Metabolic SyndromeNCT03520556
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Differential Effects of DHA and EPA on Inflammation
An observational study of Metabolic Syndrome and Overweight, run by Laval University at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
According to the World Health Organization, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the number 1 cause of death globally. Systemic and local tissue inflammation is now recognized as a key etiological process leading to CVD. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Metabolic Syndrome, Overweight, Obesity
- How many people
- 1 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 16 Apr 2018to 1 Apr 2020
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Adult population (18 years old and older) regardless of health status.
Who may be able to join
- Randomized controlled trials of ≥7 days duration in humans
- Suitable control (i.e. fatty acids other than EPA and DHA as control)
- Adults (18 years old and older)
- Viable outcome data
Who cannot join
- Non-human studies
- Non-randomized treatment allocation
- Randomized controlled trials of <7 days duration
- Lack of a suitable control
- Children
- No viable outcome data
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Canada1 site
Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods (INAF)
Québec, G1V 0A6
About this study
Official title: Do Docosahexaenoic and Eicosapentaenoic Acids Have Similar Effects on Inflammation Markers? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
According to the World Health Organization, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the number 1 cause of death globally. Systemic and local tissue inflammation is now recognized as a key etiological process leading to CVD. Hence, elevated blood levels of inflammation markers are classified among the well-established risk factors for the development of CVD. Among nutritional strategies to prevent and/or reduce chronic inflammation, long-chain omega 3 PUFA (LCn-3PUFA), notably eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), have raised tremendous interest for their purported anti-inflammatory effects. Previous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) substantiated the anti-inflammatory effect of LCn-3PUFA supplementation as evidenced by significant reductions in plasma concentrations of specific inflammation markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha). However, it is stressed that almost all of the reported RCTs have used a mix of EPA and DHA in various ratios, as EPA and DHA occur concomitantly and naturally in food (fish oils) and in most dietary supplements. Yet, several recent RCTs have recently been undertaken to test the hypothesis that not all LCn-3PUFAs are equal, at least when it comes to their anti-inflammatory effects. Accordingly, there is increasing interest and evidence for potential distinctive effects of DHA compared to EPA on systemic inflammation, raising the question: Is DHA a more potent anti-inflammatory nutrient than EPA? To formally answer this question, we will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to assess and compare the individual anti-inflammatory effects of DHA and of EPA. The present work will be a pairwise and network meta-analysis focusing on RCTs comparing the effects of EPA and DHA on surrogate markers of systemic inflammation. The findings generated by these analyses will provide invaluable and timely comparative information on the specific efficacy of DHA and EPA as one of the key nutritional modalities for the treatment of chronic inflammation in high-risk men and women. This is important considering that LCn-3PUFA supplements are increasingly being used by the population and an ever growing market in the dietary supplements' industry.
Read the detailed description
Background: Increased systemic inflammation is positively correlated with the risk for CVD. Among nutritional strategies to prevent and/or reduce chronic inflammation, long-chain omega 3 PUFA (LCn-3PUFA), notably eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), have raised tremendous interest for their purported anti-inflammatory effects.
Need for the proposed research: New emerging data from RCTs suggesting distinct effects of DHA and EPA on systemic inflammation calls for a formal analysis of existing data through a systematic review and meta-analysis, which are considered the gold standard of evidence to inform dietary guidelines.
Objective: To conduct a pairwise and network meta-analysis of RCTs in humans to compare the effects of DHA and EPA on surrogate markers of inflammation.
Design: This systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and The PRISMA Extension Statement for conducting Network Meta-analyses.
Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library will be searched using appropriate search terms.
Study selection: RCTs of ≥7 days duration that have specifically compared the effects of DHA to those of EPA, or RCTs that have assessed the effects of DHA or EPA individually compared with a placebo (control), in which changes in plasma concentration of inflammatory markers, namely C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) and adiponectin, were study outcomes. Literature published in languages other than English or French will be not considered.
Data extraction: Titles and abstracts of studies retrieved using the search strategy will be screened independently by two investigators to identify studies that potentially meet the inclusion criteria outlined above. The full text of these potentially eligible studies will be retrieved and independently assessed for eligibility by two investigators with disagreements being resolved by consensus. Extracted information will include: first author's name, publication year, study design, sample size, subject characteristics (for example sex, age, health and body weight status), EPA and DHA doses, EPA and DHA forms, trial duration, composition of the control supplement, inflammation markers studied and the statistical approach for data analysis. Mean ± SEM differences between various treatments will be extracted for all endpoints. Standard computations and imputations will be used to derive missing variance data. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The overall quality and strength of the evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Risk of bias for network meta-analysis will incorporate assessment of transitivity.
Outcomes: Four outcomes will be assessed: 1) plasma CRP 2) plasma IL-6, 3) plasma TNF-alpha and 4) plasma adiponectin.
Data synthesis: We will use standard Cochrane methods for pairwise meta-analysis and augment this evidence using network meta-analysis methods. Mean differences will be pooled for direct comparisons (DHA vs. EPA) using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model will be used even in the absence of statistically significant between-study heterogeneity, as they yield more conservative summary effect estimates in the presence of residual heterogeneity. We will present the pooled estimates as mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. We will perform a frequentist network meta-analysis using multivariate meta-analysis model using 'network' suite of commands available in STATA. Mean differences will be pooled for direct comparisons (DHA vs. EPA) and indirect comparisons (DHA vs. placebo and EPA vs. placebo using placebo as the common comparator). We will present the contribution of direct and indirect evidence to mixed evidence using contribution plots. Assumption of consistency will be tested using design-by-treatment model. Paired analyses will be applied for crossover trials. Heterogeneity will be assessed by the Cochran Q statistic and quantified by the I2. To explore sources of heterogeneity, we will conduct sensitivity analyses, in which each study is systematically removed. If there are more than 10 studies, we will also explore sources of heterogeneity using meta-regression analyses and a priori defined subgroup analyses such as body weight status (normal-weight, overweight, obese), health status (for example diabetes, CVD), age, sex, dose, baseline measurements for each outcome, study design (parallel, crossover), study duration, risk of bias, and individual domains of risk of bias. Meta-regression analyses will assess the significance of categorical and continuous subgroup analyses. When more than 10 studies are available, publication bias will be investigated by inspection of funnel plots and formal testing using the Egger test and the Begg test. If publication bias is suspected, we will attempt to adjust for funnel plot asymmetry by imputing the missing study data using the Duval and Tweedie trim and fill method.
Knowledge translation plan: Results from this systematic review and meta-analysis will be disseminated through traditional means such as interactive presentations at local, national, and international scientific meetings and publication in high impact factor journals. Target audiences will include the public health and scientific communities with interest in nutrition, inflammation, and CVD.
Significance: The findings generated by this analysis will provide invaluable and timely comparative information on the specific efficacy of DHA and EPA as one of the key nutritional modalities for the treatment of chronic inflammation in high-risk men and women. This is important considering that LCn-3PUFA supplements are increasingly being used by the population and an ever growing market in the dietary supplements' industry.
- Keywords
- EPA, DHA, low-grade inflammation, CRP, IL-6, TNF-alpha, adiponectin, randomized controlled trials, systematic review and meta-analysis
- Medical subject headings
- Metabolic Syndrome, Overweight, Obesity, Cardiovascular Diseases
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) | Adults supplemented with DHA in a randomized controlled trial of ≥7 days duration | |
| eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) | Adults supplemented with EPA in a randomized controlled trial of ≥7 days duration | |
| control | Adults supplemented with control fatty acids in a randomized controlled trial of ≥7 days duration assessing the effects of EPA and/or DHA |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in plasma concentration of CRP
Change in fasting plasma concentration of CRP with DHA vs. EPA or DHA vs. control or EPA vs. control
Measured: Baseline and up to 5 years
Change in plasma concentration of IL-6
Change in fasting plasma concentration of IL-6 with DHA vs. EPA or DHA vs. control or EPA vs. control
Measured: Baseline and up to 5 years
Change in plasma concentration of TNF-alpha
Change in fasting plasma concentration of TNF-alpha with DHA vs. EPA or DHA vs. control or EPA vs. control
Measured: Baseline and up to 5 years
Change in plasma concentration of adiponectin
Change in fasting plasma concentration of adiponectin with DHA vs. EPA or DHA vs. control or EPA vs. control
Measured: Baseline and up to 5 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted9 May 2018
- Study start16 Apr 2018
- Primary completion1 Feb 2020
- Study completion1 Apr 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Metabolic SyndromeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Laval UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 1 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Laval University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Toronto
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Benoit Lamarche, Laval University
- Investigators
- Benoît Lamarche, PhD, Principal investigator, Laval University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03520556
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SRMA-EPA-DHA-INFL
- Status last verified
- Aug 2022
- First submitted
- 17 Apr 2018
- Last updated
- 18 Aug 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Vors C, Allaire J, Mejia SB, Khan TA, Sievenpiper JL, Lamarche B. Comparing the Effects of Docosahexaenoic and Eicosapentaenoic Acids on Inflammation Markers Using Pairwise and Network Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials. Adv Nutr. 2021 Feb 1;12(1):128-140. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmaa086.
PubMed 32790827Vors C, Allaire J, Blanco Mejia S, Khan TA, Sievenpiper JL, Lamarche B. Reply to J Morze and L Schwingshackl. Adv Nutr. 2021 Feb 1;12(1):278-279. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmaa131. No abstract available.
PubMed 33517407
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Aug 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Do Docosahexaenoic and Eicosapentaenoic Acids Have Similar Effects on Inflammation Markers? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03520556
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SRMA-EPA-DHA-INFL
- Keywords
- EPA, DHA, low-grade inflammation, CRP, IL-6, TNF-alpha, adiponectin, randomized controlled trials
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 1 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Laval UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Toronto
- Study start
- 16 Apr 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Feb 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Apr 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 9 May 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
According to the World Health Organization, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the number 1 cause of death globally. Systemic and local tissue inflammation is now recognized as a key etiological process leading to CVD. Hence, elevated blood levels of inflammation markers are classified among the well-established risk factors for the development of CVD. Among nutritional strategies to prevent and/or reduce chronic inflammation, long-chain omega 3 PUFA (LCn-3PUFA), notably eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), have raised tremendous interest for their purported anti-inflammatory effects. Previous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) substantiated the anti-inflammatory effect of LCn-3PUFA supplementation as evidenced by significant reductions in plasma concentrations of specific inflammation markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha). However, it is stressed that almost all of the reported RCTs have used a mix of EPA and DHA in various ratios, as EPA and DHA occur concomitantly and naturally in food (fish oils) and in most dietary supplements. Yet, several recent RCTs have recently been undertaken to test the hypothesis that not all LCn-3PUFAs are equal, at least when it comes to their anti-inflammatory effects. Accordingly, there is increasing interest and evidence for potential distinctive effects of DHA compared to EPA on systemic inflammation, raising the question: Is DHA a more potent anti-inflammatory nutrient than EPA? To formally answer this question, we will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to assess and compare the individual anti-inflammatory effects of DHA and of EPA. The present work will be a pairwise and network meta-analysis focusing on RCTs comparing the effects of EPA and DHA on surrogate markers of systemic inflammation. The findings generated by these analyses will provide invaluable and timely comparative information on the specific efficacy of DHA and EPA as one of the key nutritional modalities for the treatment of chronic inflammation in high-risk men and women. This is important considering that LCn-3PUFA supplements are increasingly being used by the population and an ever growing market in the dietary supplements' industry.
Detailed description
Background: Increased systemic inflammation is positively correlated with the risk for CVD. Among nutritional strategies to prevent and/or reduce chronic inflammation, long-chain omega 3 PUFA (LCn-3PUFA), notably eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), have raised tremendous interest for their purported anti-inflammatory effects.
Need for the proposed research: New emerging data from RCTs suggesting distinct effects of DHA and EPA on systemic inflammation calls for a formal analysis of existing data through a systematic review and meta-analysis, which are considered the gold standard of evidence to inform dietary guidelines.
Objective: To conduct a pairwise and network meta-analysis of RCTs in humans to compare the effects of DHA and EPA on surrogate markers of inflammation.
Design: This systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and The PRISMA Extension Statement for conducting Network Meta-analyses.
Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library will be searched using appropriate search terms.
Study selection: RCTs of ≥7 days duration that have specifically compared the effects of DHA to those of EPA, or RCTs that have assessed the effects of DHA or EPA individually compared with a placebo (control), in which changes in plasma concentration of inflammatory markers, namely C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) and adiponectin, were study outcomes. Literature published in languages other than English or French will be not considered.
Data extraction: Titles and abstracts of studies retrieved using the search strategy will be screened independently by two investigators to identify studies that potentially meet the inclusion criteria outlined above. The full text of these potentially eligible studies will be retrieved and independently assessed for eligibility by two investigators with disagreements being resolved by consensus. Extracted information will include: first author's name, publication year, study design, sample size, subject characteristics (for example sex, age, health and body weight status), EPA and DHA doses, EPA and DHA forms, trial duration, composition of the control supplement, inflammation markers studied and the statistical approach for data analysis. Mean ± SEM differences between various treatments will be extracted for all endpoints. Standard computations and imputations will be used to derive missing variance data. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The overall quality and strength of the evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Risk of bias for network meta-analysis will incorporate assessment of transitivity.
Outcomes: Four outcomes will be assessed: 1) plasma CRP 2) plasma IL-6, 3) plasma TNF-alpha and 4) plasma adiponectin.
Data synthesis: We will use standard Cochrane methods for pairwise meta-analysis and augment this evidence using network meta-analysis methods. Mean differences will be pooled for direct comparisons (DHA vs. EPA) using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model will be used even in the absence of statistically significant between-study heterogeneity, as they yield more conservative summary effect estimates in the presence of residual heterogeneity. We will present the pooled estimates as mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. We will perform a frequentist network meta-analysis using multivariate meta-analysis model using 'network' suite of commands available in STATA. Mean differences will be pooled for direct comparisons (DHA vs. EPA) and indirect comparisons (DHA vs. placebo and EPA vs. placebo using placebo as the common comparator). We will present the contribution of direct and indirect evidence to mixed evidence using contribution plots. Assumption of consistency will be tested using design-by-treatment model. Paired analyses will be applied for crossover trials. Heterogeneity will be assessed by the Cochran Q statistic and quantified by the I2. To explore sources of heterogeneity, we will conduct sensitivity analyses, in which each study is systematically removed. If there are more than 10 studies, we will also explore sources of heterogeneity using meta-regression analyses and a priori defined subgroup analyses such as body weight status (normal-weight, overweight, obese), health status (for example diabetes, CVD), age, sex, dose, baseline measurements for each outcome, study design (parallel, crossover), study duration, risk of bias, and individual domains of risk of bias. Meta-regression analyses will assess the significance of categorical and continuous subgroup analyses. When more than 10 studies are available, publication bias will be investigated by inspection of funnel plots and formal testing using the Egger test and the Begg test. If publication bias is suspected, we will attempt to adjust for funnel plot asymmetry by imputing the missing study data using the Duval and Tweedie trim and fill method.
Knowledge translation plan: Results from this systematic review and meta-analysis will be disseminated through traditional means such as interactive presentations at local, national, and international scientific meetings and publication in high impact factor journals. Target audiences will include the public health and scientific communities with interest in nutrition, inflammation, and CVD.
Significance: The findings generated by this analysis will provide invaluable and timely comparative information on the specific efficacy of DHA and EPA as one of the key nutritional modalities for the treatment of chronic inflammation in high-risk men and women. This is important considering that LCn-3PUFA supplements are increasingly being used by the population and an ever growing market in the dietary supplements' industry.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) | – | –Adults supplemented with DHA in a randomized controlled trial of ≥7 days duration |
| eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) | – | –Adults supplemented with EPA in a randomized controlled trial of ≥7 days duration |
| control | – | –Adults supplemented with control fatty acids in a randomized controlled trial of ≥7 days duration assessing the effects of EPA and/or DHA |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Adult population (18 years old and older) regardless of health status.
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Randomized controlled trials of ≥7 days duration in humans
- Suitable control (i.e. fatty acids other than EPA and DHA as control)
- Adults (18 years old and older)
- Viable outcome data
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Non-human studies
- Non-randomized treatment allocation
- Randomized controlled trials of <7 days duration
- Lack of a suitable control
- Children
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Change in plasma concentration of CRP
Time frame: Baseline and up to 5 years
Change in fasting plasma concentration of CRP with DHA vs. EPA or DHA vs. control or EPA vs. control
Change in plasma concentration of IL-6
Time frame: Baseline and up to 5 years
Change in fasting plasma concentration of IL-6 with DHA vs. EPA or DHA vs. control or EPA vs. control
Change in plasma concentration of TNF-alpha
Time frame: Baseline and up to 5 years
Change in fasting plasma concentration of TNF-alpha with DHA vs. EPA or DHA vs. control or EPA vs. control
Change in plasma concentration of adiponectin
Time frame: Baseline and up to 5 years
Change in fasting plasma concentration of adiponectin with DHA vs. EPA or DHA vs. control or EPA vs. control
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Aug 2022.
- Results publication: PubMed 32790827Vors C, Allaire J, Mejia SB, Khan TA, Sievenpiper JL, Lamarche B. Comparing the Effects of Docosahexaenoic and Eicosapentaenoic Acids on Inflammation Markers Using Pairwise and Network Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials. Adv Nutr. 2021 Feb 1;12(1):128-140. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmaa086.
- Results publication: PubMed 33517407Vors C, Allaire J, Blanco Mejia S, Khan TA, Sievenpiper JL, Lamarche B. Reply to J Morze and L Schwingshackl. Adv Nutr. 2021 Feb 1;12(1):278-279. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmaa131. No abstract available.
Related trials for Metabolic Syndrome
RecruitingObservational study
Defining the Natural History of Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Fanconi Anemia
Fanconi Anemia, Inherited Bone Marrow Failure Syndrome
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Osilodrostat for Glycemic Control in Mild Autonomous Cortisol Secretion (MACS) With Difficult-To-Control Type 2 Diabetes - A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2 Study
Mild Autonomous Cortisol Secretion (MACS), Diabetes Mellitus (Type 2)
Active, not recruiting
Effects of Whole-body Electrical Muscle Stimulation Exercise on Adults With Neuromuscular Disease
Neuromuscular Diseases (NMD), Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Clinical Genetics Branch Eligibility Screening Survey
Melanoma, Li-Fraumeni Syndrome
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Effects of Meal Macronutrients on Postprandial Lipids
Nephrotic Syndrome, Lipodystrophy
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Benoît Lamarche, PhD principal investigator
Laval University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Metabolic Syndrome and Overweight, run by Laval University at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 18 Aug 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in plasma concentration of CRP (time frame: Baseline and up to 5 years). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03520556, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 18 Aug 2022.