I realize that drug therapy is pretty good.

My husband died a couple of years back, he had hepatitis b.  

He was told that he probably got it while in the Army as a teenager.  I am a dental hygienist, and was vaccinated before I met my husband.  

I wish my husband was able to benefit from the new therapy that is around now mainly due to the research to find a cure for HIV.  

I am a bit confused with the data I see on various drugs and seroconversion rates.  Wouldn't some of these patients seroconvert naturally?  From various reports, I see that between 8-15% seroconvert without drugs on a yearly basis and that within 5-10 years about 75% will.  So it would appear that about 25% will end up not being about to suppress the virus without long term therapy.  I know the anti-viral drugs work by basically holding the virus hostage in a cell it cannot breakout of to lower the replication rate, thus allowing the person's immune system to fight a smaller army of virus.  Are the drugs helping mainly the 25% whose immune system is for whatever reason unable to mount a large enough attack on the virus?  Is this why some people must be on drug for a lifetime?  

[cajim]

Thank you for your sharing.

You are quite right that compared with years back medications treating Hep B have expanded greatly.  Your descriptions of how antiviral drugs work are vivid and roughly correct too.  Of course with these drugs also come with new challenges such as resistance, flares, relapses, no treatment end point, etc.