REALITIES in Health Disparities: Researching Evidence-based Alternatives in Living, Imaginative, Traumatised, Integrated, Embodied Systems

Introduction: Under the backdrop of pervasive health inequalities, public health professionals, researchers and non-academic partners in the United Kingdom are mobilising to understand how and in what ways community assets can address health disparities at scale in complex systems. While there is recognition that cultural, natural and community resources can improve health outcomes, these are unequally dispersed with lack of integration in communities and health and social care systems. Researching Evidence-based Alternatives in Living, Imaginative, Traumatised, Integrated, Embodied Systems (REALITIES) is a participatory action research Scottish consortium of 57 with established community asset hubs in five localities with strong relationships uniting conflicting ways of seeing the world. Our collective of lived and felt experience community members, community-embedded researchers, academics and non-academics draws upon a variety of practices, methods, datasets and philosophies to expand existing approaches to tackling health inequalities. Methods: We present conceptual and theoretical underpinnings for our co-produced systems-level model and empirical findings from testing REALITIES across three disadvantaged localities (November 2022, ongoing). After explaining the context that led to the development of the new scalable REALITIES model for integrated public systems to interface with ‘assets’, we detail philosophical pillars and guiding principles for our model and how we applied these mechanisms to explain how integrated partnership working can lead to improved health outcomes across multiple public systems. Results: We present a meta-analysis from co-producing and testing the model, showing how measuring change in complex public systems involves critical investigation of People, Process, Place, Price, Power and Purpose. Our critique reflects on power imbalances and inequities in Research-practice-Policy (RPP) partnerships and suggestions for how to nurture healthy ecosystems: overcoming barriers and enabling participation; reflecting on challenges of scaling up, testability and complexity of RPP partnerships; moving from siloed learning to transdisciplinary collaboration in practice; ensuring knowledge exchange has direct impact on communities and frontline practitioners; embedding relational ethics and safeguarding into daily practice. Discussion: We propose the REALITIES model to unite alternative, sometimes conflicting, ways of thinking about public systems and community assets by continuously reflecting on entanglements between different assumptions about knowledge, reality, evidence, and unnecessary binaries between creative methodologies and scientific method

Empagliflozin in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Background The effects of empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease who are at risk for disease progression are not well understood. The EMPA-KIDNEY trial was designed to assess the effects of treatment with empagliflozin in a broad range of such patients. Methods We enrolled patients with chronic kidney disease who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 20 but less than 45 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area, or who had an eGFR of at least 45 but less than 90 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams) of at least 200. Patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of progression of kidney disease (defined as end-stage kidney disease, a sustained decrease in eGFR to < 10 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2), a sustained decrease in eGFR of & GE;40% from baseline, or death from renal causes) or death from cardiovascular causes. Results A total of 6609 patients underwent randomization. During a median of 2.0 years of follow-up, progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 432 of 3304 patients (13.1%) in the empagliflozin group and in 558 of 3305 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.82; P < 0.001). Results were consistent among patients with or without diabetes and across subgroups defined according to eGFR ranges. The rate of hospitalization from any cause was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.95; P=0.003), but there were no significant between-group differences with respect to the composite outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes (which occurred in 4.0% in the empagliflozin group and 4.6% in the placebo group) or death from any cause (in 4.5% and 5.1%, respectively). The rates of serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. Conclusions Among a wide range of patients with chronic kidney disease who were at risk for disease progression, empagliflozin therapy led to a lower risk of progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes than placebo