BACKGROUND:Intravenous fluid (IVF) is commonly used in acute clinical management. This study aimed to review the choice and primary considerations in IVF prescriptions and to evaluate the adequacy of guidelines and trainings on it in the New Territories West Cluster (NTWC) of Hong Kong. METHODS:This is a descriptive study based on data collected from an online survey. Data were processed by SPSS for statistical analysis. This study focused on a general description and doctor-nurse between group comparison. Participants were asked the choice of IVF for nine acute clinical scenarios and provide reason. A 1–10 scale was used to assess the sufficiency of guideline, training and information, and time for revision on IVF prescription. RESULTS:0.9％ sodium chloride was the most familiar IVF (36％), followed by 5％ Dextrose solution (26％). In the nine scenarios, the most chosen IVF was 0.9％ sodium chloride (37％–61％). There was significant difference in the choice of IVF between doctors and nurses in 7 cases. The second most chosen IVF for doctors was Plasma-Lyte A while that for nurses was Gelofusine. Departmental practice was the most chosen reason to account for the prescription. The adequacy of guideline, information and training, and time for revision was rated 5. Doctors had significantly more time at work than nurses to update knowledge in IVF prescription (5.41 versus 4.57). CONCLUSION:0.9％ sodium chloride was mostly chosen. The choice of IVF was mainly based on departmental practice. Adequacy of guideline, information and training, and time for revision on IVF prescription were average, indicating significant training deficit.

Background/Aims: Studies of hepatic steatosis (HS) effect on COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity are lacking. We aimed to compare immunogenicity of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac among moderate/severe HS and control subjects. Methods: Two hundred ninety-five subjects who received BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccines from five vaccination centers were categorized into moderate/severe HS (controlled attenuation parameter ≥268 dB/m on transient elastography) (n=74) or control (n=221) groups. Primary outcomes were seroconversion rates of neutralising antibody by live virus Microneutralization (vMN) assay (titer ≥10) at day21 (BNT162b2) or day28 (CoronaVac) and day56 (both). Secondary outcome was highest-tier titer response (top 25% of vMN titer; cutoff: 160 [BNT162b2] and 20 [CoronaVac]) at day 56. Results: For BNT162b2 (n=228, 77.3%), there was no statistical differences in seroconversion rates (day21: 71.7% vs. 76.6%; day56: 100% vs. 100%) or vMN geometric mean titer (GMT) (day21: 13.2 vs. 13.3; day56: 91.9 vs. 101.4) among moderate/severe HS and control groups respectively. However, lower proportion of moderate/severe HS patients had highest-tier response (day56: 5.0% vs. 15.5%; P=0.037). For CoronaVac (n=67, 22.7%), there was no statistical differences in seroconversion rates (day21: 7.1% vs. 15.1%; day56: 64.3% vs. 83.0%) or vMN GMT (5.3 vs. 5.8,) at day28. However, moderate/severe HS patients had lower vMN GMT (9.1 vs. 14.8, P=0.021) at day 56 with lower proportion having highest-tier response (21.4% vs. 52.8%, P=0.036). Conclusions While there was no difference in seroconversion rate between moderate/severe HS and control groups after two doses of vaccine, a lower proportion of moderate/severe HS patients achieved highest-tier response for either BNT162b2 or CoronaVac.