Hepatitis B Treatment in India: Who Needs It, Which Drugs, and for How Long

Not everyone who is HBsAg-positive needs tablets, but everyone needs a proper assessment. Treatment is recommended when HBV DNA is above 2,000 IU/mL together with a raised ALT or significant liver fibrosis, and for anyone with cirrhosis and detectable virus. The drugs — tenofovir or entecavir — are one tablet a day, usually for many years, and are supplied free under India’s National Viral Hepatitis Control Programme.
— Dr Chetan Kalal, DM Hepatology, Gleneagles Hospital Mumbai

A composite of a patient I see most weeks. A 38-year-old software engineer from Thane learns at a pre-employment medical that his HBsAg is positive. He feels perfectly well. His liver function test is normal. One doctor has told him he is a “healthy carrier” and needs nothing; a second has told him he must start tablets for life. Both are guessing, because neither has ordered the two tests that actually decide the question — an HBV DNA level and a FibroScan. When those arrive the picture changes: HBV DNA of 45,000 IU/mL, ALT at the top edge of normal, liver stiffness 8.5 kPa. He has significant fibrosis at 38 with a virus replicating steadily, and under every current guideline he should be treated.

Hepatitis B generates more confused advice than any other condition I treat. Part of the reason is that the rules have moved — the 2024 WHO guideline and the 2025 EASL guideline both widened who qualifies — and part is that the disease sits silent for decades, so the decision to treat has to be made in someone who feels fine.

This guide is for the person who already knows they are HBsAg-positive and wants to understand the treatment decision: who needs antivirals, which drug, for how long, what happens in pregnancy or before chemotherapy, and what follow-up never stops. It is anchored to the EASL 2025, WHO 2024, APASL 2015 and AASLD 2018 documents and the trials behind them. It is educational, not a prescription — the decision for any individual belongs with the physician who has the reports in hand. If you are still working out whether you have hepatitis B or C, start with my post on hepatitis B versus hepatitis C (also in Hindi).

Who needs hepatitis B treatment: the four questions

Every guideline is answering the same four questions. How much virus is there? Is the liver inflamed? How much scarring has already happened? And is there anything about this particular patient that raises the stakes?

How much virus. HBV DNA, measured in IU/mL, is the single most important number. The Taiwanese REVEAL study followed 3,653 HBsAg-positive adults for over eleven years and showed that the risk of liver cancer rises step by step with the viral load — from 1.3% cumulative incidence in those with the lowest levels to 14.9% in those with the highest, independent of HBeAg status, ALT or cirrhosis. The threshold most guidelines now use is 2,000 IU/mL; below it the risk is low, above it the risk climbs.

Is the liver inflamed. ALT is the marker. EASL 2025 asks for an ALT above the laboratory’s upper limit of normal; APASL has historically asked for a higher bar. A single normal ALT is not reassurance — the enzyme fluctuates, and the REVEAL cohort found that the viral-load gradient of cancer risk was most striking precisely in people with normal ALT.

How much scarring. A liver stiffness measurement, with APRI or FIB-4 as a cheaper first screen, has replaced biopsy for most patients; my guide to FibroScan versus biopsy explains when each is needed. The WHO 2024 guideline makes fibrosis a stand-alone indication: treat everyone with an APRI above 0.5 or stiffness above 7 kPa, regardless of HBV DNA or ALT. EASL 2025 says the same for cirrhosis with detectable virus, and allows treatment of advanced fibrosis (stiffness above 8 kPa) irrespective of viral load.

Who the patient is. WHO 2024 says treat regardless of DNA or ALT if there is a family history of liver cancer or cirrhosis, HIV, hepatitis C or hepatitis D co-infection, immunosuppression, diabetes or fatty liver disease, or an extrahepatic manifestation such as HBV-related kidney disease. EASL 2025 reaches a similar place by a different route: anyone with detectable virus plus an increased cancer risk, an extrahepatic manifestation or planned immunosuppression should be treated. Age matters too — APASL and AASLD both treat the 30-to-40 band as the point where a high viral load with normal ALT shifts from monitoring towards treatment.

The table sets the four documents side by side. Where they differ, the direction of travel is clear: each revision treats more people, earlier.

One phrase deserves retiring: “healthy carrier” — or “inactive carrier”, which APASL asked clinicians to drop a decade ago, because the quiet phase of hepatitis B is a stage, not a diagnosis, and it can end without warning. Someone with low-level virus and a normal liver today still needs HBV DNA, ALT and a fibrosis check every six to twelve months, which is what the EASL monitoring schedule asks for.

The drugs: tenofovir disoproxil, tenofovir alafenamide and entecavir

The choice has become simple. Three oral nucleos(t)ide analogues carry a high barrier to resistance, suppress the virus in the great majority of adherent patients, and are endorsed as first line by every guideline: tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) and entecavir (ETV). The older drugs — lamivudine, adefovir, telbivudine — breed resistance and have no place in a new prescription; if you were started on one of them years ago, ask why you are still on it.

Tenofovir disoproxil is the workhorse. It is the drug the national programme supplies, the drug with the longest safety record in pregnancy, and it carries a very high barrier to resistance. Its weaknesses are the kidney and bone: a small, slow decline in filtration rate and bone mineral density in a minority of patients, which is why kidney function and phosphate are checked before and during treatment.

Tenofovir alafenamide delivers the same active molecule to the liver at a fraction of the systemic exposure. Two phase 3 trials published in 2016 — 426 HBeAg-negative and 873 HBeAg-positive patients, each randomised to TAF or TDF — showed equal viral suppression at 48 weeks with significantly smaller falls in hip and spine bone density and a smaller drop in creatinine clearance on TAF. EASL 2025 therefore prefers TAF over TDF in anyone with osteopenia or osteoporosis, low phosphate, reduced kidney function, or risk factors for kidney injury: decompensated cirrhosis, diabetes, poorly controlled hypertension, proteinuria, nephrotoxic drugs, organ transplantation. The WHO reserves it for the same groups. Generic TAF is sold in India by several manufacturers, at a higher price than TDF and outside the free programme.

Entecavir is the alternative for patients who cannot take tenofovir at all — advanced kidney disease, for instance — and the usual choice in decompensated cirrhosis alongside TAF. It is kind to kidneys and bone. Its one real limitation is for patients previously exposed to lamivudine, in whom resistance to entecavir emerges far more readily; EASL 2025 asks that prior drug history be taken into account when choosing. It is also the drug that must be swapped for tenofovir if a woman on it becomes pregnant.

Pegylated interferon, a weekly injection for a fixed 48 weeks, remains an option for a small group of young, non-cirrhotic patients who want a finite course and a somewhat higher chance of losing HBsAg, at the cost of flu-like symptoms and mood effects. It is uncommon in Indian practice and contraindicated in cirrhosis.

Why treatment is long-term — and when it can stop

The WHO fact sheet says it in one sentence: most people who start hepatitis B treatment must continue it for life. The reason is biological. Nucleos(t)ide analogues block the virus from copying itself, but they do not touch the covalently closed circular DNA — the template the virus stores inside the nucleus of liver cells. Stop the drug and the template resumes production, often within weeks.

The goal that would allow stopping is HBsAg loss, confirmed on two tests six months apart — what the field now calls functional cure. It is rare on tablets — the RETRACT-B investigators open their paper with exactly that word, and the registration trials EASL tabulates report it in only a few per cent of patients. When it happens, EASL recommends stopping treatment (with 12 months of consolidation first if there is compensated cirrhosis), and the largest Asian series found over 95% of patients stayed HBsAg-negative afterwards.

Stopping before HBsAg loss is where the guidelines part company, and where I urge caution. AASLD 2018 suggests indefinite therapy for HBeAg-negative disease “unless there is a compelling rationale” to stop. EASL 2025 is more permissive but very specific: in HBeAg-positive patients without advanced fibrosis, tablets can stop 12 months after HBeAg seroconversion with undetectable DNA; in selected HBeAg-negative patients without advanced fibrosis, after at least three to four years of undetectable DNA and a low HBsAg level — and only after discussion with a physician experienced in hepatitis B, with close monitoring, three-monthly in the first year. APASL recommends at least one and preferably three years of consolidation after HBeAg seroconversion.

The evidence behind that caution comes from RETRACT-B, an international cohort of 1,552 HBeAg-negative patients who stopped treatment. HBsAg loss did follow in some — 13% at four years, and over 30% in Asian patients whose HBsAg was already below 100 IU/mL when they stopped — which is the whole argument for a trial of withdrawal. But virological relapse was the norm, retreatment was common, and 1.8% of the cohort decompensated within five years, a risk five times higher in those with cirrhosis. Which is why every guideline agrees on one rule: patients with cirrhosis do not stop. A flare in a liver with no reserve is how a stable patient becomes a candidate for transplantation.

If you are tired of a daily tablet, say so. But say it to a hepatologist, with an HBsAg level in hand, and never by simply running out.

Pregnancy: protecting the baby

In India the commonest route of hepatitis B infection is still from mother to newborn, and a baby infected at birth will almost always carry the virus for life. This is the one setting where a short, finite course of antiviral treatment prevents a lifelong disease.

The decisive trial was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2016: 200 HBeAg-positive mothers with HBV DNA above 200,000 IU/mL were randomised to tenofovir disoproxil from 30–32 weeks of gestation or to usual care; all babies received vaccine and immunoglobulin. Transmission fell from 18% to 5% in the intention-to-treat analysis and from 7% to zero among those who completed the protocol, with no difference in birth defects. Every major guideline now uses that 200,000 IU/mL threshold. EASL 2025 adds that treatment should ideally begin before the last trimester and that tenofovir is the drug; WHO 2024 says preferably from the second trimester, and offers the option of treating all HBsAg-positive mothers where DNA testing cannot be done.

Two further rules. A woman who already needs treatment for her own liver stays on tenofovir throughout pregnancy — EASL 2025 asks that entecavir or interferon be switched to tenofovir rather than stopped. And a woman started solely to protect the baby is usually continued through delivery and then reassessed, because ALT flares after stopping are more frequent post-partum; the Pan trial saw them in 45% of treated mothers against 30% of controls.

India’s programme has the infrastructure for this. Every pregnant woman is meant to be screened for HBsAg, every newborn vaccinated within 24 hours of birth, and babies of positive mothers given hepatitis B immunoglobulin at the same time. The weak link is the HBV DNA test, which is often never ordered. If you are HBsAg-positive and pregnant, ask for it by name by 24 weeks.

Reactivation: chemotherapy, biologics and steroids

Hepatitis B does not need to be active to be dangerous. Someone with a low or undetectable viral load — even someone who cleared the surface antigen decades ago and is only anti-HBc positive — can reactivate explosively when the immune system is suppressed. The classic triggers are cancer chemotherapy, rituximab and other B-cell-depleting antibodies, high-dose steroids, anti-TNF biologics for arthritis or bowel disease, and transplant immunosuppression. The reactivated hepatitis can be severe enough to cause acute liver failure, and in a patient with underlying chronic disease it is one of the recognised insults that precipitate acute-on-chronic liver failure in the APASL consensus to which I contributed.

The principle is prevention, not rescue. The AGA, AASLD and EASL guidelines all say the same thing: anyone about to start significant immunosuppression should be tested for HBsAg and anti-HBc first, and if HBsAg is positive, antiviral prophylaxis starts before the first dose — not after the ALT rises. For the HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patient, EASL 2025 recommends prophylaxis when the planned therapy carries a high reactivation risk (B-cell-depleting drugs, above all); for moderate- or low-risk regimens, monitoring of HBsAg and HBV DNA every three months is acceptable, with treatment the moment the virus reappears. Entecavir or tenofovir are the drugs. Prophylaxis continues for at least six to twelve months after the immunosuppression ends, and EASL now asks for at least eighteen months after B-cell depletion.

The failures I see are almost never failures of knowledge. They are failures of a checkbox — a chemotherapy protocol begun before the hepatitis serology came back. If you carry hepatitis B in any form and any doctor proposes chemotherapy, a biologic or a long steroid course, say so before the first dose.

What never stops: cancer surveillance, hepatitis D and the Indian programme

Suppressing the virus cuts the risk of liver cancer substantially. It does not abolish it, because the damage done before treatment — and the viral DNA already integrated into liver cells — remains. EASL 2025 is unambiguous: HCC surveillance should be continued in at-risk patients irrespective of effective antiviral therapy or HBsAg loss. That means an abdominal ultrasound by an experienced operator every six months, with or without alpha-fetoprotein, for everyone with cirrhosis and for the higher-risk non-cirrhotic groups AASLD lists — Asian men over 40, Asian women over 50, anyone with a first-degree relative who had liver cancer, anyone with hepatitis D. See my post on liver cancer surveillance in India for what follows if a nodule is found.

Hepatitis D is the test almost nobody orders. It is a defective virus that can only infect someone who already has hepatitis B, and it makes the disease progress faster to cirrhosis and cancer. EASL recommends — strongly — that every HBsAg-positive person be tested for anti-HDV at least once, with HBV DNA, anti-HCV and HIV at the same visit. If you have been HBsAg-positive for years and have never seen “anti-HDV” on a report, ask.

Then the Indian context. The 2021 sentinel surveillance put HBsAg prevalence at about 0.85% — roughly one person in 118 — a small percentage of a very large population, and most people who carry it do not know. Since July 2018 the National Viral Hepatitis Control Programme has offered free screening, free diagnostics and free antiviral drugs for hepatitis B at designated government treatment centres, with a toll-free helpline (1800-11-6666) that can direct you to the nearest one. Cost is no longer a reason to leave hepatitis B untreated in India. Awareness is.

Two last things that cost nothing. Everyone in your household should have their HBsAg and anti-HBs checked and be vaccinated if not immune — the vaccine protects for decades and blocks hepatitis D in the same stroke, a point we made in the hepatitis B vaccine chapter I co-wrote with Prof Sarin for Adult Immunization in 2014. And alcohol, which multiplies the cancer risk in a hepatitis B liver, should go. Our liver clinic in Mumbai sees HBsAg-positive patients from across Maharashtra and abroad for exactly this assessment — HBV DNA, HBeAg, a full liver panel, anti-HDV, ultrasound and FibroScan, usually organised in a single morning.

References

1. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatitis B virus infection. J Hepatol. 2025;83(2):502–583. PMID 40348683. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2025.03.018
2. World Health Organization. Guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, care and treatment for people with chronic hepatitis B infection. Geneva: WHO; 29 March 2024. ISBN 978-92-4-009090-3. who.int/publications/i/item/9789240090903
3. Sarin SK, Kumar M, Lau GK, et al. Asian-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatitis B: a 2015 update. Hepatol Int. 2016;10(1):1–98. PMID 26563120. doi:10.1007/s12072-015-9675-4
4. Terrault NA, Lok ASF, McMahon BJ, et al. Update on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic hepatitis B: AASLD 2018 hepatitis B guidance. Hepatology. 2018;67(4):1560–1599. PMID 29405329. doi:10.1002/hep.29800
5. Chen CJ, Yang HI, Su J, et al. Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma across a biological gradient of serum hepatitis B virus DNA level (REVEAL-HBV). JAMA. 2006;295(1):65–73. PMID 16391218. doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.65
6. Buti M, Gane E, Seto WK, et al. Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;1(3):196–206. PMID 28404092. doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30107-8
7. Chan HLY, Fung S, Seto WK, et al. Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;1(3):185–195. PMID 28404091. doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30024-3
8. Hirode G, Choi HSJ, Chen CH, et al. Off-therapy response after nucleos(t)ide analogue withdrawal in patients with chronic hepatitis B: an international, multicenter, multiethnic cohort (RETRACT-B study). Gastroenterology. 2022;162(3):757–771.e4. PMID 34762906. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2021.11.002
9. Hirode G, Hansen BE, Chen CH, et al. Incidence of hepatic decompensation after nucleos(t)ide analog withdrawal: results from a large, international, multiethnic cohort of patients with chronic hepatitis B (RETRACT-B study). Am J Gastroenterol. 2023;118(9):1601–1608. PMID 36719174. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000002203
10. Pan CQ, Duan Z, Dai E, et al. Tenofovir to prevent hepatitis B transmission in mothers with high viral load. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(24):2324–2334. PMID 27305192. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1508660
11. Loomba R, Liang TJ. Hepatitis B reactivation associated with immune suppressive and biological modifier therapies: current concepts, management strategies, and future directions. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(6):1297–1309. PMID 28219691. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.02.009
12. Reddy KR, Beavers KL, Hammond SP, Lim JK, Falck-Ytter YT. American Gastroenterological Association Institute guideline on the prevention and treatment of hepatitis B virus reactivation during immunosuppressive drug therapy. Gastroenterology. 2015;148(1):215–219. PMID 25447850. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2014.10.039
13. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on hepatitis delta virus. J Hepatol. 2023;79(2):433–460. PMID 37364791. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2023.05.001
14. Sarin SK, Choudhury A, Sharma MK, et al (incl. Kalal C). Acute-on-chronic liver failure: consensus recommendations of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL): an update. Hepatol Int. 2019;13(4):353–390. PMID 31172417. doi:10.1007/s12072-019-09946-3
15. World Health Organization. Hepatitis B fact sheet. 28 July 2026. who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hepatitis-b
16. Press Information Bureau, Government of India. India’s fight to combat hepatitis (National Viral Hepatitis Control Programme backgrounder). 27 July 2026. static.pib.gov.in (PDF)