Supplementary Materialstoxins-10-00205-s001. that CMPF buy ICG-001 is not another uremic toxin in haemodialysis and on the other hand is actually a marker of nutritious diet and omega 3 intakes. = 148). 33% from the individuals had a health background of CV occasions (= 79) and 89% from the patients suffered hypertension (= 212). 68 patients had type 2 diabetes (29%) and 131 patients had Rabbit polyclonal to AnnexinA1 dyslipidemia (55%). The single pool Kt/V (spKt/V) was upper 1.4 per sessions: 1.7 [1.5C1.9] as recommended by the KDOQI guidelines [20]. Table 1 Clinical and biological characteristics of the haemodialysis population (= 238). = 0.01), albumin (rs = 0.20, = 0.003), prealbumin (rs = 0.16, = 0.02), Crpre (rs =0.18, = 0.004), CI (rs = 0.16, = 0.01) and body mass index (BMI) (rs = 0.16, = 0.01). There was no significant correlation with nPCR (rs = ?0.01, = 0.89). In order to identify clinical biochemical parameters that might be independently associated with elevated CMPF levels in our population, we performed a multiple regression analysis. As presented in Table 3, Crpre, BMI, albumin, prealbumin were not independently associated with CMPF plasma concentration. Table 2 Unadjusted Spearman Correlation Coefficients (rs) of CMPF and Other Relevant Covariates in Haemodialysis Patients. = 0.22), HbA1C (rs = ?0.01, = 0.87), or triglycerides (rs = 0.08, = 0.33) (Table 2). CMPF levels were not higher in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes (2.7 mg/L [1.0C6.0] versus 2.2 mg/L [0.5C4.8], respectively, = 0.19) (Figure 2). Open in a separate window Figure 2 Plasma CMPF concentration does not depend on diabetic status in haemodialysis patients. Patients were divided into two groups: no buy ICG-001 history of diabetes (= 167) or type 1 or 2 2 diabetes (= 71). Data were analysed with Mann buy ICG-001 Whitney U test. Data are expressed as median [IQR]. Differences were considered significant at the 0.05 level. Abbreviation: buy ICG-001 ns, non-significant. We further stratified the patients into two groups according to the number of protein energy wasting (PEW) criteria: there was 172 patients in the group with no PEW and 66 patients in the group with PEW (Table S2). CMPF level was significantly higher in the group without PEW than in the group with PEW (3.3 mg/L [1.2C6.5] versus 1.5 mg/L [0.8C3.2], = 0.0012) (Figure 3). In the whole population CMPF was positively correlated with the lean mass estimated with CI but not with BF (body fat) with anthropometric formula (Table 2). In order to explore if CMPF was associated with body composition, we analysed lean and fat mass with bioimpedancemetry in a subgroup of 66 patients. Characteristics of the subgroup patients are detailed in Table S3, this sub-population did not significantly differ from the whole population (data not shown). Lean body mass, estimated by LTM (lean tissue mass) and BCM (body cell mass), was positively associated with CMPF levels. We did not find any association between CMPF and adiposity estimated either by adipose tissue mass (ATM) or with anthropometric formula (Table 4). BMI, LTI and BCM weren’t independently connected with CMPF plasma focus (Desk 5). Open up in another window Shape 3 Proteins energy wasting can be connected with lower serum CMPF amounts. Individuals were stratified based on the true amount of PEW requirements. Patients without or 1 requirements were assigned to the group no PEW (= 172), individuals with 2 or.