AzTrials
AzTrials

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.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

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

Other trials in Canada

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 groups in NCT03520556
Study groupRoleWhat 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
controlAdults 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.

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  1. First posted9 May 2018
  2. Study start16 Apr 2018
  3. Primary completion1 Feb 2020
  4. Study completion1 Apr 2020

Resources

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)
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 32790827
  • Vors 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

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.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in