The majority of studies on PRRT have shown that it is effective as an initial treatment. This study with long-term follow-up demonstrates that PRRT is safe and effective retreatment option in patients that have progressed following initial PRRT course.

Portions of this research were selected for poster presentation at the 2020 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine annual meeting. However, this meeting was canceled due to public health concerns.

To address unmet surgical need in the long term, accredited local surgical specialization programs are required; training of nonphysician surgical practitioners may offer a short-term solution. To develop safe anesthesia care, governments and donors should focus on providing health care professionals with essential equipment and resources.

IntroductionFor couples undergoing assisted reproduction, a plethora of adjuncts are available; these are known as ‘add-ons’. Most add-ons are not supported by good quality randomised trial evidence of efficacy, with some proven to be ineffective. However, estimates suggest that over 70% of fertility clinics provide at least one add-on, often at extra cost to the patient. This study has three aims. First, to undertake a survey of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) clinics in the UK to ascertain which add-ons are being offered and at what cost. Second, to undertake qualitative semi-structured interviews of patients, clinicians and embryologists, to explore their opinions and beliefs surrounding add-ons. Third, to review the interpretation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority traffic light system, to better understand the information required by IVF patients, clinicians and embryologists when making decisions about add-ons.Methods and analysisAll UK IVF clinics will be contacted by email and invited to complete an online survey. The survey will ask them which add-ons they offer, at what cost per cycle and how information is shared with patients. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted in the UK and Australia with three groups of participants: (i) fertility patients; (ii) clinicians and (iii) embryologists. Participants for the interviews will be recruited via social media channels, website adverts, email and snowball sampling. Up to 20 participants will be recruited for each group in each country. Following an online consent process, interviews will be conducted via video-conferencing software, transcribed verbatim and data subjected to inductive thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the Universities of Sheffield, Bath Spa and Melbourne. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated to regulatory bodies in the UK and Australia. A lay summary of findings will be shared via Fertility Network, UK.

ObjectivesIn vitro fertilisation (IVF) add-ons are additional procedures offered alongside an IVF cycle with the aim of improving live birth rates. They are controversial because of the paucity of evidence to support their efficacy and safety, alongside the additional financial cost they often pose to patients. Despite this, they are popular. However, there is limited qualitative research regarding their use. The aims of the VALUE Study were to understand the decision-making process surrounding using or recommending add-ons; report sources of information for add-ons; and explore concerns for safety and effectiveness when considering their use.Design‘VALUE’ is a qualitative semistructured interview study using inductive thematic analysis of anonymised transcriptions.SettingParticipants were recruited from a broad geographical spread across the UK and Australia from public and private clinical settings.ParticipantsPatients (n=25) and health professionals (embryologists (n=25) and clinicians (n=24)) were interviewed. A purposive sampling strategy was undertaken. The sampling framework included people having state-subsidised and private cycles, professionals working in public and private sectors, geographical location and professionals of all grades.ResultsPatients often made decisions about add-ons based on hope, minimising considerations of safety, efficacy or cost, whereas professionals sought the best outcomes for their patients and wanted to avoid them wasting their money. The driving forces behind add-on use differed: for patients, a professional opinion was the most influential reason, whereas for professionals, it was seen as patient driven. For both groups, applying the available evidence to individual circumstances was very challenging, especially in the sphere of IVF medicine, where the stakes are high.ConclusionsThere is scope to build on the quality of the discourse between patients and professionals. Patients describe valuing their autonomy with add-ons, but for professionals, undertaking informed consent will be critical, no matter where they sit on the spectrum regarding add-ons.Trial registrationosf.io/vnyb9.