Chronic hepatitis B treatment mainly includes antiviral, immunomodulation, anti-inflammatory and hepatoprotective, anti-fibrosis and symptomatic treatment. Undoubtedly, anti-hepatitis B virus treatment is the key, as long as there are indications and conditions permit, standardized antiviral treatment should be carried out. In recent years, the number of antiviral drugs on the market has been increasing, including two main categories, one is nucleoside (acid) and the other is interferon. Generally speaking, nucleoside (acid) drugs are characterized by direct inhibition of the virus, which can control the virus very quickly and powerfully, so they can play a direct role in the clinic, especially in the rapid decline of the virus, and the effect can be clearly seen in a month or two months. At the same time, these drugs can reduce liver inflammation, can make the transaminase level down to normal, also can make part of the e antigen positive patients e antigen disappear or conversion, also provides evidence of liver tissue improvement. Moreover, these drugs require only oral administration, usually one capsule a day, which is very convenient, has few adverse effects, and is relatively inexpensive. However, a common disadvantage is that these drugs often require long-term use. There are four nucleoside (acid) anti-hepatitis B virus drugs currently on the market, namely lamivudine, adefovir, entecavir and telbivudine. The introduction of lamivudine can be considered as a milestone for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. It is a drug that can be used in the treatment of hepatitis B. It enters the liver cells and effectively stops the synthesis and replication of the virus by inhibiting DDHBV polymerase, an enzyme essential to the HBV process. The U.S. FDA approved GlaxoSmithKline’s Lamivudine (Herceptin) in 1998. As the first marketed oral anti-hepatitis B virus drug, it has the longest clinical data of 10 years and the most abundant clinical data. It should be said that a lot of patients have used or are using this drug, it is still very rapid in suppressing the virus, and many patients show the efficacy of the drug after about 1 week, and the average time of HBV-DNA negative is 2 months earlier than that of interferon treatment. It also improves hepatic inflammation very significantly and histologic improvement can also be achieved. There are clear data confirming that lamivudine reduces the incidence of hepatitis B-associated hepatocellular carcinoma.The HBeAg seroconversion rate increases with prolonged treatment, with HBeAg seroconversion rates of 16%, 17%, 23%, 28%, and 35% after 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of treatment, respectively. The drug has a wide range of indications and is effective and safe even in patients with severe disease and even cirrhotic decompensation. To summarize, this drug is effective, has a lot of experience in its use, is very safe, and is very cost-effective. However, there is no perfect drug, it also has a disadvantage, this disadvantage is also a common problem of nucleoside analogs, that is, it is easy to occur in the process of long-term use of drug resistance, but can be used in the early stage of the drug (usually 3-6 months), depending on the magnitude of the viral reduction or whether the occurrence of drug resistance, the early switch to or combined with other nucleoside analogs, such as adefovir, etc., to carry out treatment, you can be able to comfortably cope with the problem of resistance to lamivudine. The second marketed nucleoside analog is adefovir, which is also able to inhibit the virus very significantly, while inhibiting the virus can also make the liver inflammation, aminotransferase indexes improve, but also can make the liver histology improve, and, adefovir continuous treatment for four years of the e-antigen negative rate and seroconversion rate is increasing year by year. Adefovir is also characterized by a relatively low chance of drug resistance, such as one year resistance may be only 1% to 2%, so long-term use is more suitable, especially for the need for long-term treatment, and the level of the virus is not very high patients, with adefovir can also be the virus down to the required level. Moreover, a very good advantage of this drug is that there is no crossover between the resistance sites of the virus to it and those of lamivudine, which is unique among the currently marketed nucleoside (acid) analogs, and therefore this drug can be the first choice for patients whose lamivudine has failed. An additional caution in the use of adefovir is renal function, as some possible effects on renal function were observed in its high dose group (30 mg/day) in early clinical trials of it, although no adverse effects in this regard have been observed in the currently marketed dose (10 mg/day). The third drug is entecavir, which was approved by the US FDA in 2005 and has the ability to significantly inhibit the virus, and while inhibiting the virus, it can improve liver inflammation and aminotransferase markers, and the rate of resistance to this drug in the process of application is relatively low. The antiviral effect is stronger than lamivudine and adefovir, but unfortunately there is no significant difference in HBeAg seroconversion compared to the former two, entecavir continuous treatment for 2 years e antigen seroconversion rate of only 31%, and then extend the course of treatment to 4 years can only increase the rate of seroconversion of e antigen by another 16%. Because of the crossover between the entecavir resistance site and lamivudine, it is not considered the first choice for lamivudine-resistant patients, although it is available for treatment of lamivudine-failed patients, but the dose needs to be doubled and it is more likely to be resistant than in first-treatment patients. There is also the case that the drug was found to be carcinogenic in animal studies, and although carcinogenicity has not been observed in the population, the FDA still requires it to complete up to 10 years of safety studies, so that long-term efficacy and safety need to be further confirmed. The fourth drug is Tibivudine, a drug approved by the FDA in 2006. According to global studies, it has a strong inhibitory effect on the virus, and aminotransferase indexes can be significantly reduced, and liver biopsy evidence can confirm that the histologic improvement is also relatively obvious. In addition, the drug can make e antigen-positive patients with a higher percentage of serologic conversion, higher than the first three drugs. However, the drug has been on the market for a relatively short period of time, and its antiviral effect, resistance rate, long-term efficacy and safety need to be further confirmed. In a clinical study of tibivudine combined with interferon, the group in which PEG interferon was used was forced to terminate the study due to the occurrence of serious adverse reactions, whereas in the study of lamivudine combined with interferon, no similar safety problems occurred. This shows that the safety of combination therapy with telbivudine also requires further study. Another major class of anti-hepatitis B virus drugs is interferon. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, interferon has been widely used in the treatment of hepatitis B, which once brought people quite a surprise. Interferon is characterized by both direct viral inhibition and immunomodulatory effects, so it can inhibit the replication of hepatitis B virus and at the same time enable patients to achieve an immune response. In the course of treatment, it has a fixed course of treatment. Interferon drugs need to be injected, the drug half-life is short, to maintain the effect of the drug must be injected every other day, which brings patients a lot of pain and inconvenience, of course, since 2005, the marketing of long-acting interferon once a week to use the characteristics of the problem has been alleviated to a certain extent. Interferon direct inhibition of the virus is not as strong as nucleoside (acid) analogs, the time to reduce the virus is relatively not as fast as nucleoside (acid) analogs, in addition to the relatively high economic costs, adverse reactions are relatively large, such as influenza-like symptoms, myelosuppression, alopecia, and other manifestations. The application range of this class of drugs is relatively limited, for example, patients with cirrhosis in the decompensated stage should never be used. For mother-to-child transmission, the initial hepatitis B virus load is relatively high, ALT level is not high patients, the effect of interferon is even more discounted. In China, it is impossible to avoid the question of whether traditional Chinese medicine has an antiviral effect. This is indeed a difficult question to answer. It should be said that the antiviral effect of traditional Chinese medicine has been clinically accepted by some doctors and patients. For example, bitter saponin extracted from the Chinese medicine bitter bean seeds has been made into intravenous and intramuscular injections and oral preparations, which are effective in improving liver biochemical indexes and anti-hepatitis B virus, and also a boon to patients who cannot use nucleoside (acid) analogs or interferon for various reasons. However, it has to be said that the exact efficacy of even the bitter saxifrage needs to be further verified by expanding the number of cases and conducting rigorous multicenter randomized controlled clinical trials, and the antiviral efficacy of other traditional Chinese medicines needs to be further verified.