Department of Surgery, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, PA, USA.
Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, NY, USA; Division of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
J Cardiol. 2022 Nov;80(5):416-422. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2022.07.008. Epub 2022 Jul 29.
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of omega-3-fatty acid supplementation on cardiovascular events have largely shown no benefit. However, there is debate about the benign nature of the placebo in these trials. We aimed to conduct a network meta-analysis of RCTs to compare the outcomes of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to various placebo oils.
MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through May, 2021 to identify RCTs investigating cardiovascular outcomes with omega-3-fatty acid formulations [eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), decosahexanoic acid (DHA), or the combination] versus placebo or standard of care controls.
Our analysis included 17 RCTs that enrolled a total of 141,009 patients randomized to EPA (n=13,655), EPA+DHA (n=56,908), mineral oil placebo (n=5,338), corn oil placebo (n =8,876), olive oil placebo (n=41,009), and controls (no placebo oil; n=15,223). Rates of cardiovascular death [hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval, CI) =0.80 (0.65-0.98); p =0.033], myocardial infarction [HR (95% CI) =0.73 (0.55-0.97); p=0.029] and stroke [HR (95% CI) =0.74 (0.58-0.94); p=0.014] were significantly lower in those receiving EPA compared to those receiving mineral oil, but were not different from rates in those receiving other oils or controls. Rates of coronary revascularization were significantly lower in those receiving EPA than in those receiving either EPA+DHA, mineral oil, corn oil, or olive oil placebo, but not controls. All-cause death was similar among all groups, but combined EPA+DHA was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular death compared to controls [HR (95%CI): 0.83 (0.71-0.98)].
Our analyses demonstrate that although EPA supplementation lowers risk of coronary revascularization more than other oils, there may not be a benefit relative to standard of care. Further, EPA reduces the risk of cardiovascular events only in comparison to mineral oil and not when compared with other placebo oils or controls. In contrast, combined EPA+DHA was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular death compared to controls.
随机临床试验(RCTs)研究了ω-3 脂肪酸补充剂对心血管事件的影响,但结果大多显示没有益处。然而,这些试验中安慰剂的良性性质存在争议。我们旨在进行一项网状荟萃分析,比较 ω-3 脂肪酸补充剂与各种安慰剂油的结果。
通过 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 检索 2021 年 5 月之前发表的 RCTs,以调查 ω-3 脂肪酸制剂(二十碳五烯酸(EPA)、二十二碳六烯酸(DHA)或两者的组合)与安慰剂或标准治疗对照治疗心血管结局的情况。
我们的分析包括 17 项 RCT,共纳入 141009 例随机分配至 EPA(n=13655)、EPA+DHA(n=56908)、矿物油安慰剂(n=5338)、玉米油安慰剂(n=8876)、橄榄油安慰剂(n=41009)和对照组(无安慰剂油;n=15223)的患者。心血管死亡的发生率[风险比(HR)(95%置信区间,CI)=0.80(0.65-0.98);p=0.033]、心肌梗死[HR(95%CI)=0.73(0.55-0.97);p=0.029]和中风[HR(95%CI)=0.74(0.58-0.94);p=0.014]在接受 EPA 治疗的患者中显著低于接受矿物油治疗的患者,但与接受其他油或对照组治疗的患者无差异。接受 EPA 治疗的患者冠状动脉血运重建的发生率显著低于接受 EPA+DHA、矿物油、玉米油或橄榄油安慰剂治疗的患者,但与对照组无差异。所有原因死亡在所有组中相似,但联合 EPA+DHA 与对照组相比,心血管死亡风险降低[HR(95%CI):0.83(0.71-0.98)]。
我们的分析表明,尽管 EPA 补充剂降低冠状动脉血运重建的风险高于其他油,但与标准治疗相比可能没有益处。此外,EPA 仅在与矿物油相比时降低心血管事件的风险,而与其他安慰剂油或对照组相比则没有。相比之下,联合 EPA+DHA 与对照组相比,与心血管死亡风险降低相关。