Rigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Elebsiran and PEG-IFNα for chronic hepatitis B infection: a partially randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial

Name: Adcurare Rigor Record — Elebsiran and PEG-IFNα for chronic hepatitis B infection: a partially randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial
Item: Elebsiran and PEG-IFNα for chronic hepatitis B infection: a partially randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial
Rating: 88
Author: Adcurare

Wong GL, Yuen MF, Lin B, Douglas MW, Hu P, Xie Q, Lv F, Tak WY, Leerapun A, Kim DJ, Tangkijvanich P, Lim YS, Dai CY, O'Beirne J, Weltman M, Khemnark S, Piratvisuth T, Manasirisuk W, Chen X, Liu CJ, Heo J, Lee J, Niu J, Kumar R, Kumar R, Zhu C, Cao K, Tian A, Chen X, Zhu Q, Margolis D, Jia J, Hong Z.

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)Journal

Embed this Rigor badge

Adcurare Rigor Review — 3.25★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 8 high issues for “Elebsiran and PEG-IFNα for chronic hepatitis B infection: a partially randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Adcurare Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Adcurare Editorial · July 6, 2026

Adcurare Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

3.25 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

CitationsCitations & links (capped) ×5−1★
ReportingData & code availability not met−0.5★
ReportingKey resources partially met−0.25★

Citations & links are capped at −1★ combined, however many are flagged.

Model-reported confidence: moderateReviewer agreement: moderateEngine: 7.6.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No reported statistical tests were found to recompute.

Problems surfaced3 types

Data and code not shared
Key resources under-identified (antibodies, cell lines, RRIDs)
References not resolvable to a published paper

This Adcurare Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This phase 2 trial is well-designed and transparently reported, with a clear scientific premise, detailed participant characteristics, and robust statistical methods. The main weaknesses are a vague data-availability statement lacking a concrete repository, missing manufacturer/source for investigational products, and the absence of exact p-values for secondary analyses.

Eight dimensions were evaluated; all were applicable. The statistics verification (n=0 recomputable tests) could not confirm mathematical correctness beyond consistency checks. The citation check found 5 references not located in any registry (none retracted); these should be verified. See pre submission actions for itemized corrections.

11 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Reporting

Eight Dimensions6 pass · 1 warn · 1 fail

Prior work on NRTI therapy, PEG-IFNα, and elebsiran is cited. The paper acknowledges the lack of a randomized PEG-IFNα control in prior elebsiran studies. The premise that combining siRNA with PEG-IFNα may improve HBsAg loss, and that BRII-179 may identify immunologically responsive patients, is logically derived. All three sub-criteria are adequate.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 100% conf

The paper clearly establishes its scientific foundation by citing prior research on HBV treatment limitations, elebsiran's mechanism, and prior combination data, with a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3 and 4]

“A prior study evaluating elebsiran in combination with PEG-IFNα reported an HBsAg loss rate of approximately 30% at the end of treatment... However, this study lacked a PEG-IFNα monotherapy control, limiting direct comparison.”

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 4-5]

“The authors hypothesize that individuals who overcome immune dysfunction after BRII-179 exposure may have higher functional cure rates with subsequent elebsiran plus PEG-IFNα.”

direct quote[Introduction, last sentence and Methods]

“Part I was a randomized study (cohorts 1–3) evaluating the efficacy and safety of elebsiran in combination with PEG-IFNα compared with PEG-IFNα monotherapy”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The scientific premise is well-established with clear rationale and acknowledgment of prior work limitations.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 5]

“A prior study evaluating elebsiran in combination with PEG-IFNα reported an HBsAg loss rate of approximately 30% at the end of treatment (EOT) in participants with chronic HBV infection. ... However, this study lacked a PEG-IFNα monotherapy control, limiting direct comparison.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 6]

“It was hypothesized that individuals with chronic HBV infection who were able to overcome HBV-induced immune dysfunction following exposure to BRII-179 may have an increased likelihood of mounting an effective immune response upon subsequent treatment with elebsiran and PEG-IFNα, potentially leading to higher rates of functional cure.”

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 6]

“Part I includes a PEG-IFNα monotherapy control arm to directly compare combination therapy.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

The scientific premise is well-established through citations of prior work and clear rationale for the study.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 5]

“However, this study lacked a PEG-IFNα monotherapy control, limiting direct comparison.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 5]

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“A multifaceted therapeutic approach, combining viral suppression and immune restoration or enhancement, may be essential to overcome HBV-induced immune dysfunction and achieve functional cure.”

Randomization was performed using a validated computerized system and IRT. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are detailed. The mITT and modified efficacy analysis sets are defined. The open-label design is stated but not justified. The sample size was informed by a Bayesian model with posterior probability thresholds, but no traditional effect size, power, or alpha is specified. Out of 6 applicable sub-criteria, 4 are adequate, giving a pass.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisINADEQUATE

blinding levelsINADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study design is generally rigorous with adequate randomization, clear eligibility criteria, and pre-specified analysis sets, though blinding is not justified (open-label) and the sample size justification lacks traditional power parameters.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“Eligible participants were randomized at 1:1:1 to cohort 1... using an Interactive Response Technology system. The randomization code was generated through a validated computerized system.”

direct quote[Methods, first sentence]

“This ongoing, open-label, phase 2 study”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical methods]

“The actual sample size was informed by a Bayesian statistical model. Specifically, with 15 participants per cohort, the lower bounds of the 95% CrI would exclude a response rate of 10%, provided the observed response rate was greater than 27%.”

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

Study design is generally rigorous but has minor weaknesses: open-label design without stated rationale and no formal power analysis.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“Eligible participants were randomized at 1:1:1 ... using an Interactive Response Technology system. The randomization code was generated through a validated computerized system.”

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“This ongoing, open-label, phase 2 study”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical methods]

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The study design is adequately described, with randomization, stratification, and analysis populations defined, though open-label design is not justified.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Study design, paragraph 1]

“using an Interactive Response Technology system. The randomization code was generated through a validated computerized system.”

direct quote[Methods, Study design, paragraph 1]

“This ongoing, open-label, phase 2 study”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical methods, paragraph 1]

“The actual sample size was informed by a Bayesian statistical model.”

Sex is reported for all cohorts (Table 1). Age and weight (BMI) are provided. Race/ethnicity (Asian, White, Other) is reported. Health status (HBeAg, ALT) is included. All three applicable sub-criteria are adequate.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 100% conf

Demographic and baseline characteristics, including sex, age, BMI, HBsAg levels, and race, are well reported in Table 1.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 1]

“Sex n (%) Male: 47 (85.5) Female: 8 (14.5); Age (years) Mean (s.d.): 44.0 (8.4)”

direct quote[Table 1]

“Race n (%) Asian: 54 (98.2) White: 0 Other: 1 (1.8)”

direct quote[Table 1]

“BMI at baseline (kg m−2) Mean (s.d.): 23.9 (3.3); HBsAg (log10) at baseline (IU ml−1) Mean (s.d.): 2.78 (0.37); ALT at baseline (U l−1) Mean (s.d.): 20.1 (7.0)”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

All applicable biological variables are adequately reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 1]

“Sex n (%): Male 16 (88.9) ... Female 2 (11.1); Race n (%): Asian 18 (100)”

direct quote[Table 1]

“Age (years) Mean (s.d.) 45.2 (8.5); HBsAg (log10) at baseline (IU ml−1) Mean (s.d.) 2.80 (0.39); HBeAg at baseline n (%) Negative 15 (83.3)”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

Biological variables including sex, age, BMI, HBsAg, HBeAg, and race are reported in detail.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 1]

“Age (years) Mean (s.d.) ... Sex n (%) Male ... Female ... Race n (%) Asian ... White ... Other ... BMI at baseline ... HBsAg (log10) at baseline ... HBeAg at baseline n (%) Negative ... Positive”

The methods state approval by an independent ethics committee or IRB at each site, with the list in supplementary. Informed consent is documented. Compliance with Declaration of Helsinki and ICH-GCP is stated. All three applicable sub-criteria are adequate.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The study reports ethics approval by independent committees/IRBs at each site, written informed consent, and compliance with Declaration of Helsinki and ICH-GCP.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“The study was approved by an independent ethics committee or institutional review board at each site (see ‘Ethics committees/institutional review boards that approved the study protocol’ in the Supplementary Information)”

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“All participants provided written informed consent to participate in the study before any study-specific procedures were conducted.”

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice.”

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

Ethical approval is stated but the named committee is only listed in supplementary; no protocol number is provided in the main text.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“All participants provided written informed consent to participate in the study before any study-specific procedures were conducted.”

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

Ethical approvals, informed consent, and regulatory compliance are clearly stated.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Study design, paragraph 1]

“The study was approved by an independent ethics committee or institutional review board at each site (see 'Ethics committees/institutional review boards that approved the study protocol' in the )”

direct quote[Methods, Study design, paragraph 1]

“All participants provided written informed consent to participate in the study before any study-specific procedures were conducted.”

direct quote[Methods, Study design, paragraph 1]

“conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice.”

Elebsiran and PEG-IFNα are described with doses but no manufacturer or source is provided. BRII-179 is only mentioned. SAS 9.4 is identified for statistical analyses. No other biological resources are used.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedINADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The investigational products (elebsiran and PEG-IFNα) are identified by name, dose, and regimen; statistical software (SAS 9.4) is specified.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“cohort 2 (48 doses of PEG-IFNα 180 μg administered SC QW and 13 doses of elebsiran 200 mg administered SC every 4 weeks)”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical methods]

“SAS version 9.4 was used for data analyses in this study.”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

The investigational products (elebsiran, PEG-IFNα, BRII-179) are named with dose/regimen but without manufacturer/source; statistical software is adequately identified.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

“elebsiran 200 mg administered SC every 4 weeks ... PEG-IFNα 180 μg administered subcutaneously (SC) every week”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical methods]

“SAS version 9.4 was used for data analyses in this study.”

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

The investigational products (elebsiran and PEG-IFNα) are named with doses but not manufacturer/source, and SAS version is identified.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Study design, paragraph 1]

“cohort 2 (48 doses of PEG-IFNα 180 μg administered SC QW and 13 doses of elebsiran 200 mg administered SC every 4 weeks (Q4W))”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical methods, last paragraph]

“SAS version 9.4 was used for data analyses in this study.”

Tests are named (Bayesian hierarchical model, MMRM). Assumptions are implicitly handled by standard methods. Effect sizes with CIs are reported for Bayesian analyses and MMRM. Software is identified. Data presentation includes individual-level plots and defined error bars. The only inadequacy is the lack of exact p-values. Overall, 6/7 sub-criteria adequate, no arithmetical errors.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesINADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityPASS

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described; however, exact p-values are not reported for the MMRM analysis (only 'P < 0.05').

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical methods]

“A Bayesian hierarchical model was used as the primary analysis... For cohorts 1–3, changes from baseline in HBsAg... were statistically analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures.”

direct quote[Results, Key secondary efficacy outcomes]

“The mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg level through week 72 was substantially greater (P < 0.05; Extended Data Table)”

direct quote[Table 2, Table 3]

“Point estimate of response, % (95% CrI): 5.4 (0.1, 18.1) ... 26.2 (10.3, 45.4)”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical methods are largely adequate; the only weakness is that only categorical p-values (<0.05) are reported instead of exact values.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical methods]

“A Bayesian hierarchical model was used as the primary analysis... For cohorts 1–3, changes from baseline in HBsAg (on a log10 scale) at all scheduled visits were statistically analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures.”

direct quote[Results, Key secondary efficacy outcomes]

“The mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg level through week 72 was substantially greater (P < 0.05; Extended Data Table 3) in cohorts 2 and 3 compared with cohort 1”

direct quote[Table 2]

“Point estimate of response, % (95% CrI): 26.2 (10.3, 45.4) for cohort 2 at EOT”

PASSReviewer 3· 85% conf

Statistical methods are well-described, with Bayesian and mixed models, effect sizes with CIs, and software named, but exact p-values are not reported for all analyses.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical methods, paragraph 2]

“A Bayesian hierarchical model was used as the primary analysis to estimate the posterior probability of the response rate for each of cohorts 1–3”

direct quote[Results, Key secondary efficacy outcomes, paragraph 1]

“The mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg level through week 72 was substantially greater (P < 0.05; Extended Data Table )”

direct quote[Figure 2 legend]

“HBsAg level in participant by study visit in cohorts 1–3”

The data availability statement does not specify a concrete platform or data access committee for managed access. Individual patient data are not deposited in a repository. No custom code is shared (only SAS used, but programs not provided).

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 90% conf

The data availability statement is vague ('on request' with no platform/conditions), no repository deposit, and no code sharing.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability section]

“the deidentified individual participant data that underlie the results reported in this Article will be shared on request... For inquiries, the contact person is Z.H.”

absence[Data availability section]

No repository deposit is mentioned.

direct quote[Data availability section and Methods]

“No computer code was used for data collection.”

FAILReviewer 2· 95% conf

Data availability is vague ('available on request'), no data repository deposit, and no sharing of analysis code.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability]

“the deidentified individual participant data that underlie the results reported in this Article will be shared on request, or after the completion of the trial within the timeframe as required by ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT05970289).”

absence[Data availability and Methods]

No repository deposit or code sharing is mentioned.

WARNReviewer 3· 90% conf

A data availability statement is present but vague, stating data will be shared on request after trial completion without a concrete platform or mechanism.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability section]

Methods are comprehensive with a protocol and SAP in supplementary. The trial registration number is given. CONSORT adherence is stated. All pre-specified outcomes appear reported. Limitations including time gap and cohort 4 design are discussed. Conclusions do not overstate. COI and funding are explicitly provided. All 7 applicable sub-criteria are adequate.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 100% conf

The manuscript is transparent: methods are detailed, trial is registered (NCT05970289), CONSORT guidelines are followed, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are disclosed.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract and Methods]

“ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05970289 ... The study adhered to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines.”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 6]

“This study has some limitations. Approximately 1.5 years, on average, elapsed between the BRII-179-835-001 study and the ENSURE study...”

direct quote[Acknowledgements and Competing interests section]

“The study was funded by Brii Biosciences. ... Competing interests: G.L.-H.W is receiving a research grant from Gilead Sciences...”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Transparency is high: trial registered, CONSORT guidelines followed, all outcomes reported, limitations discussed, conclusions proportional, funding and COI disclosed.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract and Methods]

“ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05970289 ... The study adhered to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines.”

direct quote[Discussion]

“This study has some limitations. Approximately 1.5 years, on average, elapsed between the BRII-179-835-001 study and the ENSURE study, and the impact of this gap in time is unknown.”

direct quote[Acknowledgements and Competing interests]

“The study was funded by Brii Biosciences. ... G.L.-H.W is receiving a research grant from Gilead Sciences...”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The manuscript is transparent with trial registration, CONSORT adherence, limitations discussed, and proportional conclusions, though not all secondary outcomes are reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract, end]

“ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05970289”

direct quote[Methods, Study design, paragraph 1]

“The study adhered to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines.”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 6]

“This study has some limitations. Approximately 1.5 years, on average, elapsed between the BRII-179-835-001 study and the ENSURE study, and the impact of this gap in time is unknown.”

7 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, grammar, clarity.

Checked 24 references: 19 verified — 5 unresolved.

Reproducibility

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). Reporting guideline cited: CONSORT.

Adcurare Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

Ready after minor to moderate revision. The data-availability statement must be upgraded to a concrete managed-access repository before submission; this is the single most consequential gap. The other issues (missing manufacturer, exact p-values, ethics committee details in main text, and copyedits) are routine fixes that can be completed in a few hours. The paper's core scientific contribution is strong and not undermined by these reporting gaps.

1.
HIGHdata code
Replace the vague 'on request' data-availability statement with a concrete managed-access platform (e.g., Vivli, YODA, or ClinicalStudyDataRequest) including access conditions and timeline, and cite the repository name and expected availability date in the Data availability section.
Journals increasingly require a specific data-sharing platform; a vague statement risks rejection and undermines reproducibility.
2.
HIGHdata code
Deposit the deidentified individual participant data in an appropriate repository (e.g., Vivli, ClinicalTrials.gov results database) and, if possible, also share the SAS analysis scripts in a public code repository (e.g., GitHub, Zenodo) with a DOI.
Absent a data or code deposit, the study's reproducibility is not verifiable, and this is a common reason for editorial rejection.
3.
HIGHrigor
For each of the 5 references that our check could not locate in any registry (see citation flagged list: 'Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, Care and Treatment for People with Chronic Hepatitis B Infection', 'Global Hepatitis Report 2024: Action for Access in Low- and Middle-Income Countries', 'Hepatitis B Vaccine (Recombinant) (PREHEVBRIO®) [Package Insert]', 'Efficacy and safety of elebsiran... follow-up results from ongoing... ENSURE study', 'Chronic hepatitis B virus infected participants responding to prior BRII-179 treatment...'), verify that the reference exists and correct the bibliographic details if needed, or remove it if it cannot be verified.
Unresolved references in a registry check may indicate a citation error or, in rare cases, fabrication; journals routinely check references and will return the manuscript.
4.
HIGHreporting
In the Methods section (Study design), add the manufacturer/source for elebsiran (Brii Biosciences) and PEG-IFNα (e.g., Roche).
Naming the manufacturer is standard for clinical trial interventions and is expected by reviewers and editors.
5.
HIGHreporting
In the Methods section, provide a brief rationale for the open-label design (e.g., practical infeasibility of double-blinding due to different injection schedules, injection frequency, or safety monitoring needs).
An open-label design without justification raises concerns about bias; a one-sentence explanation resolves the issue.
6.
HIGHreporting
In the Methods section (Statistical methods), supplement the Bayesian sample size justification with the assumed effect size, power, and alpha level, or clearly state that these were not pre-specified and explain why the Bayesian approach was chosen.
A sample size justification that omits power, effect size, and alpha is incomplete per standard reporting guidelines (CONSORT); adding these strengthens the manuscript.
7.
HIGHstatistics
In the Results (Key secondary efficacy outcomes) and Extended Data Table 3, replace the threshold 'P < 0.05' with exact p-values (e.g., 'P = 0.023') for all MMRM analyses.
Threshold-only p-values are insufficient for transparency; exact values enable readers to assess significance precisely and are required by many journals.
8.
HIGHethics
Add the specific ethics committee names and approval numbers/protocol numbers to the main manuscript (e.g., in the Methods, Study design section), rather than only in the Supplementary Information.
Main-text reporting of ethics committee details is standard; deferring to supplementary material is a minor but avoidable reporting gap.
9.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Fix typo: in the Data availability section, change 'ClinicalTrial.gov' to 'ClinicalTrials.gov' (standard capitalization).
Correct capitalization improves professionalism and accuracy.
10.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Fix spelling inconsistency: in the Competing interests section, ensure 'Barthinus Biotherapeutics' reads consistently as 'Barinthus Biotherapeutics' throughout.
Spelling inconsistencies across competing interest statements can appear careless to reviewers.
11.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In the Methods, Study design section, change 'NRTI as background therapy' to 'NRTIs as background therapy' for grammatical consistency.
Minor grammar fix to standardize pluralization of drug classes.
12.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In the Methods, Statistical methods section, revise the sentence 'The post probability of true response rate >0.15 is more than 90%.' to 'The posterior probability that the true response rate exceeds 15% is >90%.' for clarity.
The original wording is ambiguous; the suggested revision accurately reflects Bayesian terminology.
13.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In the Discussion, paragraph 1, consider splitting the long sentence beginning 'The results of this study provide important insights...' into two sentences for improved readability.
A long, multi-clause sentence can be hard to parse; splitting improves clarity.
14.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In the Data availability section, remove the spurious phrase 'are provided with this paper' at the end of the sentence about the contact person.
The phrase appears to be a template remnant and is grammatically incorrect.
15.
LOWcopyedit
Ensure consistent capitalization of 'Part I' and 'Part II' (with capital P) throughout the text; the abstract and methods use both lowercase and uppercase.
Minor consistency fix for a polished manuscript.

Full text (65,446 chars)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

Read alongside

Elebsiran and PEG-IFNα for chronic hepatitis B infection: a partially randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial

Read full text (PMC)

Journal

DOI

10.1038/s41591-025-04049-z

Share this Rigor Review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://adcurare.com/verify/8bb1f4cc-bc20-4af7-af0a-a14cd32f8e39" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://adcurare.com/verify/8bb1f4cc-bc20-4af7-af0a-a14cd32f8e39/badge" alt="Adcurare Rigor Review — 3.25★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 8 high issues for “Elebsiran and PEG-IFNα for chronic hepatitis B infection: a partially randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Rigor Record.

Record fingerprint

19f6271b431d912176a0dae9e5eb23fc2b5ad44e942cc9a0237345eed4e90bee

Verify via API

Issued Jul 6, 2026Engine 7.6.0

Adcurare assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we evaluate →