Cited by 252Fatty Acid Research and HealthNutritional Studies and DietEdible Oils Quality and Analysis

A randomized, crossover, head-to-head comparison of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid supplementation to reduce inflammation markers in men and women: the Comparing EPA to DHA (ComparED) Study

Open access
Allaire, Janie, Couture, Patrick, Leclerc, Myriam, Charest, Amélie, Marin, Johanne, Lépine, Marie-Claude, Talbot, Denis, Tchernof, André +1 more·2016·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background To date, most studies on the anti-inflammatory effects of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in humans have used a mixture of the 2 fatty acids in various forms and proportions.Objectives We compared the effects of EPA supplementation with those of DHA supplementation (re-esterified triacylglycerol; 90% pure) on inflammation markers (primary outcome) and blood lipids (secondary outcome) in men and women at risk of cardiovascular disease.Design In a double-blind, randomized, crossover, controlled study, healthy men (n = 48) and women (n = 106) with abdominal obesity and low-grade systemic inflammation consumed 3 g/d of the following supplements for periods of 10 wk: 1) EPA (2.7 g/d), 2) DHA (2.7 g/d), and 3) corn oil as a control with each supplementation separated by a 9-wk washout period. Primary analyses assessed the difference in cardiometabolic outcomes between EPA and DHA.Results Supplementation with DHA compared with supplementation with EPA led to a greater reduction in interleukin-18 (IL-18) (-7.0% ± 2.8% compared with -0.5% ± 3.0%, respectively; P = 0.01) and a greater increase in adiponectin (3.1% ± 1.6% compared with -1.2% ± 1.7%, respectively; P < 0.001). Between DHA and EPA, changes in CRP (-7.9% ± 5.0% compared with -1.8% ± 6.5%, respectively; P = 0.25), IL-6 (-12.0% ± 7.0% compared with -13.4% ± 7.0%, respectively; P = 0.86), and tumor necrosis factor-α (-14.8% ± 5.1% compared with -7.6% ± 10.2%, respectively; P = 0.63) were NS. DHA compared with EPA led to more pronounced reductions in triglycerides (-13.3% ± 2.3% compared with -11.9% ± 2.2%, respectively; P = 0.005) and the cholesterol:HDL-cholesterol ratio (-2.5% ± 1.3% compared with 0.3% ± 1.1%, respectively; P = 0.006) and greater increases in HDL cholesterol (7.6% ± 1.4% compared with -0.7% ± 1.1%, respectively; P < 0.0001) and LDL cholesterol (6.9% ± 1.8% compared with 2.2% ± 1.6%, respectively; P = 0.04). The increase in LDL-cholesterol concentrations for DHA compared with EPA was significant in men but not in women (P-treatment × sex interaction = 0.046).Conclusions DHA is more effective than EPA in modulating specific markers of inflammation as well as blood lipids. Additional studies are needed to determine the effect of a long-term DHA supplementation per se on cardiovascular disease risk. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01810003.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3945/ajcn.116.131896

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a small trial, DHA increased LDL-C, LDL particle size, and HDL2, but EPA did not.

    “In this trial, DHA increased LDL-C, LDL particle size, and HDL2, but EPA did not.62”

    From Omega-3 Fatty Acids for the Management of Hypertriglyceridemia: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association (2019) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Blood lipids section reports that DHA increased LDL-C more than EPA, but EPA also significantly increased LDL-C versus control (+2.2%). The LCn-3PUFA and plasma lipids section says increased LDL particle size with DHA was an inference requiring measurement. The paper reports increased HDL cholesterol, not specifically HDL2. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • That trial reported an inverse relationship between triglyceride values and LDL particle size, and a positive correlation between HDL-C and LDL particle size.

    “This trial also reported an inverse relationship between triglyceride values and LDL particle size, whereas HDL-C was positively correlated with LDL particle size.”

    From Omega-3 Fatty Acids for the Management of Hypertriglyceridemia: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association (2019) · cites this paper as [62]

    The ‘LCn-3PUFA and plasma lipids’ discussion (page unavailable) says that lower triglycerides after DHA supplementation suggest larger LDL particles, but explicitly says this assumption needs verification by measuring LDL particle size. The Blood lipids results (page unavailable) report higher HDL cholesterol with DHA, not a positive correlation between HDL-C and LDL particle size. The trial therefore did not report either correlation as claimed. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Airlie LT, Roche A, Martorel R. Standardization of anthropometric measurements. The Airlie (VA) Concensus Conference. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics; 1988.
  2. Chakraborty H, Gu H. A mixed model approach for intent-to-treat analysis in longitudinal clinical trials with missing values. Report No. MR-0009-0903. Research Triangle Park (NC): RTI Press; 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Allaire, J., Couture, P., Leclerc, M., Charest, A., Marin, J., Lépine, M.-C., Talbot, D., Tchernof, A., & Lamarche, B.
Affiliations
  • Institut sur la nutrition et les aliments fonctionnels (INAF) (CA)
  • Université Laval (CA)
  • Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec (CA)
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-08
Volume
104
Issue
2
Pages
280-287
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2480176085
Cited by
252
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1
FWCI
25.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (123494_1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Fatty Acid Research and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Edible Oils Quality and Analysis
Keywords
omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid, docosahexaenoic acid, fish oil supplementation, inflammatory markers, IL-18, adiponectin, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, TNF-α, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, abdominal obesity, cardiovascular risk, sex differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, C-Reactive Protein, Cholesterol, Docosahexaenoic Acids, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Inflammation, Male, Middle Aged, Triglycerides, Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha, Eicosapentaenoic Acid, Biomarkers, Cytokines, Cross-Over Studies, Dietary Supplements, Interleukin-18, Adiponectin

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review