Interferon and lamivudine vs. interferon for hepatitis B e antigen‐positive hepatitis B treatment: meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare interferon monotherapy with its combination with lamivudine for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive hepatitis B treatment. METHODS: Two independent researchers identified pertinent randomized controlled trials. The trials were evaluated for methodological quality and heterogeneity. Rates of sustained virological and biochemical responses, and HBeAg clearance and seroconversion were used as primary efficacy measures. Quantitative meta-analyses were conducted to assess differences between groups for conventional and pegylated interferon, and overall. RESULTS: Greater sustained virological, biochemical and seroconversion rates were observed with addition of lamivudine to conventional [odds ratio (OR)=3.1, 95% confidence intervals (CI) (1.7-5.5), P<0.0001, OR=1.8, 95% CI (1.2-2.7), P=0.007 and OR=1.8, 95% CI (1.1-2.8), P=0.01 respectively], although not pegylated [OR=1.1, 95% CI (0.5-2.3), P=0.8, OR=1.0, 95% CI (0.7-1.3), P=0.94, and OR=0.9, 95% CI (0.6-1.2), P=0.34 respectively] interferon-alpha, with no significant affect on HBeAg clearance rates [OR=1.6, 95% CI (0.9-2.7), P=0.09, and OR=0.8, 95% CI (0.6-1.1), P=0.26 respectively]. Excluding virological response (P<0.001), pegylated interferon monotherapy and conventional interferon and lamivudine combination therapy were similarly efficacious (P>0.05), with the former studied in harder to treat patients, as evidenced by the superior virological response observed with conventional as compared with pegylated interferon monotherapy (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: In comparable populations, pegylated interferon monotherapy is likely to be equally or more efficacious than conventional interferon and lamivudine combination therapy, thus constituting the treatment of choice, with no added benefit with lamivudine addition. However, when conventional interferon is used, its combination with lamivudine should be considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.033 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".