8 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) values were 25.6 ± 3.2. The demographic and laboratory data were analyzed at the beginning of the study according to the randomization group ( Table 1); the group of patients randomized for the FO group presented significantly higher CRP values (P = .014) and significantly lower total cholesterol values (P = .007). The laboratory data were collected at baseline for 145 patients due to intention to treat. In the initial analysis, inflammation was present in 89 (61%) of the 145 patients. A statistically significant correlation was found between the BMI and baseline

CRP (Rs = 0.22; P = .022), whereas a negative correlation with similar strength was found between the HDL cholesterol (HDL-c) and baseline CRP levels (Rs = −0.23; P = .032). In GSK2126458 the FO group, the comparison between the first and the last analyses displayed a statistically ABT-888 cost significant decrease in the CRP (P < .001), total cholesterol (P = .004), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol

(P = .001) values and an increase in the HDL-c (P = .004) values; yet, similar findings were not observed in the MO group ( Table 2). Throughout the study, we observed that the CRP variation in the FO group was higher than that observed for the MO group (P < .001). In this interaction assessment, the decrease in the CRP values for the FO group reached a statistical significance (time 1 × time Montelukast Sodium 2 and 3), whereas the values for the MO group remained stable ( Fig. 2). In the mixed-model analysis, the FO group achieved a significant reduction in the CRP values when compared with the MO group (P = .018). In another approach, by comparing the initially inflamed with the noninflamed

groups, we observed lower urea reduction ration (URR) and Kt/V (“dialysis dose”) values for the inflamed group (P < .01). These individuals also presented a higher BMI mean (P = .03), but the comparisons of the other study variables did not present statistically significant differences ( Table 3). Moreover, in the FO group, a decrease in the percentage of inflamed patients was observed throughout the study, falling from 36.3% to 23.9% to 21.2%, respectively, at times 1, 2, and 3 (P = .004). In contrast, no statistically significant differences were observed in the respective times of assessment for the MO group (P = .487). A further analysis was performed by separating the effects of intervention in the inflamed and noninflamed groups. Among the noninflamed patients, neither intervention produced a significant decrease in the CRP levels (FO 1.26 ± 1.25 to 0.68 ± 1.49 and MO 2.14 ± 1.15 to 2.33 ± 1.28; P, nonsignificant). Conversely, as shown in Fig. 3, a statistically significant decrease in the CRP levels was observed in the group of inflamed patients who received FO (P < .001); however, the reduction in the CRP levels for the MO group was minimal and statistically not significant.