SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: arun gera who wrote (183995)2/15/2022 9:03:26 AM
From: Pogeu Mahone  Respond to of 217740
 
No Need to Delay Mammogram after COVID Vaccine

According to new research published in the journal Radiology, there is no need to delay mammography screening after a COVID-19 vaccination because axillary adenopathy is a common imaging finding and persists for as long as 43 weeks



(A) A 46-year-old patient with a strong family history of breast cancer had a screening ultrasound prior to COVID-19 vaccination demonstrating a morphologically normal left axillary lymph node. (B) 25 days following the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccination, the patient presented with a palpable lump in the left axilla and ultrasound demonstrated enlarged lymph nodes with cortex measuring up to 6 mm in thickness (arrow). (C) A follow-up ultrasound 21 weeks following demonstrated stable axillary lymphadenopathy. (D) An ultrasound-guided core biopsy was then recommended and pathology demonstrated lymphoid cells negative for carcinoma. Image courtesy of RSNA Radiology Journal



February 8, 2022 — There should be no delay in screening mammograms after COVID-19 vaccination due to a swelling in the lymph nodes called lymphadenopathy, according to a new study published in the journal Radiology. Instead, lymphadenopathy should be interpreted within the context of the individual patient’s risk factors, the researchers said.

Lymph nodes commonly become enlarged in response to an infection or vaccine, but unilateral (affecting one side of the body) lymphadenopathy that occurs suddenly may also signal cancer. Therefore, unilateral lymphadenopathy, a known side effect of the COVID-19 vaccines, has posed a diagnostic challenge in oncologic imaging.

When this side effect was first discovered, women were told to delay their mammography exams to avoid unnecessary false positives and follow-ups. However, it soon became apparent that the swelling could take many weeks to resolve.

Therefore, Stacey Wolfson, M.D., from the Department of Radiology at New York University Grossman School of Medicine and NYU Langone Health in New York City, and colleagues set out to determine the outcomes of axillary lymphadenopathy (swelling of the lymph nodes in the armpits) after COVID-19 vaccination on breast imaging examinations.

“This is the largest study to evaluate axillary lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccination, with long term follow-up data,” Wolfson said. “This is important because it gives us further insight as to the natural behavior of this reactive lymphadenopathy and allows us to make broader guidelines regarding follow-up.”

The researchers identified patients who received the COVID-19 vaccine and had breast imaging between December 30, 2020, and April 12, 2021, at 17 sites across one institution. Follow-up exams were recorded through December 10, 2021. The research team analyzed clinical data and vaccine information from the medical records, and only patients with complete information were included.

Of the 1,217 patients who received the COVID-19 vaccination and had breast imaging, 537 (44%) had lymphadenopathy identified on at least one imaging exam, 823 patients (68%) had screening exams, and 334 patients had mammography and sonography performed the same day. Of these, 29 (9%) patients had lymphadenopathy identified on mammography alone, 203 (61%) patients on ultrasound alone, and 102 (30%) patients on both exams. In patients with lymphadenopathy, the average node measured 1.8 centimeters.

“Other studies with lower reported incidence of lymphadenopathy are based on self-reported symptoms or detection solely on mammography. In contrast, our study had an incidence of 44%,” Wolfson said.

Of the patients with known vaccine manufacturer information, 459 patients received the Moderna vaccine (46% with lymphadenopathy), 505 patients received the Pfizer vaccine (38% with lymphadenopathy), and 18 patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (39% with lymphadenopathy).

Patients developed lymphadenopathy as early as one day following the first vaccine dose and as late as 71 days following the second dose. Persistent axillary lymphadenopathy was seen up to 43 weeks after vaccination.

“I was surprised by how quickly the lymph nodes became swollen and how long they persisted after being detected on routine screening mammogram and screening ultrasound exams,” Wolfson said. “We found benign reactive lymph nodes were still present despite delaying the screening exams for 4 to 6 weeks based on various guidelines. These lymph nodes were unchanged with follow up exams at three months, and some enlarged lymph nodes persisted for over 10 months.”

Eight percent (43/537) of patients with lymphadenopathy underwent a biopsy. Among them, 34 (79%) had benign results and 9 (21%) had malignant results. Four patients were diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. The patients with metastatic cancer all had suspicious concurrent mammographic findings in the ipsilateral breast.

Four patients were diagnosed with lymphoma. Three of these patients already had known diagnoses, and the fourth patient had bilateral lymphadenopathy. One patient with a known history of lung cancer was diagnosed with lung cancer metastatic to an axillary lymph node.

Three hundred eighty-seven (72%) patients with lymphadenopathy had 407 follow-up examinations, averaging 15.7 weeks after the initial examinations. On follow-up imaging, 323 of 407 (79.4%) exams were assessed as benign and 84 (20.6%) were assessed as probably benign with recommendation to undergo additional follow-up. No patients in the follow-up group were diagnosed with a subsequent malignancy.

“These findings allow us to make broader guidelines suggesting that short-term follow-up imaging is not recommended,” Wolfson said. “We found only 9 cancerous lymph nodes in our study, and they were only found in women with known cancer, concurrent suspicious findings in the breast, and/or contralateral axilla.”

Based on the findings, the researchers concluded that there should be no delay in screening mammograms because of recent COVID-19 vaccination and lymphadenopathy should be interpreted in the context of patient risk factors with vigilance in patients with concurrent suspicious mammographic findings in the ipsilateral breast.

“It is important for people to know that they should not delay their screening mammograms due to recent vaccination. Reactive lymphadenopathy is common after COVID-19 vaccination – and benign,” Wolfson said.

For more information: www.rsna.org

Related COVID Vaccine Axillary Adenapathy Content: VIDEO: COVID Vaccine Adenopathy Can Last Up to 10 Weeks

COVID-19 Vaccine Can Cause False Positive Cancer Diagnosis

Help Spread Awareness of Potential COVID-19 Vaccine Imaging Side-effects

VIDEO: COVID Vaccine May Cause Enlarged Lymph Nodes on Mammograms — Interview with Constance "Connie" Lehman, M.D.

COVID-19 Vaccination Axillary Adenopathy Detected During Breast Imaging

PHOTO GALLERY: How COVID-19 Appears on Medical Imaging

CMS Now Requires COVID-19 Vaccinations for Healthcare Workers by January 4

Find more radiology related COVID content



To: arun gera who wrote (183995)2/15/2022 9:44:09 AM
From: marcher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217740
 
--Anecdotal is fine as a real world check.--

interesting notion... to allow this sort of bias,
since it violates the proper use of 'data'/numbers in interpretation.
welcome to life as a fictional narrative.



To: arun gera who wrote (183995)2/15/2022 11:43:58 AM
From: TobagoJack1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Pogeu Mahone

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217740
 
I shall ask my friend this day to see what if anything he has to say re covid / vaccine - he is supposedly the best cardiologist at the best hospital in HK

What is the one question? [HK doctors are sort of busy]



To: arun gera who wrote (183995)2/22/2022 5:19:37 AM
From: TobagoJack3 Recommendations

Recommended By
maceng2
marcher
Pogeu Mahone

  Respond to of 217740
 
Re << reasonable question should be, “why?” >>

We get a hint from NYT, itself a suspect

nytimes.com

The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It Collects

The agency has withheld critical data on boosters, hospitalizations and, until recently, wastewater analyses.
Feb. 20, 2022

Dr. David Kessler, chief science officer of the White House Covid-19 response team, and Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at a House Select Subcommittee in 2021.Pool photo by Amr Alfiky

For more than a year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has collected data on hospitalizations for Covid-19 in the United States and broken it down by age, race and vaccination status. But it has not made most of the information public.

When the C.D.C. published the first significant data on the effectiveness of boosters in adults younger than 65 two weeks ago, it left out the numbers for a huge portion of that population: 18- to 49-year-olds, the group least likely to benefit from extra shots, because the first two doses already left them well-protected.

The agency recently debuted a dashboard of wastewater data on its website that will be updated daily and might provide early signals of an oncoming surge of Covid cases. Some states and localities had been sharing wastewater information with the agency since the start of the pandemic, but it had never before released those findings.

Two full years into the pandemic, the agency leading the country’s response to the public health emergency has published only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected, several people familiar with the data said.

Much of the withheld information could help state and local health officials better target their efforts to bring the virus under control. Detailed, timely data on hospitalizations by age and race would help health officials identify and help the populations at highest risk. Information on hospitalizations and death by age and vaccination status would have helped inform whether healthy adults needed booster shots. And wastewater surveillance across the nation would spot outbreaks and emerging variants early.

Without the booster data for 18- to 49-year-olds, the outside experts whom federal health agencies look to for advice had to rely on numbers from Israel to make their recommendations on the shots.

Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”

Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said.

Dr. Daniel Jernigan, the agency’s deputy director for public health science and surveillance said the pandemic exposed the fact that data systems at the C.D.C., and at the state levels, are outmoded and not up to handling large volumes of data. C.D.C. scientists are trying to modernize the systems, he said.

“We want better, faster data that can lead to decision making and actions at all levels of public health, that can help us eliminate the lag in data that has held us back,” he added.

The C.D.C. also has multiple bureaucratic divisions that must sign off on important publications, and its officials must alert the Department of Health and Human Services — which oversees the agency — and the White House of their plans. The agency often shares data with states and partners before making data public. Those steps can add delays.

“The C.D.C. is a political organization as much as it is a public health organization,” said Samuel Scarpino, managing director of pathogen surveillance at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Pandemic Prevention Institute. “The steps that it takes to get something like this released are often well outside of the control of many of the scientists that work at the C.D.C.”

The performance of vaccines and boosters, particularly in younger adults, is among the most glaring omissions in data the C.D.C. has made public.

Last year, the agency repeatedly came under fire for not tracking so-called breakthrough infections in vaccinated Americans, and focusing only on individuals who became ill enough to be hospitalized or die. The agency presented that information as risk comparisons with unvaccinated adults, rather than provide timely snapshots of hospitalized patients stratified by age, sex, race and vaccination status.

President Biden joined a virtual meeting with the White House Covid-19 Response Team in December. Cheriss May for The New York Times

But the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.

Ms. Nordlund confirmed that as one of the reasons. Another reason, she said, is that the data represents only 10 percent of the population of the United States. But the C.D.C. has relied on the same level of sampling to track influenza for years.

Some outside public health experts were stunned to hear that information exists.

“We have been begging for that sort of granularity of data for two years,” said Jessica Malaty Rivera, an epidemiologist and part of the team that ran Covid Tracking Project, an independent effort that compiled data on the pandemic till March 2021.

A detailed analysis, she said, “builds public trust, and it paints a much clearer picture of what’s actually going on.”

Concern about the misinterpretation of hospitalization data broken down by vaccination status is not unique to the C.D.C. On Thursday, public health officials in Scotland said they would stop releasing data on Covid hospitalizations and deaths by vaccination status because of similar fears that the figures would be misrepresented by anti-vaccine groups.

But the experts dismissed the potential misuse or misinterpretation of data as an acceptable reason for not releasing it.

“We are at a much greater risk of misinterpreting the data with data vacuums, than sharing the data with proper science, communication and caveats,” Ms. Rivera said.

When the Delta variant caused an outbreak in Massachusetts last summer, the fact that three-quarters of those infected were vaccinated led people to mistakenly conclude that the vaccines were powerless against the virus — validating the C.D.C.’s concerns.

But that could have been avoided if the agency had educated the public from the start that as more people are vaccinated, the percentage of vaccinated people who are infected or hospitalized would also rise, public health experts said.

“Tell the truth, present the data,” said Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert and adviser to the Food and Drug Administration. “I have to believe that there is a way to explain these things so people can understand it.”

Knowing which groups of people were being hospitalized in the United States, which other conditions those patients may have had and how vaccines changed the picture over time would have been invaluable, Dr. Offit said.

Relying on Israeli data to make booster recommendations for Americans was less than ideal, Dr. Offit noted. Israel defines severe disease differentlythan the United States, among other factors.

“There’s no reason that they should be better at collecting and putting forth data than we were,” Dr. Offit said of Israeli scientists. “The C.D.C. is the principal epidemiological agency in this country, and so you would like to think the data came from them.”

It has also been difficult to find C.D.C. data on the proportion of children hospitalized for Covid who have other medical conditions, said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’s Committee on Infectious Diseases.

The academy’s staff asked their partners at the C.D.C. for that information on a call in December, according to a spokeswoman for the A.A.P., and were told it was unavailable.

Booster shots. A flurry of new studies suggests three doses of a Covid vaccine — or even just two — can provide long-term protection from serious illness and death. The studies come as U.S. health officials have said that they are unlikely to recommend a fourth dose before the fall.

C.D.C. data. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published only a tiny fraction of the Covid data it has collected, including critical data on boosters and hospitalizations, citing incomplete reports or fears of misinterpretation. Critics say the practice causes confusion.

Ms. Nordlund pointed to data on the agency’s website that includes this information, and to multiple published reports on pediatric hospitalizations with information on children who have other health conditions.

The pediatrics academy has repeatedly asked the C.D.C. for an estimate on the contagiousness of a person infected with the coronavirus five days after symptoms begin — but Dr. Maldonado finally got the answer from an article in The New York Times in December.

“They’ve known this for over a year and a half, right, and they haven’t told us,” she said. “I mean, you can’t find out anything from them.”

Experts in wastewater analysis were more understanding of the C.D.C.’s slow pace of making that data public. The C.D.C. has been building the wastewater system since September 2020, and the capacity to present the data over the past few months, Ms. Nordlund said. In the meantime, the C.D.C.’s state partners have had access to the data, she said.

Despite the cautious preparation, the C.D.C. released the wastewater data a week later than planned. The Covid Data Tracker is updated only on Thursdays, and the day before the original release date, the scientists who manage the tracker realized they needed more time to integrate the data.

“It wasn’t because the data wasn’t ready, it was because the systems and how it physically displayed on the page wasn’t working the way that they wanted it to,” Ms. Nordlund said.

The C.D.C. has received more than $1 billion to modernize its systems, which may help pick up the pace, Ms. Nordlund said. “We’re working on that,” she said.

The agency’s public dashboard now has data from 31 states. Eight of those states, including Utah, began sending their figures to the C.D.C. in the fall of 2020. Some relied on scientists volunteering their expertise; others paid private companies. But many others, such as Mississippi, New Mexico and North Dakota, have yet to begin tracking wastewater.

Utah’s fledgling program in April 2020 has now grown to cover 88 percent of the state’s population, with samples being collected twice a week, according to Nathan LaCross, who manages Utah’s wastewater surveillance program.

Wastewater data reflects the presence of the virus in an entire community, so it is not plagued by the privacy concerns attached to medical information that would normally complicate data release, experts said.

“There are a bunch of very important and substantive legal and ethical challenges that don’t exist for wastewater data,” Dr. Scarpino said. “That lowered bar should certainly mean that data could flow faster.”

Tracking wastewater can help identify areas experiencing a high burden of cases early, Dr. LaCross said. That allows officials to better allocate resources like mobile testing teams and testing sites.

Wastewater is also a much faster and more reliable barometer of the spread of the virus than the number of cases or positive tests. Well before the nation became aware of the Delta variant, for example, scientists who track wastewater had seen its rise and alerted the C.D.C., Dr. Scarpino said. They did so in early May, just before the agency famously said vaccinated people could take off their masks.

Even now, the agency is relying on a technique that captures the amount of virus, but not the different variants in the mix, said Mariana Matus, chief executive officer of BioBot Analytics, which specializes in wastewater analysis. That will make it difficult for the agency to spot and respond to outbreaks of new variants in a timely manner, she said.

“It gets really exhausting when you see the private sector working faster than the premier public health agency of the world,” Ms. Rivera said.

Sent from my iPad



To: arun gera who wrote (183995)2/22/2022 5:23:04 AM
From: TobagoJack2 Recommendations

Recommended By
maceng2
marcher

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 217740
 
Re << reasonable question should be, “why?” >>

… hmmmmnnn

thenational.scot

Covid data won't be published anymore due to concerns over misuse by anti-vaxxers

By Lauren Brownlie
17th February


Covid data will stop being published over concerns it's misrepresented by anti-vaxxers

Public Health Scotland will stop publishing data on covid deaths and hospitalisations by vaccination status - over concerns it is misrepresented by anti-vax campaigners.

The public health watchdog announced the change in policy in its most recent Covid statistical report, saying the frequency and content of the data would be reviewed.

Instead, officials will focus on publishing more robust and complex vaccine effectiveness data.

PHS officials said significant concerns about the data being misused deliberately by anti-vaccination campaigners is behind the move.

The report published on Wednesday will be the last weekly publication to include the data on infection rates among the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

It also includes hospitalisation and death rates, broken down by the number of doses received.

Officials said two issues relating to the unvaccinated population and testing habits meant the data was no longer robust and open for misinterpretation without context.

The population data used for the unvaccinated population is based on GP registration details, meaning it includes people who are registered but may not live in Scotland.

As the vaccinated population grows, this flaw in the data becomes more pronounced due to the true number of unvaccinated people being much lower than the number used.

One PHS official said focusing on vaccine effectiveness rather than the existing "very simple statistics" would result in "much more robust" data for the public.

They said: “The main important point around all of the analysis is we understand whether the vaccines are working against catching it and against getting severe Covid, and that’s where the vaccine effectiveness studies come in which are a completely different methodology.

"The case rates, hospitalisation rates, the death rates are very simple statistics, whereas for the vaccine effectiveness studies we use modelling, we compare people who have tested negative to those who have tested positive and match them on their underlining co-morbidities.

"It’s a completely different method which is much more robust and that’s what we want people to focus on.”

The data has been promoted on social media by the American right-wing opinion website, The Blaze, and anti-vaxxer American talking head Alex Berenson.

The PHS official told The Scotsman: “What is happening is people are looking at those simple data and trying to make inferences about the vaccination, whether the vaccines work, inappropriately and sometimes wilfully.

"There are so many caveats and they just pull certain figures out that should not be used.

"What we are going to do is do a lot more on the vaccine effectiveness side and try and make people understand how effective the vaccine is.

“For example we know it is 50 per cent effective against getting infected, but that it is much higher effectiveness against hospitalisations and deaths which is the key thing really as that’s what we want to prevent.”

Sent from my iPad