(18-10-12) Meta-analysis study on fish oil effectiveness is fatally flawed

Posted on September 14, 2012 by Dr. Barry Sears


One of the events in the food industry you never want to see is the making of
sausage where sometimes good cuts of meat are combined with items you would
never want to eat.

The same is true of meta-analysis studies in medical research. Meta-analysis
means that you take a lot of different studies (some good, some not so good)
using different patient populations, different inclusion criteria, different
protocols, and different outcome criteria and mix them together to get a
conclusion that often demonstrates a non-result. The best example of this is
the recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association that
combined a wide number of studies using fish oil supplements to come up with
the conclusion that omega-3 fatty acids have no benefit (1). So let?s take a
look at this study in a little more detail.

First, it is always useful to look at the investigators. In this case, the
authors are from Greece (not exactly a hotspot of high-quality clinical
research since Aristotle), and to my knowledge none of them has been involved
in any actual cardiovascular intervention studies in the past, let alone any
work with omega-3 fatty acids. (I believe a little background is a good
foundation to build from, but then call me crazy.)

Second, the average dose used in these studies was 1.5 grams of omega-3 fatty
acids per day. Surprisingly, the American Heart Association recommends more
than double this dose to reduce triglycerides, a known risk factor for heart
disease (apparently not in Greece since the authors ignored this fact). This
would indicate the authors were making conclusions based on placebo doses of
omega-3 fatty acids. Usually a placebo dose gives placebo effects, which was
confirmed in their meta-analysis. Furthermore, just giving a dose of anything
is meaningless unless it is reducing a measureable clinical parameter in the
blood that has a relationship to the disease condition being studied. For
example, if I gave a statin dose that reduced LDL cholesterol levels from 250
mg/dl to 245 mg/dl, I wouldn?t expect any therapeutic benefits unless I gave
enough statin drug to reduce the LDL cholesterol level to less than 130 mg/dl,
if not much lower.

So what is a good dose of omega-3 fatty acids? As I have already mentioned,
the American Heart Association recommends 3.4 grams of EPA and DHA per day to
lower triglyceride levels. However, I believe a better marker is the amount of
omega-3 fatty acids needed to reduce the AA/EPA ratio to the levels found in
the Japanese population, which has the lowest levels of cardiovascular events
in the world. Recent studies with healthy Americans indicate that would take
between 5 and 7.5 grams of EPA and DHA per day (2). Again, this indicates that
the dose of omega-3 fatty acids in this meta-analysis was providing a placebo
dose.

Third, another problem with meta-analysis is conflicting protocols. In this
study, almost half the patients came from two just studies: The GISSI study and
the JELIS study. The GISSI study (more than 11,000 patients) indicated that
omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on the foundation of a Mediterranean diet
could reduce sudden cardiovascular death rate by 45% versus a placebo and
reduced overall cardiovascular death by 20% (3). This study was criticized
because the care that all groups were receiving didn?t include statins (since
they were not yet approved). After all, the thinking for a typical
cardiologist is that there is no reason to use omega-3 fatty acids if you can
simply give a statin drug instead.

That faulty thinking was addressed by the JELIS study in which all the
patients (about 18,000) were getting statins (4). Unlike the GISSI study, the
AA/EPA ratio was measured in these patients. The initial AA/EPA ratio was 1.6
(a level requiring Americans to take about 5 to 7.5 grams of omega-3 fatty
acids per day just to reach that starting point), and then even more EPA was
added to the active group. After 4 ? years, those Japanese patients getting
the statins and extra fish oil had another 20% reduction in cardiovascular
events over and above those getting the statins and an equivalent amount of
supplemented olive oil. The take-home lesson from the JELIS study was that any
physician who didn?t prescribe supplemental omega-3 fatty acids along with
statins was simply practicing bad medicine.

Meta-analysis studies are supposed to make up for potential shortcomings in
small clinical trials (like the ones used to approve virtually all
pharmaceutical drugs). In the hands of unqualified researchers who have little
understanding of the field or compound being studied, a meta-analysis can
become an instrument for the mass confusion generated by this recent article in
the Journal of American Medical Association.

The bottom line is that you need adequate doses of natural compounds to
generate a therapeutic effect. The levels of these doses of natural compounds
will always be far greater than with drugs, but also with far fewer side-
effects. If you give a placebo dose of a natural compound, then expect a
placebo result. But please don?t try to pass off such an obvious result as
?science?.

References

Rizos EC et al. ?Association between omega-3 fatty acid supplementation and
risk of major cardiovascular disease events.? JAMA 308: 1024-1038 (2012)
Yee LD et al. ?Omega-3 fatty acid supplements in women at high risk of breast
cancer have dose-dependent effects on breast adipose tissue fatty acid
composition.? Amer J Clin Nutr 91: 1185-1194 (2010)
GISSI-Prevenzione Investigators. ?Dietary supplementation with n-3
polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E after myocardial infarction: results
of the GISSI-Prevenzione trial.? Lancet 354: 447-455 (1999)
Yokoyama M et al. ?Effects of eicosapentaenoic acid on major coronary events
in hypercholesterolaemic patients (JELIS): a randomized open-label, blinded
endpoint analysis.? Lancet 369: 1090-1098 (2007)


Source:drsears.com

News

---

In evidenza

"L'informazione presente nel sito serve a migliorare, e non a sostituire, il rapporto medico-paziente."

Per coloro che hanno problemi di salute si consiglia di consultare sempre il proprio medico curante.