A Systematical Review on ART Use in HTLV Infection: Clinical, Virological, and Immunological Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV) infection lacks effective treatment. This review describes the virological, immunological and clinical outcomes of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in people with HTLV infection. This systematic review followed PRISMA reporting guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42022350076. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scales, adapted for cross-sectional studies, and Rob-2 were employed to assess the methodological quality of studies. A systematic search was conducted in Medline (PubMed), Scopus (Elsevier), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) databases. We retrieved data from 08 methodologically diverse articles, on treatment of patients infected by HTLV-1 or HTLV-2 alone, or coinfected by HIV-1 with Raltegravir, Tenofovir, Lamivudine and Zidovudine. Proviral load decreased in 3 of 7 studies, during 4 to 48 weeks of antiretrovirals use. Cellular immune response (CD4, CD8, CD25, CD69 and CD71 cells) were evaluated in six studies. There was no significant clinical improvement in the studies but all of them detected clinical stability during treatment. Despite the demonstrated antiviral activity of ART, in vitro, clinical improvement was not proven. Most studies showed disease stability during ART use, suggesting potential clinical benefits. There is a need of larger, well-controlled trials, to define the role of ART for treatment of HTLV infection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.035 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".