Upper fence is 1.5 interquartile range (IQR) above 75th percentile and lower fence was 1.5 IQR below 25th percentile We then examined the relationship BI 2536 chemical structure between NBPC or BP load and eGFR by two-way EX 527 molecular weight analysis of variance upon due consideration of the interaction between NBPC and BP load (Table 4). NBPC was not significantly associated with eGFR (females:

p = 0.13, males: p = 0.37), whereas BP load was significantly associated with eGFR (females: p = 0.007, males: p ≤ 0.001). The interaction term between NBPC and BP load was not significant (females: p = 0.64, males: p = 0.58). Table 4 Analysis of variance of the relation between eGFR and two indicators calculated from ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) Female DF SS MS F value p value Model 3 1872.7 624.2 4.03 0.008 Error 389 60242.6 154.9 Corrected total 392 62115.3 Female DF TypeII SS MS F value p value NBPC >10 %, <10 % 1 365.8 365.8 2.36 0.13 BP load <75 percentile, >75 percentile 1 1137.7 1137.7 7.35 0.007 Interaction term of NBPC and BP load 1 33.1 33.1 0.21 0.64 Male DF SS MS F value p value Model 3 3124.7 1041.6 7.57 <0.001 Error 678 93290.1 137.6 Corrected Total 681 96414.8 Male DF TypeII SS MS F value p value NBPC >10 %, <10 % 1 108.6 108.6 0.79 0.37 BP load <75 percentile, >75 percentile 1 2798.8 2798.8 20.34 <0.001 Interaction term of NBPC and 1 42.5 42.5 0.31 0.58 To determine the

independent and combined effects of NBPC (<10 % or ≥10 %) and BP load (HBI <75 % percentile or ≥75 % percentile) on LCZ696 order eGFR, two-way ANOVA was performed. The interaction terms of these two variables were not significant in either males or females DF degrees of freedom, SS sum of squares, MS mean square Next, we conducted multiple regression analysis including the continuous values of these two factors (the degree of NBPC: increments of 10 %, BP load: increments of HBI 100 mmHg×h) as well as sex and age as independent variables,

and eGFR as a dependent variable (Table 5, left). 10 % decrease in NBPC ASK1 corresponded to 0.48 mL/min/1.73 m2 decrease in eGFR (p = 0.08), while 100 mmHg×h increase in HBI corresponded to 0.72 mL/min/1.73 m2 decrease in eGFR (p ≤ 0.001). Another analysis using a model that included the season and the quality of sleep, both of which influenced the degree of NBPC, produced similar results (Table 5, right). Table 5 Multiple regression analysis was performed with eGFR as a dependent variable Model A Model B Difference in eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) p value Difference in eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) p value Male (versus Female) 1.29 0.09 1.23 0.11 Age (10 years) −2.15 <0.001 −2.13 <0.001 NBPC (10 %) 0.48 0.08 0.47 0.27 Systolic HBI (100 mmHg×h) −0.72 <0.001 −0.70 <0.001 Much difficulty in sleep −0.46 0.58 Winter (versus summer) −0.73 0.41 Model A: sex, age, NBPC and BP load were included as independent variables. NBPC and HBI were dealt with as continuous values.