This practice guideline has been approved by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and endorsed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American College of Gastroenterology and the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable. Preamble These recommendations provide a data-supported approach to establishing guidelines. They are based on the following: (1) a formal review and analysis of the recently published world literature on the topic (MED-LINE search up to June 2011); (2) the American College of Physicians' Manual for Assessing Health Practices and Designing Practice Guidelines; 1 (3) guideline policies, including the AASLD Policy on the Development and Use of Practice Guidelines and the American Gastroenterological Association's Policy Statement on the Use of Medical Practice Guidelines; 2 and (4) the experience of the authors in regard to hepatitis C. Intended for use by physicians, these recommendations suggest preferred approaches to the diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive aspects of care. They are intended to be flexible, in contrast to standards of care, which are inflexible policies to be followed in every case. Specific recommendations are based on relevant published information. To more fully characterize the quality of evidence supporting recommendations, the Practice Guidelines Committee of the AASLD requires a Class (reflecting benefit versus risk) and Level (assessing strength or certainty) of Evidence to be assigned and reported with each recommendation (Table 1, adapted from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association Practice Guidelines). 3,4

The management of chronic hepatitis B currently rests with long-term therapy using oral nucleoside analogs. The major limitation of long-term therapy is antiviral resistance. Antiviral resistance is due to the high rate of mutations that can occur during hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication and the selection of these mutants due to a replication advantage in the presence of the antiviral agent. Indeed, high rates of antiviral resistance have been found with long-term use of lamivudine, in up to 76% of patients treated for 5 years or more. Rates of antiviral resistance are lower with adefovir therapy, ˜30% at 5 years. Newer more potent nucleoside analogs (tenofovir and entecavir) have proven to have much lower rates of antiviral resistance (<1% after 2 years in treatment-naïve subjects), but the long-term rates of resistance have yet to be fully defined. The appearance of these viral mutations (genotypic resistance) is usually followed by rises in HBV DNA levels (virological breakthrough) and then by rises in serum aminotransferase levels (biochemical breakthrough). The appearance of antiviral resistance can be accompanied by a transient but occasionally severe exacerbation of the underlying liver disease which in some instances has led to acute liver failure. Combinations of nucleoside analogs may offer an approach to preventing antiviral resistance, but the efficacy and safety of this approach have yet to be shown. A future research priority is to identify new agents active against HBV that target different steps in the viral life-cycle and might provide effective means to circumvent the antiviral resistance of nucleoside analogs. (Hepatology 2009;49:S174–S184.)

Representatives from academia, industry, regulatory agencies, and patient advocacy groups convened under the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) in June 2022 with the primary goal of achieving consensus on chronic HBV and HDV treatment endpoints to guide clinical trials aiming to “cure” HBV and HDV. Conference participants reached an agreement on some key points. The preferred primary endpoint for phase II/III trials evaluating finite treatments for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is a “functional” cure, defined as sustained HBsAg loss and HBV DNA less than the lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) 24 weeks off-treatment. An alternate endpoint would be “partial cure” defined as sustained HBsAg level < 100 IU/mL and HBV DNA < LLOQ 24 weeks off-treatment. Clinical trials should initially focus on patients with HBeAg positive or negative CHB, who are treatment-naive or virally suppressed on nucleos(t)ide analogs. Hepatitis flares may occur during curative therapy and should be promptly investigated and outcomes reported. HBsAg loss would be the preferred endpoint for chronic hepatitis D, but HDV RNA < LLOQ 24 weeks off-treatment is a suitable alternate primary endpoint of phase II/III trials assessing finite strategies. For trials assessing maintenance therapy, the primary endpoint should be HDV RNA < LLOQ assessed at on-treatment week 48. An alternate endpoint would be ≥2 log reduction in HDV RNA combined with normalization of alanine aminotransferase level. Suitable candidates for phase II/III trials would be treatment-naiive or experienced patients with quantifiable HDV RNA. Novel biomarkers (hepatitis B core–related antigen [HBcrAg] and HBV RNA) remain exploratory, while nucleos(t)ide analogs and pegylated interferon still have a role in combination with novel agents. Importantly, patient input is encouraged early on in drug development under the FDA/EMA patient–focused drug development programs.