Allaire Janie, Couture Patrick, Leclerc Myriam, Charest Amélie, Marin Johanne, Lépine Marie-Claude, Talbot Denis, Tchernof André, Lamarche Benoît
Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods, Pavillon des Services.
Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods, Pavillon des Services, University Hospital Center (CHU) of Québec Research Center, and.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2016 Aug;104(2):280-7. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.116.131896. Epub 2016 Jun 8.
To date, most studies on the anti-inflammatory effects of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in humans have used a mixture of the 2 fatty acids in various forms and proportions.
We compared the effects of EPA supplementation with those of DHA supplementation (re-esterified triacylglycerol; 90% pure) on inflammation markers (primary outcome) and blood lipids (secondary outcome) in men and women at risk of cardiovascular disease.
In a double-blind, randomized, crossover, controlled study, healthy men (n = 48) and women (n = 106) with abdominal obesity and low-grade systemic inflammation consumed 3 g/d of the following supplements for periods of 10 wk: 1) EPA (2.7 g/d), 2) DHA (2.7 g/d), and 3) corn oil as a control with each supplementation separated by a 9-wk washout period. Primary analyses assessed the difference in cardiometabolic outcomes between EPA and DHA.
Supplementation with DHA compared with supplementation with EPA led to a greater reduction in interleukin-18 (IL-18) (-7.0% ± 2.8% compared with -0.5% ± 3.0%, respectively; P = 0.01) and a greater increase in adiponectin (3.1% ± 1.6% compared with -1.2% ± 1.7%, respectively; P < 0.001). Between DHA and EPA, changes in CRP (-7.9% ± 5.0% compared with -1.8% ± 6.5%, respectively; P = 0.25), IL-6 (-12.0% ± 7.0% compared with -13.4% ± 7.0%, respectively; P = 0.86), and tumor necrosis factor-α (-14.8% ± 5.1% compared with -7.6% ± 10.2%, respectively; P = 0.63) were NS. DHA compared with EPA led to more pronounced reductions in triglycerides (-13.3% ± 2.3% compared with -11.9% ± 2.2%, respectively; P = 0.005) and the cholesterol:HDL-cholesterol ratio (-2.5% ± 1.3% compared with 0.3% ± 1.1%, respectively; P = 0.006) and greater increases in HDL cholesterol (7.6% ± 1.4% compared with -0.7% ± 1.1%, respectively; P < 0.0001) and LDL cholesterol (6.9% ± 1.8% compared with 2.2% ± 1.6%, respectively; P = 0.04). The increase in LDL-cholesterol concentrations for DHA compared with EPA was significant in men but not in women (P-treatment × sex interaction = 0.046).
DHA is more effective than EPA in modulating specific markers of inflammation as well as blood lipids. Additional studies are needed to determine the effect of a long-term DHA supplementation per se on cardiovascular disease risk. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01810003.
迄今为止，大多数关于二十碳五烯酸（EPA）和二十二碳六烯酸（DHA）对人体抗炎作用的研究使用的是各种形式和比例的这两种脂肪酸的混合物。
我们比较了补充EPA与补充DHA（重新酯化的三酰甘油；纯度90%）对有心血管疾病风险的男性和女性炎症标志物（主要结局）和血脂（次要结局）的影响。
在一项双盲、随机、交叉、对照研究中，腹部肥胖且有低度全身炎症的健康男性（n = 48）和女性（n = 106）连续10周每天服用3 g以下补充剂：1）EPA（2.7 g/d），2）DHA（2.7 g/d），3）玉米油作为对照，每次补充之间有9周的洗脱期。主要分析评估了EPA和DHA之间心脏代谢结局的差异。
与补充EPA相比，补充DHA导致白细胞介素-18（IL-18）的降低幅度更大（分别为-7.0%±2.8%和-0.5%±3.0%；P = 0.01），脂联素的增加幅度更大（分别为3.1%±1.6%和-1.2%±1.7%；P < 0.00）。在DHA和EPA之间，C反应蛋白（CRP）（分别为-7.9%±5.0%和-1.8%±6.5%；P = 0.25）、IL-6（分别为-12.0%±7.0%和-13.4%±7.0%；P = 0.86）和肿瘤坏死因子-α（分别为-14.8%±5.1%和-7.6%±10.2%；P = 0.63）的变化无统计学意义。与EPA相比，DHA导致甘油三酯的降低更显著（分别为-13.3%±2.3%和-11.9%±2.2%；P = 0.005），胆固醇与高密度脂蛋白胆固醇比值的降低更显著（分别为-2.5%±1.3%和0.3%±1.1%；P = 0.006），高密度脂蛋白胆固醇的增加更显著（分别为7.6%±1.4%和-0.7%±1.1%；P < 0.0001），低密度脂蛋白胆固醇的增加更显著（分别为6.9%±1.8%和2.2%±1.6%；P = 0.04）。与EPA相比，DHA使低密度脂蛋白胆固醇浓度升高在男性中显著，但在女性中不显著（P-治疗×性别交互作用 = 0.046）。
在调节炎症和血脂的特定标志物方面，DHA比EPA更有效。需要进一步研究以确定长期单独补充DHA对心血管疾病风险的影响。该试验在clinicaltrials.gov上注册，注册号为NCT01810003。
