Abstract
Recent large trials with eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in the cardiovascular field did not demonstrate a beneficial effect in terms of reductions of clinical endpoints like total mortality, sudden cardiac arrest or other major adverse cardiac events. Pertinent guidelines do not uniformly recommend EPA + DHA for cardiac patients. In contrast, in epidemiologic findings, higher blood levels of EPA + DHA were consistently associated with a lower risk for the endpoints mentioned. Because of low biological and analytical variability, a standardized analytical procedure, a large database and for other reasons, blood levels of EPA + DHA are frequently assessed in erythrocytes, using the HS-Omega-3 Index® methodology. A low Omega-3 Index fulfills the current criteria for a novel cardiovascular risk factor. Neutral results of intervention trials can be explained by issues of bioavailability and trial design that surfaced after the trials were initiated. In the future, incorporating the Omega-3 Index into trial designs by recruiting participants with a low Omega-3 Index and treating them within a pre-specified target range (e.g., 8%–11%), will make more efficient trials possible and provide clearer answers to the questions asked than previously possible.
Highlights
Fish, marine oils, and their concentrates all serve as sources of the two marine omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), as do some products from algae.To demonstrate an effect of EPA + DHA on heart health, a number of randomized, controlled intervention studies with clinical endpoints like overall mortality or a combination of adverse cardiac events were conducted in populations with elevated cardiovascular risk
This is in contrast to findings in epidemiologic studies, where intake of EPA + DHA had been found to correlate generally with an up to 50% lower incidence of adverse cardiac events [18,19], and in even sharper contrast to epidemiologic studies based on levels of EPA + DHA, demonstrating e.g., a 10-fold lower incidence of sudden cardiac death associated with high levels of the fatty acids, as compared to low levels [20,21]
The use of EPA and DHA is not supported by results of recent intervention trials or their meta-analyses
Summary
Marine oils, and their concentrates all serve as sources of the two marine omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), as do some products from algae. Recent meta-analyses found no significant benefits on total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and other adverse cardiac or cardiovascular events [13,14,15,16,17,18] This is in contrast to findings in epidemiologic studies, where intake of EPA + DHA had been found to correlate generally with an up to 50% lower incidence of adverse cardiac events [18,19], and in even sharper contrast to epidemiologic studies based on levels of EPA + DHA, demonstrating e.g., a 10-fold lower incidence of sudden cardiac death associated with high levels of the fatty acids, as compared to low levels [20,21]. Why is it that trial results are at odds with results from epidemiology? What needs to be done to better translate the epidemiologic findings into trial results? The current review will try to shed some light on this issue, with a special consideration of the Omega-3 Index
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
