The risk factors of the nonresponders after hepatitis B vaceinatio and the immunogenecity after a double-dose revaccination in the nonresponders

BACKGROUND: Korea is an endemic area of viral hepatitis B with a rate of 5~10% carrier state. Therefore, hepatitis B vaccination is performed nationwide. But 5~15% of healthy individuals fail to respond adequately to the vaccine and an approved guideline for the nonresponders has not been developed yet. This study is designed to identify risk factors for those who lack anti-HBs after hepatitis B vaccination and to document the results of a double-dose revaccination in such nonresponders to the primary vaccination. METHODS: From Feb. 1996 to Aug, 1997, we assessed 51 healthy subjects(HBs Ag negative, anti-HBs negative, anti-HBc negative and a normal LFT). All subjects were vaccinated with Hepavax- B, 1.0ml, 24 by a rapid schedule(0, 1, and 2 months) and 27 by a standard schedule(0, 1, and 6 months). Anti-HBs titers were evaluated 3 months after the third vaccine and assessed the nonre-sponders (anti-HBs titer<2mIu/ml) and the hyporesponders(2~10mK/ml). All 13 nonresponders were revaccinated with 2ml of Hepavax-B 3 months after the primary vaccination. Anti-HBs titers were evaluated 1 month later. RESULTS: The differences in age(p<0.01) and smoking amount(p<0.05) between the responders and the hypo and the nonresponders were statistically significant. There were more males and higher body mass index in the hypo and the nonresponders but not statistically significant. The seroconversion rate after the double-dose vaccination was 92.3%(12/13) with an average titer of 5K08mlU/ ml(1-132.4mIU/ml). CONCLUSIONS: Increase in age and smoking amount were the risk factors of the nonresponders after the primary vaccination. Most of the hypo and the nonresponders to the primary vaccination responded adequately to the double-dose revaccination.

Analysis of Papers Published in Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine

BACKGROUND: Research is essential for the development of family medicine as a professional field in primary care. Since information is available through the articles in the Journals of Family Medicine which contains subjects such as disease mechanism, pathophysiology, drug or new treatment method, and it is necessary to evaluate the contribution of recent researches in this field. This paper is intended to evaluate the current status of the quality of papers published in the Journal of the Korea Academy of Family Medicine (below JKAFM) and provide statistical data & direction of studies in the future. METHODS: 1218 articles in 185 editions of JKAFM were analyzed among 188 editions published from Nov. 1980 to Dec. 1996. The papers were classified into Case Report, Original Article, Review Article by the type of papers, and then categorized Into descriptive studies, analytic studies, and clinical trials by its methodology. In each category, the papers were stratified by the topic. Also, the analysis was conducted according to the authors, research subjects, sampling methods and the statistical methods, and observed the changes each year through 1980s to 1990s. RESULTS: The portion of original articles has increased from 18.6% in 1980s to 73.9% in 1990s. In terms of research methodology, the portions of analytical studies and clinical trials occupy 28.8% and 2.1% in 1990's respectively, compared with those of 1.8% and 0.6% in 1980's. When the papers were stratified by study topics, topics on family medicine showed the highest of 34.9% of the total. According to the detailed stratification, the principle of family medicine recorded 24.2%. In terms of sampling method, 89% and above was from the clinical data when current data were used, and 69.1% was by questionnaires when the data were newly collected. The most of the study subjects were outpatients of family medicine departments. The portion of papers in which the statistical analysis was not included was 29.9% in 1980s which decreased to 15.7% in 1990s. In terms of the statistical analysis methodology, the Chi-square test was the most frequently used(26.2%), followed by Descriptive(19.6%),1-test(18.2% ) and ANOVA(8.7%) were the next. CONCLUSIONS: The academic performance of family medicine can be most effectively measured by the analysis of the journals on family medicine. According to the analysis, the papers based on clinical activity is increasing in recent years with substantial contribution, which means that the field of family medicine has found its own position in medical science and is developing actively. In terms of study methodology, the portion of analytical study is getting larger, and the various method are being tried. The application of statistical methods is being developed in its quality and quantity. It should be noted that research on family medicine should provide the basis for new knowledge and promote public health by the integrated and intensive efforts.