Lamivudine treatment in patients with chronic hepatitis B and cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic hepatitis B is a common disease and approximately 20% of infected patients with compensated cirrhosis will decompensate over 5 years. If untreated, the survival of decompensated cirrhosis is poor (15% at 5 years). The extent of hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication, as assessed by serum HBV-DNA level, is a strong predictor of the risk of disease progression and hepatocellular carcinoma. This provides a rationale for antiviral therapy to arrest progression of liver disease. Lamivudine is a pyrimidine analogue that inhibits HBV-DNA reverse transcriptase. It decreases HBV replication, normalises alanine aminotransferase levels and reduces hepatic inflammation and fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B. This article will focus on the use of lamivudine in patients with HBV-cirrhosis. In patients with compensated HBV-cirrhosis, a randomised, placebo-controlled trial has shown that lamivudine significantly reduced the rate of disease progression and hepatocellular carcinoma development over a 3-year period. In patients with decompensated cirrhosis, treatment with lamivudine can produce spectacular improvements of liver function, but the improvement is slow and a clinical benefit is usually not observed until after at least 3-6 months of treatment. A major drawback of lamivudine treatment is the development of resistance, observed in 15-20% of patients after 1 year and up to 70% after 5 years of continued treatment. Thus, patients with HBV-cirrhosis treated with lamivudine should have regular monitoring of serum HBV-DNA levels and prompt institution of additional antiviral therapy if viral breakthrough is observed. Adefovir, tenofovir and entecavir have demonstrated efficacy in patients with lamivudine resistance. In patients with decompensated cirrhosis, in whom the development of resistance can be fatal, combination therapy (such as lamivudine plus adefovir) may prove more effective than monotherapy and this issue needs further study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".