Views 466
Citations 0
Editor's Correspondence
Oct 8, 2012

The Big Ones That Got Away: Omega-3 Meta-analysis Flawed by Excluding the Biggest Fish Oil Trials

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Pharmacy, Wegmans, Ithaca, New York (Dr DiNicolantonio); University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City (Dr O’Keefe); and Department of Cardiology, Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana (Dr Lavie).

Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(18):1427-1428. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3755

Kwak et al1(p686) state that “Our meta-analysis showed insufficient evidence of a secondary preventive effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplements against overall cardiovascular events among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease.” We respectfully disagree with this conclusion. This meta-analysis mainly included trials comprising only 50 to 550 patients with just 2 years or less of follow-up (the point at which the survival curves started to diverge in the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto Miocardico [GISSI] Heart Failure study2) in 10 of the 14 trials. In addition, 5 of the 14 trials were, in fact, not truly placebo controlled but used olive oil as a comparator. Kromhout et al3 used omega-3 fatty acids in margarine spread over multiple pieces of toast per day, which could nullify any beneficial effects of fish oil. Most included trials were not powered to detect a difference in cardiovascular outcomes (OMEGA4 and the SU.FOL.OM3 [Supplémentation en Folates et Omega-3]5 studies had approximately 20% power to detect a 25% benefit of omega-3 and the Alpha Omega study3 [used just 380 mg/d of eicosapentanoic acid + docosahexaenoic acid] had approximately half the statistical power as the GISSI-Prevenzione study6). Thus, a “lack of inclusion of sufficient trial data” should not be interpreted as “insufficient evidence at preventing cardiovascular events.”

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview