Comparison of clinical practice guidelines for chronic hepatitis B: natural history classification and treatment...

International and regional clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) have recently been updated to incorporate evolving clinical evidence. This review compares the latest major CPGs regarding natural history classification, treatment initiation, and selection of antiviral agents, specifically focusing on updates from the Korean Association for the Study of the Liver-East Asia Liver Alliance (KASL-EALA), the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), and the World Health Organization (WHO). While all guidelines recognize the heterogeneous and dynamic nature of CHB, managing patients in the "grey zone" or indeterminate phase remains a major challenge. The KASL-EALA 2026 guideline introduces a novel framework based primarily on hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels-independent of alanine aminotransferase criteria-eliminating the indeterminate category to better align with hepatocellular carcinoma risks and simplify treatment decision-making. In contrast, AASLD 2025, EASL 2025, and WHO 2024 retain conventional immunological phase-based classifications for natural history. For treatment indications, all four guidelines advocate broader access to antiviral therapy despite their divergent structural approaches. AASLD suggests shared decision-making, EASL emphasizes individualized risk assessment, and WHO 2024 abandons the phase-based framework for treatment decisions entirely. Understanding these key similarities and differences will help clinicians optimize patient care and inform future efforts toward global harmonization in CHB management.