 41) with available CD4 had a CD4 count < 350 cells/µL and 15% (six of 41) a CD4 count < 200 cells/µL at their return. CONCLUSIONS: A history of IDU and detectable HIV VL at delivery were associated with LTFU. Effective strategies are warranted to retain women in care beyond pregnancy and to avoid CD4 cell count decline. ART continuation should be advised especially if a subsequent pregnancy is planned.
