Reviewer’s report  
Title: Off-treatment durability of antiviral response to nucleoside ana logues in patients with  
chronic hepatitis B  
 
Version: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2015  
 
Reviewer: Askin Erdogan  
Reviewer’s report:  
The study entitled "Off -treatment durability of antiviral response to nucleos(t)ide analogues in 
patients with chronic hepatitis B" aims to evaluate off -treatment durability after NA ces sation 
according to the APASL stopping suggestions in patients with chronic hepatitis B. This study 
emphases an important issue. However I have some concerns regarding the paper as listed below.  
 
Title:  
 
1. The title "Off -treatment durability of antiviral r esponse to nucleos(t)ide analogues in 
patients with chronic hepatitis B" is misleading since both lamivudine and entecavir are 
nucleoside analogues. This also needs to be corrected in discussion.  
 
Abstract:  
 
1. Please correct thee to three.  
 
Methods:  
 
1. Outcome of the patients/ HBeAg negative patients section: The authors state that most of 
the patients receiving LMV met the APASL stopping rule. Instead of using the word 
"rule", it is better state "recommendation" since it is not clear how long treatme nt should 
be continued but they make a suggestion.  
 
2. Patients received lamivudine or entecavir. Wonder why authors did not include tenofovir 
in the study as the treatment option. Is it not available?  
 
3. Also how were the patients assigned to either treatm ent?   
 
4. Authors state that they discontinued treatment for patients who were HBeAg negative if 
HBV DNA was undetectable by PCR on three separate occasions. Did patients receive at 
least 2 years of treatment before treatment discontinuation? Please state.  
 
5. Statistical analysis: Did authors evaluate liver fibrosis as one of the variables?  
 
6. How were the patients followed before and after discontinuation of treatment (how often 
and with which parameters)?  
 
7. What was the length of treatment before discon tinuation?  
 
Results:  
 
1. What was the minimum and maximum time for follow -up?  
 
2. What was the time for patients from beginning of treatment till stopping the treatment?  
 
3. How did authors manage relapse? Did they reintroduce same treatment?  
 
4. Please numbe r Table (although there is only one).  
 
Discussion:  
 
1. Citation needs to be correctly given in the discussion  
 
Table 1:  
 
1. Please give the name for liver fibrosis staging.  
 
Figures:  
 
1. It may be better to create a flow diaphragm to show how they recruited  patients and 
which treatment they received.  
 
2. What numbers under graphics represent is not clear.  
 
Yours sincerely,  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please spe cify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript o r would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written Engl ish 
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, consideri ng the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, e ither now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organis ation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, e ither now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the  content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements , fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the  content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other fin ancial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests  in relation to this pa per? 
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the  journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree  for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be inc luded in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer’s report  
Title: Off-treatment durability of antiviral response to nucleoside ana logues in patients with  
chronic hepatitis B  
 
Version: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2015  
 
Reviewer: Askin Erdogan  
Reviewer’s report:  
The study entitled "Off -treatment durability of antiviral response to nucleos(t)ide analogues in 
patients with chronic hepatitis B" aims to evaluate off -treatment durability after NA ces sation 
according to the APASL stopping suggestions in patients with chronic hepatitis B. This study 
emphases an important issue. However I have some concerns regarding the paper as listed below.  
 
Title:  
 
1. The title "Off -treatment durability of antiviral r esponse to nucleos(t)ide analogues in 
patients with chronic hepatitis B" is misleading since both lamivudine and entecavir are 
nucleoside analogues. This also needs to be corrected in discussion.  
 
Abstract:  
 
1. Please correct thee to three.  
 
Methods:  
 
1. Outcome of the patients/ HBeAg negative patients section: The authors state that most of 
the patients receiving LMV met the APASL stopping rule. Instead of using the word 
"rule", it is better state "recommendation" since it is not clear how long treatme nt should 
be continued but they make a suggestion.  
 
2. Patients received lamivudine or entecavir. Wonder why authors did not include tenofovir 
in the study as the treatment option. Is it not available?  
 
3. Also how were the patients assigned to either treatm ent?   
 
4. Authors state that they discontinued treatment for patients who were HBeAg negative if 
HBV DNA was undetectable by PCR on three separate occasions. Did patients receive at 
least 2 years of treatment before treatment discontinuation? Please state.  
 
5. Statistical analysis: Did authors evaluate liver fibrosis as one of the variables?  
 
6. How were the patients followed before and after discontinuation of treatment (how often 
and with which parameters)?  
 
7. What was the length of treatment before discon tinuation?  
 
Results:  
 
1. What was the minimum and maximum time for follow -up?  
 
2. What was the time for patients from beginning of treatment till stopping the treatment?  
 
3. How did authors manage relapse? Did they reintroduce same treatment?  
 
4. Please numbe r Table (although there is only one).  
 
Discussion:  
 
1. Citation needs to be correctly given in the discussion  
 
Table 1:  
 
1. Please give the name for liver fibrosis staging.  
 
Figures:  
 
1. It may be better to create a flow diaphragm to show how they recruited  patients and 
which treatment they received.  
 
2. What numbers under graphics represent is not clear.  
 
Yours sincerely,  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please spe cify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript o r would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written Engl ish 
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, consideri ng the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, e ither now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organis ation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, e ither now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the  content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements , fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the  content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other fin ancial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests  in relation to this pa per? 
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the  journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree  for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be inc luded in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer’s report  
Title: Off-treatment durability of antiviral response to nucleoside ana logues in patients with  
chronic hepatitis B  
 
Version: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2015  
 
Reviewer: Askin Erdogan  
Reviewer’s report:  
The study entitled "Off -treatment durability of antiviral response to nucleos(t)ide analogues in 
patients with chronic hepatitis B" aims to evaluate off -treatment durability after NA ces sation 
according to the APASL stopping suggestions in patients with chronic hepatitis B. This study 
emphases an important issue. However I have some concerns regarding the paper as listed below.  
 
Title:  
 
1. The title "Off -treatment durability of antiviral r esponse to nucleos(t)ide analogues in 
patients with chronic hepatitis B" is misleading since both lamivudine and entecavir are 
nucleoside analogues. This also needs to be corrected in discussion.  
 
Abstract:  
 
1. Please correct thee to three.  
 
Methods:  
 
1. Outcome of the patients/ HBeAg negative patients section: The authors state that most of 
the patients receiving LMV met the APASL stopping rule. Instead of using the word 
"rule", it is better state "recommendation" since it is not clear how long treatme nt should 
be continued but they make a suggestion.  
 
2. Patients received lamivudine or entecavir. Wonder why authors did not include tenofovir 
in the study as the treatment option. Is it not available?  
 
3. Also how were the patients assigned to either treatm ent?   
 
4. Authors state that they discontinued treatment for patients who were HBeAg negative if 
HBV DNA was undetectable by PCR on three separate occasions. Did patients receive at 
least 2 years of treatment before treatment discontinuation? Please state.  
 
5. Statistical analysis: Did authors evaluate liver fibrosis as one of the variables?  
 
6. How were the patients followed before and after discontinuation of treatment (how often 
and with which parameters)?  
 
7. What was the length of treatment before discon tinuation?  
 
Results:  
 
1. What was the minimum and maximum time for follow -up?  
 
2. What was the time for patients from beginning of treatment till stopping the treatment?  
 
3. How did authors manage relapse? Did they reintroduce same treatment?  
 
4. Please numbe r Table (although there is only one).  
 
Discussion:  
 
1. Citation needs to be correctly given in the discussion  
 
Table 1:  
 
1. Please give the name for liver fibrosis staging.  
 
Figures:  
 
1. It may be better to create a flow diaphragm to show how they recruited  patients and 
which treatment they received.  
 
2. What numbers under graphics represent is not clear.  
 
Yours sincerely,  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please spe cify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript o r would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written Engl ish 
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, consideri ng the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, e ither now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organis ation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, e ither now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the  content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements , fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the  content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other fin ancial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests  in relation to this pa per? 
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the  journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree  for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be inc luded in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant