Correction:How the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the necessity of animal research (vol 30, pg R1014, 2020)

(Current Biology 30, R1014–R1018; September 21, 2020) As a result of an author oversight in the originally published version of this article, a number of errors were introduced in the author list and affiliations. First, the middle initials were omitted from the names of several authors. Second, the surname of Dr. van Dam was mistakenly written as “Dam.” Third, the first name of author Bernhard Englitz was misspelled as “Bernard” and the surname of author B.J.A. Pollux was misspelled as “Pullox.” Finally, Dr. Keijer's first name was abbreviated rather than written in full. These errors, as well as various errors in the author affiliations, have now been corrected online

Health-related Quality of Life and Pain in a Real-world Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Population: Results From the PRO-CAPRI Study in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine generic, cancer-specific, and prostate cancer-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL), pain and changes over time in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in daily practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PRO-CAPRI is an observational, prospective study in 10 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with mCRPC completed the EQ-5D, European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) every 3 months and European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Prostate Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-PR25) every 6 months for a maximum of 2 years. Subgroups were identified based on chemotherapy pretreatment. Outcomes were generic, cancer-specific, and prostate cancer-specific HRQoL and self-reported pain. Descriptive statistics were performed including changes over time and minimal important differences (MID) between subgroups. RESULTS: In total, 151 included patients answered 873 questionnaires. The median follow-up from the start of the study was 19.5 months, and 84% were treated with at least 1 life-prolonging agent. Overall, patients were in good clinical condition (Eatern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 in 78%) with normal baseline hemoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase, and alkaline phosphatase. At inclusion, generic HRQoL was high with a mean EQ visual analog score of 73.2 out of 100. The lowest scores were reported on role and physical functioning (mean scores of 69 and 76 of 100, respectively), and fatigue, pain, and insomnia were the most impaired domains. These domains deteriorated in > 50% of patients. CONCLUSION: Although most patients were treated with new treatments during follow-up, mCRPC has a negative impact on HRQoL with deterioration in all domains over time, especially role and physical functioning. These domains need specific attention during follow-up to maintain HRQoL as long as possible by timely start of adequate supportive care management

How the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the necessity of animal research

Recently, a petition was offered to the European Commission calling for an immediate ban on animal testing. Although a Europe-wide moratorium on the use of animals in science is not yet possible, there has been a push by the non-scientific community and politicians for a rapid transition to animal-free innovations. Although there are benefits for both animal welfare and researchers, advances on alternative methods have not progressed enough to be able to replace animal research in the foreseeable future. This trend has led first and foremost to a substantial increase in the administrative burden and hurdles required to make timely advances in research and treatments for human and animal diseases. The current COVID-19 pandemic clearly highlights how much we actually rely on animal research. COVID-19 affects several organs and systems, and the various animal-free alternatives currently available do not come close to this complexity. In this Essay, we therefore argue that the use of animals is essential for the advancement of human and veterinary health. In this Essay, Genzel et al. make the case for animal research in light of the COVID-19 pandemic

How the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the necessity of animal research

Recently, a petition was offered to the European Commission calling for an immediate ban on animal testing. Although a Europe-wide moratorium on the use of animals in science is not yet possible, there has been a push by the non-scientific community and politicians for a rapid transition to animal-free innovations. Although there are benefits for both animal welfare and researchers, advances on alternative methods have not progressed enough to be able to replace animal research in the foreseeable future. This trend has led first and foremost to a substantial increase in the administrative burden and hurdles required to make timely advances in research and treatments for human and animal diseases. The current COVID-19 pandemic clearly highlights how much we actually rely on animal research. COVID-19 affects several organs and systems, and the various animal-free alternatives currently available do not come close to this complexity. In this Essay, we therefore argue that the use of animals is essential for the advancement of human and veterinary health