TY - JOUR
T1 - Eicosapentaenoic Acid for Cardiovascular Events Reduction- Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
T2 - EPA and cardiovascular outcomes
AU - Yokoyama, Yujiro
AU - Kuno, Toshiki
AU - Morita, Sae X.
AU - Slipczuk, Leandro
AU - Takagi, Hisato
AU - Briasoulis, Alexandros
AU - Latib, Azeem
AU - Bangalore, Sripal
AU - Heffron, Sean P.
N1 - Funding Information:
☆ Disclosure: Dr Latib is a consultant and on the advisory board of Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Philips. Dr Slipczuk has worked as a consultant for Amgen and on the Advisory Board for Regeneron. Dr Bangalore is an advisory board member for Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Amgen, Pfizer, Reata. Remaining authors have nothing to disclose.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2022/11
Y1 - 2022/11
N2 - Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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)]. Conclusions: 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.
AB - Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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)]. Conclusions: 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.
KW - Dyslipidemia
KW - Eicosapentaenoic acid
KW - Omega-3 fatty acid
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85138845809&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85138845809&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jjcc.2022.07.008
DO - 10.1016/j.jjcc.2022.07.008
M3 - Article
C2 - 35914996
AN - SCOPUS:85138845809
SN - 0914-5087
VL - 80
SP - 416
EP - 422
JO - Journal of Cardiology
JF - Journal of Cardiology
IS - 5
ER -