Premium
DHA is more potent than EPA in attenuating cardiometabolic risk in men and women: a randomized double‐blind, placebo‐controlled crossover trial
Author(s) -
Allaire Janie,
Couture Patrick,
Charest Amélie,
Leclerc Myriam,
Marin Johanne,
Lépine MarieClaude,
Tchernof André,
Lamarche Benoît
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.30.1_supplement.130.1
Subject(s) - medicine , placebo , crossover study , docosahexaenoic acid , eicosapentaenoic acid , blood pressure , abdominal obesity , blood lipids , randomized controlled trial , endocrinology , confounding , gastroenterology , obesity , cholesterol , polyunsaturated fatty acid , metabolic syndrome , fatty acid , biochemistry , chemistry , alternative medicine , pathology
Background Most studies to date on the cardiometabolic effects of eicosapentaenoic (EPA) and docosahexaenoic (DHA) in humans have used a mixture of the two fatty acids in different forms and proportions. The objective of this study was to compare the individual effects of EPA vs. DHA supplementation (as re‐esterified triacylglycerol, 90% pure) on blood lipids and inflammatory markers in men and women at risk of cardiovascular diseases. Methods Using a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled crossover design, 48 men and 106 women with abdominal obesity were randomized to three treatment phases: 1‐EPA (3g/d), 2‐DHA (3g/d), 3‐corn oil (placebo, 3g/d). Treatments had durations of 10 weeks each and were separated by an 8‐week washout period. Blood lipids and inflammatory markers were measured before and after each treatment phase. Differences in study outcomes between treatments were assessed using the MIXED procedure for repeated measures with endpoint measures as primary outcomes. Potential confounders of the response to treatment, mainly obesity/body fat status, age, use of contraceptive agents (premenopausal women), menopausal status, treatment‐specific baseline values and sequence of treatments were considered. Results EPA vs. placebo decreased plasma TG concentrations (−11.1±2.4%, p<0.001). DHA vs. placebo decreased diastolic blood pressure (DBP, −2.2±0.9%, p<0.001), TG (−18.1±2.5%, p<0.001), cholesterol(C)/HDL‐C ratio (−2.5±1.4%, p=0.02), CRP (−8.4±5.0%, p=0.03), TNF‐α (−13.7±5.2%, p=0.02) and IL‐18 (−4.8±2.9%, p=0.01), and increased total C (+2.5±1.2%, p=0.001), HDL‐C (+6.1±1.2%, p<0.001) and LDL‐C (+5.0±1.9%, p<0.001). Changes in DBP (p=0.03), TG (p=0.02), total C (p<0.001), HDL‐C (p<0.001), LDL‐C (p=0.03), C/HDL‐C ratio (p=0.02), IL‐18 (p=0.007) and adiponectin (p<0.001) were greater with DHA than with EPA. Conclusion DHA is more effective than EPA in modulating blood lipids and inflammatory markers. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of a long term DHA supplementation on cardiovascular risk in men and women. Support or Funding Information This research was funded by the Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada (IRSC/CIHR). Janie Allaire is recipient of a scholarship from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Santé (FRQ‐S) for graduated students with a Professional Degree.