Esta página se tradujo automáticamente y no se garantiza la precisión de la traducción. por favor refiérase a versión inglesa para un texto fuente.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Differential Effects of DHA and EPA on Inflammation

15 de agosto de 2022 actualizado por: Benoit Lamarche, Laval University

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.

Descripción general del estudio

Descripción detallada

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.

Tipo de estudio

De observación

Inscripción (Actual)

1

Contactos y Ubicaciones

Esta sección proporciona los datos de contacto de quienes realizan el estudio e información sobre dónde se lleva a cabo este estudio.

Ubicaciones de estudio

      • Quebec, Canadá, G1V 0A6
        • Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods (INAF)

Criterios de participación

Los investigadores buscan personas que se ajusten a una determinada descripción, denominada criterio de elegibilidad. Algunos ejemplos de estos criterios son el estado de salud general de una persona o tratamientos previos.

Criterio de elegibilidad

Edades elegibles para estudiar

18 años y mayores (Adulto, Adulto Mayor)

Acepta Voluntarios Saludables

Géneros elegibles para el estudio

Todos

Método de muestreo

Muestra de probabilidad

Población de estudio

Adult population (18 years old and older) regardless of health status.

Descripción

Inclusion Criteria:

  • 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

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Non-human studies
  • Non-randomized treatment allocation
  • Randomized controlled trials of <7 days duration
  • Lack of a suitable control
  • Children
  • No viable outcome data

Plan de estudios

Esta sección proporciona detalles del plan de estudio, incluido cómo está diseñado el estudio y qué mide el estudio.

¿Cómo está diseñado el estudio?

Detalles de diseño

Cohortes e Intervenciones

Grupo / Cohorte
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

¿Qué mide el estudio?

Medidas de resultado primarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Change in plasma concentration of CRP
Periodo de tiempo: 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
Baseline and up to 5 years
Change in plasma concentration of IL-6
Periodo de tiempo: 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
Baseline and up to 5 years
Change in plasma concentration of TNF-alpha
Periodo de tiempo: 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
Baseline and up to 5 years
Change in plasma concentration of adiponectin
Periodo de tiempo: 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
Baseline and up to 5 years

Colaboradores e Investigadores

Aquí es donde encontrará personas y organizaciones involucradas en este estudio.

Patrocinador

Colaboradores

Publicaciones y enlaces útiles

La persona responsable de ingresar información sobre el estudio proporciona voluntariamente estas publicaciones. Estos pueden ser sobre cualquier cosa relacionada con el estudio.

Fechas de registro del estudio

Estas fechas rastrean el progreso del registro del estudio y los envíos de resultados resumidos a ClinicalTrials.gov. Los registros del estudio y los resultados informados son revisados ​​por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (NLM) para asegurarse de que cumplan con los estándares de control de calidad específicos antes de publicarlos en el sitio web público.

Fechas importantes del estudio

Inicio del estudio (Actual)

16 de abril de 2018

Finalización primaria (Actual)

1 de febrero de 2020

Finalización del estudio (Actual)

1 de abril de 2020

Fechas de registro del estudio

Enviado por primera vez

17 de abril de 2018

Primero enviado que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

8 de mayo de 2018

Publicado por primera vez (Actual)

9 de mayo de 2018

Actualizaciones de registros de estudio

Última actualización publicada (Actual)

18 de agosto de 2022

Última actualización enviada que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

15 de agosto de 2022

Última verificación

1 de agosto de 2022

Más información

Términos relacionados con este estudio

Información sobre medicamentos y dispositivos, documentos del estudio

Estudia un producto farmacéutico regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Estudia un producto de dispositivo regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Esta información se obtuvo directamente del sitio web clinicaltrials.gov sin cambios. Si tiene alguna solicitud para cambiar, eliminar o actualizar los detalles de su estudio, comuníquese con register@clinicaltrials.gov. Tan pronto como se implemente un cambio en clinicaltrials.gov, también se actualizará automáticamente en nuestro sitio web. .

Ensayos clínicos sobre Enfermedades cardiovasculares

3
Suscribir