CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03520556Updated Aug 18, 2022

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

An observational study in Metabolic Syndrome, Overweight and Obesity, sponsored by Laval University. Completed at 1 site in Canada. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-08-18.

Sponsored by Laval University · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Other
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
1
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study 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. 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.

02

Conditions studied

  • Metabolic Syndrome
  • Overweight
  • Obesity
  • Chronic Inflammation
  • Cardiovascular Diseases

Keywords

  • EPA
  • DHA
  • low-grade inflammation
  • CRP
  • IL-6
  • TNF-alpha
  • adiponectin
  • randomized controlled trials
  • systematic review and meta-analysis
03

In context

Cardiovascular Diseases

4,904 studies on the registry are indexed under Cardiovascular Diseases; 919 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 1 is below the median of 573 across 1,485 observational studies indexed under Cardiovascular Diseases.

Browse Cardiovascular Diseases studies →

Lead sponsor

Laval University is the lead sponsor of 371 studies on the registry; 68 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes
Sampling method
Probability sample

Study population

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

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

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
05

Study design

Observational model
Other
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
1 participant (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • 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

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  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

    Time frame: 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

    Time frame: 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

    Time frame: 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

    Time frame: Baseline and up to 5 years

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Institute of Nutrition and Functional Foods (INAF)
    Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada
08

References and documents

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 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 18, 2022, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03520556
Lead sponsor
Laval University
Collaborators
University of Toronto
Responsible party
Benoit Lamarche (Principal Investigator, Laval University) — Principal investigator
First posted
May 9, 2018
Start date
Apr 16, 2018
Primary completion
Feb 1, 2020
Completion
Apr 1, 2020
Last update
Aug 18, 2022

Study contacts

Benoît Lamarche, PhD
principal investigator · Laval University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion