MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3194110483 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101110

Meta-Analysis of Contemporary Trials of Omega-3 Fatty Acids Containing Both Eicosapentaenoic and Docosahexaenoic Acids

2021· article· en· W3194110483 sur OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Safi U. Khan, Deepak L. Bhatt

Notice bibliographique

RevueEClinicalMedicine · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNursing
ThématiqueFatty Acid Research and Health
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesJanssen PharmaceuticalsSchool of MedicineNovo NordiskRegado BiosciencesMedicines CompanyEisaiBoston VA Research InstituteBoston Scientific CorporationAmgenBoehringer IngelheimHLS TherapeuticsMedtronicRocheFerring PharmaceuticalsCardiological Society of IndiaNovartisBiotronikAmerican College of Cardiology FoundationPfizerMerckAmerican Heart AssociationSt. Jude MedicalAbbott LaboratoriesEli Lilly and Company
Mots-clésMedicineDocosahexaenoic acidEicosapentaenoic acidPolyunsaturated fatty acidMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialPlaceboFatty acidBiochemistryPathologyAlternative medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Drs. Mason and Eckel raise the concern that older trials of combined eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) with suboptimal statin therapy can bias results in favor of EPA+DHA. The authors correctly pointed out that GISSI-P [[1]Dietary supplementation with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E after myocardial infarction: results of the GISSI-Prevenzione trial. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto miocardico.Lancet. 1999; 354: 447-455Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3638) Google Scholar] and GISSI-HF [[2]Tavazzi L Maggioni AP Marchioli R Barlera S Franzosi MG Latini R et al.Effect of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in patients with chronic heart failure (the GISSI-HF trial): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Lancet. 2008; 372: 1223-1230Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1017) Google Scholar] were notably different from contemporary trials in the use of background statin therapy even at the end of the trials. Our meta-analysis followed a pre-specified study selection criteria and included all the eligible studies to avoid selection and reporting biases [[3]Khan SU Lone AN Khan MS Virani SS Blumenthal RS Nasir K et al.Effect of omega-3 fatty acids on cardiovascular outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine. 2021; Summary Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar]. However, we agree with the authors that both the GISSI-P [[1]Dietary supplementation with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E after myocardial infarction: results of the GISSI-Prevenzione trial. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto miocardico.Lancet. 1999; 354: 447-455Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3638) Google Scholar] and GISSI-HF [[2]Tavazzi L Maggioni AP Marchioli R Barlera S Franzosi MG Latini R et al.Effect of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in patients with chronic heart failure (the GISSI-HF trial): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Lancet. 2008; 372: 1223-1230Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1017) Google Scholar] trials (42% relative weight in the EPA+DHA meta-analysis) carry considerable potential to influence results in favor of EPA+DHA therapy. Therefore, we repeated the meta-analysis of EPA+DHA trials excluding these older trials [[1]Dietary supplementation with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E after myocardial infarction: results of the GISSI-Prevenzione trial. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto miocardico.Lancet. 1999; 354: 447-455Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3638) Google Scholar, [2]Tavazzi L Maggioni AP Marchioli R Barlera S Franzosi MG Latini R et al.Effect of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in patients with chronic heart failure (the GISSI-HF trial): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Lancet. 2008; 372: 1223-1230Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1017) Google Scholar] and found that EPA+DHA therapy was associated with neither lower cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.96 [0.90-1.03]; P = 0.30) nor reduced non-fatal cardiovascular outcomes (Figure). Our meta-analysis [[3]Khan SU Lone AN Khan MS Virani SS Blumenthal RS Nasir K et al.Effect of omega-3 fatty acids on cardiovascular outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine. 2021; Summary Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar] concluded that cardiovascular risk reduction was present with EPA monotherapy more so than with combined EPA+DHA. We thank Drs. Mason and Eckel for their insightful observation that allowed us to clarify further that the cardiovascular benefits of omega-3 FAs in the contemporary era are limited to EPA monotherapy. These findings align with recent trials showing remarkable cardiovascular risk reduction with EPA monotherapy [[4]Bhatt DL Steg PG Miller M Brinton EA Jacobson TA Ketchum SB et al.Cardiovascular Risk Reduction with Icosapent Ethyl for Hypertriglyceridemia.The New England Journal of Medicine. 2019; 380: 11-22Crossref PubMed Scopus (1093) Google Scholar, [5]Budoff MJ Bhatt DL Kinninger A Lakshmanan S Muhlestein JB Le VT et al.Effect of icosapent ethyl on progression of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with elevated triglycerides on statin therapy: final results of the EVAPORATE trial.European Heart Journal. 2020; 41: 3925-3932Crossref PubMed Scopus (85) Google Scholar] and underscore that the beneficial effects of prescription EPA should not be generalized to mixed prescription formulations of omega-3 FAs or poorly regulated dietary supplements. Safi U. Khan: data abstraction, analysis, and manuscript drafting. Deepak L. Bhatt: supervision and critical revision. Dr. Safi Khan has nothing to disclose. Dr. Bhatt reports grants from Amarin, grants from AstraZeneca, grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, grants from Eisai, grants from Ethicon, grants from Medtronic, grants from sanofi aventis, grants from The Medicines Company, other from FlowCo, grants and other from PLx Pharma, other from Takeda, personal fees from Duke Clinical Research Institute, personal fees from Mayo Clinic, personal fees from Population Health Research Institute, personal fees, non-financial support and other from American College of Cardiology, personal fees from Belvoir Publications, personal fees from Slack Publications, personal fees from WebMD, personal fees from Elsevier, other from Medscape Cardiology, other from Regado Biosciences, other from Boston VA Research Institute, personal fees and non-financial support from Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, non-financial support from American Heart Association, personal fees from HMP Global, grants from Roche, personal fees from Harvard Clinical Research Institute (now Baim Institute for Clinical Research), other from Clinical Cardiology, personal fees from Journal of the American College of Cardiology, other from VA, grants from Pfizer, grants from Forest Laboratories/AstraZeneca, grants from Ischemix, other from St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), other from Biotronik, grants and other from Cardax, other from Boston Scientific, grants from Amgen, grants from Lilly, grants from Chiesi, grants from Ironwood, personal fees from Cleveland Clinic, personal fees from Mount Sinai School of Medicine, other from Merck, grants from Abbott, grants from Regeneron, other from Svelte, grants and other from PhaseBio, grants from Idorsia, grants from Synaptic, personal fees from TobeSoft, grants, personal fees and other from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Bayer, grants and other from Novo Nordisk, grants from Fractyl, personal fees from Medtelligence/ReachMD, personal fees from CSL Behring, grants and other from Cereno Scientific, grants from Afimmune, grants from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, other from CSI, grants from Lexicon, personal fees from MJH Life Sciences, personal fees from Level Ex, grants from Contego Medical, grants and other from CellProthera, personal fees from K2P, personal fees from Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group, grants and other from MyoKardia/BMS, grants from Owkin, grants from HLS Therapeutics, grants and other from Janssen, grants from 89Bio, grants and other from Novo Nordisk, grants from Garmin, grants and other from Novartis, grants and other from NirvaMed, other from Philips, outside the submitted work. Is there a role for omega-3 fatty acids in cardiovascular disease risk reduction?A recent meta-analysis published in EClinicalMedicine examined the effectiveness of omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes [1]. Mixed EPA/DHA formulations were indicated to have moderate certainty in reducing CV mortality and outcomes. Greater relative reductions in incident CV events were observed with EPA alone trials. The authors conclude that EPA and DHA have inherently different physico-chemical properties that influence CV risk reduction. Full-Text PDF Open Access

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: Méta-analyse
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,130
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0060,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,320
Tête enseignante GPT0,458
Écart entre enseignants0,138 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeMéta-analyse
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations11
Publié2021
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEClinicalMedicineMême sujetFatty Acid Research and HealthTravaux en français237 207