slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Website: PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation

play fullscreen
1 / 23
Download Presentation

Website: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Download Presentation


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Implementing GRADE… Canadian Clinical Preventive Guidelines for Newly Arriving Immigrants and Refugees forPrimary Care PractitionersDr. Kevin PottieCentre for Global Health, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa Website:

  2. Canadian Collaboration for Immigrant and Refugee Health (CCIRH) • 43 Delphi Participants-selected topics • 23 Interdisciplinary Expert Review Teams • 10 Panel Members: Kevin Pottie (co-chair), Peter Tugwell (co-chair), John Feightner, Vivian Welch, Chris Greenaway, Laurence Kirmayer, Helena Swinkels, Meb Rashid, Lavanya Narasiah, Noni MacDonald • Collaborating Partners: Public Health Agency of Canada, Citizenship and Immigrant Canada, Edmonton Multicultural Health Broker, Calgary Refugee Program, Champlain Regional Health, CIHR.

  3. Infectious Diseases Hepatitis B Hepatitis C HIV Intestinal Parasites Malaria MMR/DPTP-HIB Tuberculosis Varicella (Chicken Pox) Mental Health Depression Child Maltreatment Intimate Partner Violence Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Other Chronic Disease Cancer of the Cervix Unmet Contraceptive Needs Diabetes Dental Caries/Peridontal disease Iron Deficiency Anemia Pregnancy Care Vision Disorders Objective:Develop evidence-based clinical preventive guidelines for immigrants and refugees new to Canada for primary care practitioners.

  4. Development Process • CCIRH Planning Committee (GRADE) • Delphi consensus to select priority conditions • Expert Consensus Meeting (May 2006) (GRADE as part of CCIRH methods) • Systematic Evidence Reviews: 6-12 months • PICO Question refinement and development of GRADE DNP documents • GRADE meeting to make recommendations

  5. CCIRH 14 Step Methods Process • Logic model and key questions approach (U.S. and Can Task Forces with GRADE-Related Questions: values and preferences, clinically important outcomes, cost) • Search strategies and summary of findings tables and equity considerations (Cochrane Collaboration) • Review appraisals (NICE; AGREE, EPOC) • Quality assessment and recommendation development (GRADE)

  6. Making Recommendations (GRADE Approach) • Determine GRADE PICO Question. • Determine most important desirable and undesirable effects (SoF table) • Rate quality of evidence (type of evidence, quality, directness, consistency, effect size) • Determine recommendation (yes/no) and summarize basis for recommendation

  7. PICO Question • Should Canadian primary care practitioners routinely vaccinate female immigrants and refugees against human papillomavirus (HPV) to reduce morbidity and mortality from cervical cancer?

  8. GRADE QUALITY: CCIRH SUMMARY:HPV vaccination for prevention of cervical caner *Consistency is downgraded since there was statistically significant heterogeneity in the per protocol analysis which disappeared in the intention to treat analysis. *Results are graded as “direct” since there are no plausible biological or cultural reasons why the relative efficacy of the HPV vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer is likely to be different. Rambout et al. 2007 CMAJ

  9. Cervical Cancer: Vaccination • Recommend vaccination to 9-26 year old females against Human Papillomavirus (HPV) to reduce invasive changes related to cervical cancer.

  10. Basis of Recommendation • Balance of benefits and harms: Net benefits. For HPV vaccination, the number needed to vaccinate (NNT) – i.e. vaccinate – to prevent invasive changes is 139 (117 to 180) in studies with a 15-48 month duration (relative risk 0.52, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.63). The expected NNT in immigrant and refugee women is expected to be more favourable since there is higher mortality from cervical cancer in foreign-born women than Canadian-born (3.4 vs 2.5 per 100,000 women) and higher prevalence of HPV infection in developing countries. Anaphylaxis occurs in less than 1 in 100,000 doses. • Quality of evidence: moderate • Values and preferences: The Committee attributed more value to preventing cervical cancer and less value to current uncertainty of impact on mortality.

  11. HEPATITIS B: SCREENINGScreen adults and children from intermediate and high Hepatitis B endemic countries with HBCore AB and HBsAg to decrease disease severity and transmission and mortality from Hepatocarcinoma. Basis of Recommendation Balance of benefits and harms: Net benefit: The number needed to screen to prevent one death due to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is 2058 (95% CI: 1462 to 4412), corresponding to a relative risk reduction of 38% (95% CI: 17% to 52%). The expected NNS in refugees and immigrants is expected to be more favourable due to higher prevalence of hepatitis B for immigrants and refugees, ranging from 1-10% compared to <0.5% for North Americans. Toxicity depends on treatment decisions.Quality of evidence: moderateValues and preferences: The Committee attributed more value to preventing death due to hepatocellular carcinoma and less value to burden of screening and side effects of treatment

  12. GRADE Challenges and Response • Quality of evidence- focus on effectiveness of intervention (rare RCT for prevention) • Whose values and preferences? How to evaluate explicitly? • YES/No vs. Strong/Weak recommendation • Response: CMAJ- positive peer review; debate on how to present basis of recommendation

  13. Thank You

  14. Pregnancy: Women’s Health • Immigrants and refugees have an elevated risk for social isolation which is associated with maternal physical and mental morbidity. Research recommendation to develop and study interventions for social isolation.

  15. Basis of Recommendation • Balance of benefits and harms: Risk of causing harm with a social intervention to reduce social isolation and no evidence to demonstrate effectiveness. Perceived lack of social support is higher amongst immigrant and refugee women than Canadian-born women (15.4% compared to 7.2%). Therefore, we approved a research recommendation to develop and study interventions for pregnant women and social isolation. • Quality of evidence: very low • Values and preferences: The Committee attributed more value to the large uncertainty of benefits without a studied intervention.

  16. Clinical Considerations • Immigrant and refugee women account for over half of the total births in Canada. Reports suggest a higher risk status in some newly arrived pregnant women for maternal mortality. • Although no clinical action recommendation made to address social isolation, pregnant women may benefit from other established antenatal screening: diabetes, depression, HIV, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, syphilis, iron deficiency, hemoglobinopathies, rubella and varicella susceptibility. • Being alert for risks of unprotected/ unregulated work environments and sexual abuse (specifically in forced migrants) may also be beneficial.

  17. Vision • Screen all adults for visual impairment to reduce vision loss and related morbidity. Vision < 6/12, refer to optometrist or ophthalmologist for comprehensive ophthalmic evaluation

  18. Basis of Recommendation • Balance of benefits and harms: Net benefits. Refractory error is correctible with spectacles for 83% of people, corresponding to a number needed to treat of 5 people. Effects of screening are likely to be important for immigrants and refugees since there is a higher burden of uncorrected visual impairment in developing countries (e.g. blindness prevalence is 1% in Africa compares to 0.3% in the Americas). Harms are minimal, and may include out of pocket costs. • Quality of evidence: very low • Values and preferences: The Committee attributed more value to the importance of ensuring adequate visual acuity for daily functioning and employment and less value to the concern of screening and cost of spectacles. • Clinical Considerations: • Even modest visual impairment (visual acuity <6/12) is associated with significant morbidity. • Special considerations exist for doing vision screening kids<8 years of age. • Referral for assessment is also warranted for other risk factors for blinding eye disease including diabetes, age>65; blacks over 40; and a family history of glaucoma.

  19. Tuberculosis (TB) in Adults Screen all refugees from high TB incidence countries, between the ages of 21 and 50 years, as soon as possible after their arrival in Canada with a TST. Screen all other adult immigrants if they have risk factors that increase the risk of developing active TB with a TST. Treat for latent TB infection in those found to be positive, after ruling out active TB.

  20. Recommendations for Preventing Tuberculosis (TB) in Immigrants and Refugees Children • Screen children and adolescents ≤ 20 years from high TB incidence countries (smear positive pulmonary TB ≥ 15/100,000 population) as soon as possible after their arrival in Canada, with a Tuberculin Skin Test (TST) and treat for latent TB infection if found to be positive, after ruling out active TB.

  21. Basis of Recommendation The recommendation is based on the balance between the potential benefit of treatment (lifetime risk of infection which is influenced primarily by age, presence of medical factors that increase the risk of development of active TB, immigration class, and to a lesser degree the effect of time since arrival) versus the potential harm of hepatotoxicity and the poor efficacy of INH in many settings due to sub-optimal uptake of screening and treatment. Assuming 70% adherence, children from high TB incidence countries [number needed to treat (NNT) 20-26 and number needed to harm (NNH) 134-268] and those with risk factors for development of active TB were the groups judged most likely to benefit from chemoprophylaxis (NNT 2-20, NNH- variable).

  22. What are the health problems? What are the clinically important outcomes: desirable and undesirable effects? Is it important? Diversity of Effectiveness: How do immigrants and refugees differ from the Canadian population? What actions might be most feasible for primary care practitioners? -users’ views- Is it useful for practitioners Does doing this cost more than that? (societal values) Will immigrants accept it? (values and preferences)