Post-Liver Transplantation Hepatitis B Prophylaxis in Canada: Results of a National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis B remains a significant concern in liver transplantation (LT) due to the risk of graft reinfection. Hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG), combined with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs), has been the standard prophylactic approach. However, HBIG-free regimens are emerging, and practices vary across transplant centers. This study aims to describe the current Hepatitis B virus (HBV) prophylaxis policies in Canadian LT programs. METHODS: A virtual survey was distributed to all LT centers in Canada through the Canadian Liver Transplant Network. Data on HBIG use, NA selection, monitoring protocols, and recurrence management were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Nine respondents from 6 Canadian LT centers participated. All centers use HBIG post-transplant, with intramuscular HepaGam B being the most common formulation. HBIG duration varied, with most centers administering it for 6 months to 1 year. Tenofovir was the predominant NA used. HBV recurrence monitoring occurred every 3 months in most centers. Management of recurrence varied, with some centers reinitiating HBIG, while others adjusting NA therapy. CONCLUSIONS: While HBIG and NA combination therapy remains the standard in Canada, significant variations exist in HBIG duration and recurrence management. A growing shift toward HBIG-free regimens in select populations highlights the need for standardized guidelines to optimize post-transplant HBV prophylaxis.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".