New analysis explains competing findings in studies of omega-3 fatty acids and impact on CV Risk
A new analysis has sorted through many of the competing findings from studies of omega-3 fatty acids, and helps to explain why so many of the studies seem to arrive at differing conclusions.
The study, by scientists in the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University and published in the Journal of Lipid Research, concludes that both fish consumption and dietary omega-3 fatty acid supplements may still help prevent heart disease; that some fatty acids, from certain sources, are more effective than others; that these compounds may have enormous value for serious health problems other than heart disease; and that the very effectiveness of modern drug therapies for heart disease may be one explanation for the conflicting findings on the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids.
�When so many people in these studies are taking a regimen of medications to address the same issues that fish oil might also affect, it�s easy to understand why any added benefit from the fish oils is more difficult to detect,� says Donald Jump, author of the analysis, and principal investigator. The point, Jump said, is not that omega-3 fatty acids have no value � they do. But for studies of their value in cardiovascular disease, which are often done when patients are taking other medications, that value is less clear.
Related news and insights
Fabhalta is a Factor B inhibitor that acts proximally in the alternative complement pathway of the immune system, providing comprehensive control of red blood cell (RBC) destruction within and outside the blood vessels (intra- and extravascular hemolysis [IVH and EVH])
Merck KGaA, a leading science and technology company, announced that its two Phase III EVOLUTION clinical trials (evolution RMS 1 and evolution RMS 2) investigating the efficacy and safety of evobrutinib did not meet their primary endpoints of reducing annualized relapse rates (ARR) in people with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) compared to oral teriflunomide (Aubagio) (0.11 vs. 0.11 in evolution RMS 1 and 0.15 for evobrutinib vs. 0.14 for teriflunomide in evolution RMS 2, p=NS in both trials)