The international medical community has a metaphor for the goal of antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis B: the bronze medal for hepatitis B virus DNA conversion, the silver medal for hepatitis B virus e antigen serologic conversion (meaning e antigen conversion and the appearance of e antibody), and the gold medal for hepatitis B virus surface antigen conversion. In the past, “winning the gold medal” was considered an “impossible task”, but in recent years, the medical community’s exploration has made the world see the light of “winning the gold medal”. In a presentation at the 3rd International Liver Summit in Paris, patients with hepatitis B treated with pegylated interferon alpha-2a (Peroxin) showed an encouraging clearance rate of surface antigen after drug discontinuation, with e antigen-negative patients having a clearance rate of 3% at the time of drug discontinuation, which increased with time of drug discontinuation to 6%, 8%, and 11% at 2, 3, and 4 years of follow-up, respectively. 11% at 2, 3, and 4 years of follow-up, respectively. In a study presented at the American Liver Congress, a statistical analysis of 194 patients with chronic hepatitis B with “minor triplets” treated with PEG interferon or PEG interferon plus lamivudine for 48 weeks and followed for 3 years found that of the 23 patients with quantitative analysis of hepatitis B surface antigen in the blood of less than 10 international units per milliliter at 48 weeks of treatment, 3 patients had a quantitative analysis of 10 units per milliliter. Among the 23 patients who were treated for 48 weeks, 12 patients (52%) had negative surface antigen after 3 years, while among the 171 patients with more than 10 international units per milliliter, 4 patients (2%) had negative surface antigen after 3 years. Thus, the medical community believes that quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen analysis can be used as a predictor of the likelihood of achieving surface antigen regression in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Recent findings are even more encouraging in that among patients who experienced HBeAg serologic conversion with interferon therapy, HBsAg clearance was shown to occur in 30% of patients after 3 years of follow-up; 6 years of follow-up showed that HBsAg clearance could be as high as 45%. At 96 weeks of treatment with pegylated interferon, 53% of patients showed HBeAg clearance; at 5-year follow-up after drug discontinuation, HBsAg clearance could be as high as 72% if the patient’s HBV DNA was consistently <400 copies/ml. Please note that the clearance rate calculated here is not the same as the "conversion rate of 6%, 8% and 11% respectively" mentioned earlier, the base population is different, that is, the denominators are different, not the same thing, not to be confused. The total conversion rate is about 10%. Encouragingly, long-term treatment with nucleoside analogues can also obtain HBsAg clearance, with a recent report of HBsAg clearance of 6% in some subgroups after 1 to 2 years of tenofovir treatment. Although the surface antigen conversion rate is only about 10%, such results can be seen as a leap forward compared to the natural conversion rate of 1%-2% per year, which was unimaginable in the past. Thus, it has been determined that hepatitis B surface antigen conversion in clinical treatment becomes a goal that can be pursued. Of course, it must be soberly seen that it is not easy to get the "gold medal", which can be one of the goals, but cannot be forced; that is, to do one's best to try to get the best results, no matter whether it is the "gold", "silver" or "bronze" medal. The efficacy of the treatment is also worthy of recognition, regardless of whether it is a "gold", "silver" or "bronze" medal. For this reason, clinicians should strictly grasp the indications for antiviral therapy, select the right target group and the right drugs, and emphasize adequate courses of treatment and full management to avoid unregulated treatment and blind treatment. The principle of optimization should be followed to: ① Preferred patient selection, through the selection of the baseline level can be preferred to obtain good antiviral treatment outcomes. (ii) Optimize the selection of drugs, based on the risk-benefit ratio of treatment. (iii) Optimization of efficacy, which can be further optimized by in-treatment monitoring and optimization of treatment regimens. The manifestation and regression of hepatitis B can be very different due to the different immune status, age, lifestyle habits and stage of infection of the patient, with some manifesting as virus carriers, some with mild liver function abnormalities, and some with recurrent attacks with significant liver damage, and some patients even experiencing life-threatening liver failure. It is because of the above differences that the treatment of hepatitis B must be individualized and tailored to the individual, and the same individual at different stages, the treatment methods are not the same, I would like to remind patients not to look at others with a certain drug with good results, they also blindly try, must be under the full management and guidance of a specialist medication.