The practicing clinician is currently faced with a number of treatment options for chronic hepatitis B. Beginning in 1998 with the licensing of lamivudine and subsequently adefovir, the treatment paradigm shifted from 4 to 6 months of conventional alfa interferon to a year of nucleoside analog therapy. However, prolonged treatment with nucleoside analogs is often needed to optimize virological response. Recently, a 48-week regimen of pegylated interferon for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive and HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B has been shown to be effective, and long-term nucleoside analog therapy has been demonstrated to maintain viral suppression. These findings have added to the complexity of decision-making and have raised questions about whether a finite course of pegylated interferon or nucleoside analog therapy, with possible long-term maintenance, is better as first-line therapy. Each of these fundamentally different approaches has advantages and limitations, and both have a place in the therapeutic armamentarium against chronic hepatitis B. Long-term therapy with nucleoside analogs, however, raises a number of practical concerns that have not been fully addressed as of yet. I will present evidence in support of the recommendation that antiviral therapy should ideally be directed toward achieving the highest rate of viral clearance with the shortest interval of treatment.