Early <scp>HBcrAg</scp> and Anti‐<scp>HBc</scp> Levels Identify Patients at High Risk for Severe Flares After Nucleos(t)ide Analogue Cessation—A Pooled Analysis of Two Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Severe flares (ALT ≥ 10×ULN) are a well-recognised adverse outcome after nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA) cessation and may lead to liver failure. Thus, identification of patients at risk for these flares is of major importance. METHODS: Data were used from two prospective studies on NA cessation conducted in the Netherlands and Canada. Patients were eligible based on EASL criteria. HBcrAg and anti-HBc levels were measured at end of treatment (EOT) and week 6 (FUW6). Logistic regression was used to study the association with severe flares. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were analysed with a mean age of 49 years, 16 (21%) Caucasian and a majority (65%) were treated with Tenofovir. Overall, 22 patients (28%) developed a severe flare, and 29 (37%) patients were retreated. At EOT, higher HBcrAg levels (aOR: 1.97, p = 0.05; ≥ 4log: 47% severe flare vs. < 3log: 19%, p = 0.036), lower anti-HBc (aOR: 0.29, p = 0.036; < 2log: 50% vs. ≥ 3log: 11%, p = 0.029) and higher HBcrAg/anti-HBc-ratio (aOR: 3.17, p = 0.015; ≥ 2: 58% vs. < 1.5: 14%, p < 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of severe flares, adjusted for HBsAg. At FUW6, higher HBcrAg (aOR: 2.91, p = 0.035; ≥ 5log: 83%, < 3log: 4%, p < 0.001), lower anti-HBc (aOR: 0.46, p = 0.29; < 2log: 50% vs. ≥ 3log: 0%, p = 0.003) and higher HBcrAg/anti-HBc-ratio (aOR: 2.19, p = 0.048; ≥ 1.75: 52% vs. < 1.75: 8%, p < 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of severe flares, adjusted for HBV DNA and ALT. CONCLUSION: Higher HBcrAg, lower anti-HBc and higher HBcrAg/anti-HBc ratio at EOT and during the first weeks of post-treatment follow-up are associated with an increased risk of hepatic flares after NA withdrawal and could therefore potentially be used to select patients eligible for therapy cessation and to identify patients requiring retreatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was a post hoc and follow-up study of two previously registered clinical trials (NCT01911156 & NTR7001). No new patients were prospectively included.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".