cholesterol

Aim: The "2026 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Dyslipidemia" retires and replaces the "2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol."

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2024 to December 2024 to identify clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

Structure: The focus of this clinical practice guideline is to address the evaluation, management, and monitoring of individuals with dyslipidemias, including high blood cholesterol, hypertriglyceridemia, and elevated lipoprotein(a).

Keywords: ACC/AHA clinical practice guideline; HDL; LDL; anticholesteremic agents; atherosclerosis; atherosclerotic disease; cardiovascular disease; cardiovascular diseases; cholesterol; drug interactions; dyslipidemia(s); hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors; hypercholesterolemia; hyperlipid(a)emia/s; hyperlipoproteinemia type II; hypertriglyceridemia; hypolipidemic agents; lipids; lipoprotein(a); primary prevention; risk adjustment; risk assessment; risk factors; simvastatin; statin(s); triglycerides.

Author/s:

Roger S. Blumenthal, Pamela B. Morris, Mario Gaudino, Heather M. Johnson, Timothy S. Anderson, Vera A. Bittner, Ron Blankstein, LaPrincess C. Brewer, Leslie Cho, Sarah D. de Ferranti, Eugenia Gianos, Ty J. Gluckman, Kristen F. Gradney, Ijeoma Isiadinso, Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, Joel C. Marrs, Seth S. Martin, Kellie H. McLain, Laxmi S. Mehta, Samia Mora, Wudeneh M. Mulugeta, Pradeep Natarajan, Ann Marie Navar, Carl E. Orringer, Tamar S. Polonsky, Harmony R. Reynolds, Joseph J. Saseen, Michael D. Shapiro, Daniel E. Soffer, Sheila A. Tynes, Chloé D. Villavaso, Salim S. Virani, John T. Wilkins

Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment

Rowan Hutchins — Sat, 06 May 2023 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

May 6, 2023

Journal/Publication:

JAMA Intern Med

Publisher:

JAMA

Publication Date:

March 14, 2022

Issue:

Volume:

182

URL:

Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.0134

Keywords

adult

cholesterol

stroke prevention

PMID (1):

35285850

MeSH

Cardiovascular Disease

cholesterol, LDL

Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors* / therapeutic use

myocardial infarction

The modest reduction in all-cause mortality affected by statins is largely independent of the amount of LDL cholesterol reduction suggesting a somewhat lipid independent anti-inflammatory effect. Two caveats: 1)The 0.8% absolute risk reduction is per around 3 years, so longer term treatment will have more impact; 2) absolute risk reduction is directly proportional to baseline risk, so higher risk individuals will benefit more. James W. Mold, MD, MPH.

Free full text

View

Importance The association between statin-induced reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute risk reduction of individual, rather than composite, outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, is unclear.

Objective To assess the association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels with treatment with statin therapy and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke to facilitate shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and inform clinical guidelines and policy.

Data Sources PubMed and Embase were searched to identify eligible trials from January 1987 to June 2021.

Study Selection Large randomized clinical trials that examined the effectiveness of statins in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes with a planned duration of 2 or more years and that reported absolute changes in LDL-C levels. Interventions were treatment with statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) vs placebo or usual care. Participants were men and women older than 18 years.

Data Extraction and Synthesis Three independent reviewers extracted data and/or assessed the methodological quality and certainty of the evidence using the risk of bias 2 tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Any differences in opinion were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses and a meta-regression were undertaken.

Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome: all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes: myocardial infarction, stroke.

Findings Twenty-one trials were included in the analysis. Meta-analyses showed reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%) for all-cause mortality, 1.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.7%) for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%) for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins, with associated relative risk reductions of 9% (95% CI, 5%-14%), 29% (95% CI, 22%-34%), and 14% (95% CI, 5%-22%) respectively. A meta-regression exploring the potential mediating association of the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction with outcomes was inconclusive.

Conclusions and Relevance The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the absolute risk reductions of treatment with statins in terms of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke are modest compared with the relative risk reductions, and the presence of significant heterogeneity reduces the certainty of the evidence. A conclusive association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels and individual clinical outcomes was not established, and these findings underscore the importance of discussing absolute risk reductions when making informed clinical decisions with individual patients.

Author/s:

Byrne, P., Demasi, M., Jones, M.

Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Saige Blanchard — Tue, 10 May 2022 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

May 10, 2022

Journal/Publication:

JAMA Internal Medicine

Publisher:

American Medical Association

Publication Date:

March 14, 2022

Issue:

Volume:

182

Pages:

474-481

URL:

Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.0134

Keywords

PMID (1):

35285850

MeSH

Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

cholesterol

LDL

Numbers Needed to Treat

risk

Cl 22

Consensus

As for many of our most common interventions, the actual impact of statins on cardiovascular event rates and mortality are small unless the pre-intervention risk of such events is quite high or unless the intervention is reliably continued for long periods of time. As we knew, the effect of statins is not entirely related to LDL cholesterol reduction. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Importance: The association between statin-induced reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute risk reduction of individual, rather than composite, outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, is unclear.

Objective: To assess the association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels with treatment with statin therapy and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke to facilitate shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and inform clinical guidelines and policy.

Data sources: PubMed and Embase were searched to identify eligible trials from January 1987 to June 2021.

Study selection: Large randomized clinical trials that examined the effectiveness of statins in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes with a planned duration of 2 or more years and that reported absolute changes in LDL-C levels. Interventions were treatment with statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) vs placebo or usual care. Participants were men and women older than 18 years.

Data extraction and synthesis: Three independent reviewers extracted data and/or assessed the methodological quality and certainty of the evidence using the risk of bias 2 tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Any differences in opinion were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses and a meta-regression were undertaken.

Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcome: all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes: myocardial infarction, stroke.

Findings: Twenty-one trials were included in the analysis. Meta-analyses showed reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%) for all-cause mortality, 1.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.7%) for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%) for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins, with associated relative risk reductions of 9% (95% CI, 5%-14%), 29% (95% CI, 22%-34%), and 14% (95% CI, 5%-22%) respectively. A meta-regression exploring the potential mediating association of the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction with outcomes was inconclusive.

Conclusions and relevance: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the absolute risk reductions of treatment with statins in terms of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke are modest compared with the relative risk reductions, and the presence of significant heterogeneity reduces the certainty of the evidence. A conclusive association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels and individual clinical outcomes was not established, and these findings underscore the importance of discussing absolute risk reductions when making informed clinical decisions with individual patients.

Author/s:

Byrne, P., Demasi, M., Jones, M., Smith, S. M., O'Brien, K. K., DuBroff, R.

Efficacy and safety of lowering LDL cholesterol in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Devin Evans — Mon, 23 Nov 2020 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 23, 2020

Journal/Publication:

The Lancet

Publication Date:

November 21, 2020

Issue:

10263

Volume:

396

Pages:

1637-1643

URL:

Efficacy and safety of lowering LDL cholesterol in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32332-1

Keywords

Cardiovascular Diseases

Clinical Protocols

cholesterol

PMID (1):

33186535

MeSH

cholesterol, LDL

Ezetimibe

Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

cardiovascular diseases

Lipids

Statins appear to be as effective for reducing CV events in those over 75 as in younger patients. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Background: The clinical benefit of LDL cholesterol lowering treatment in older patients remains debated. We aimed to summarise the evidence of LDL cholesterol lowering therapies in older patients.

Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for articles published between March 1, 2015, and Aug 14, 2020, without any language restrictions. We included randomised controlled trials of cardiovascular outcomes of an LDL cholesterol-lowering drug recommended by the 2018 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines, with a median follow-up of at least 2 years and data on older patients (aged ≥75 years). We excluded trials that exclusively enrolled participants with heart failure or on dialysis because guidelines do not recommend lipid-lowering therapy in such patients who do not have another indication. We extracted data for older patients using a standardised data form for aggregated study-level data. We meta-analysed the risk ratio (RR) for major vascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or other acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or coronary revascularisation) per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Findings: Data from six articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 24 trials from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis plus five individual trials. Among 244 090 patients from 29 trials, 21 492 (8·8%) were aged at least 75 years, of whom 11 750 (54·7%) were from statin trials, 6209 (28·9%) from ezetimibe trials, and 3533 (16·4%) from PCSK9 inhibitor trials. Median follow-up ranged from 2·2 years to 6·0 years. LDL cholesterol lowering significantly reduced the risk of major vascular events (n=3519) in older patients by 26% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (RR 0·74 [95% CI 0·61-0·89]; p=0·0019), with no statistically significant difference with the risk reduction in patients younger than 75 years (0·85 [0·78-0·92]; pinteraction=0·37). Among older patients, RRs were not statistically different for statin (0·82 [0·73-0·91]) and non-statin treatment (0·67 [0·47-0·95]; pinteraction=0·64). The benefit of LDL cholesterol lowering in older patients was observed for each component of the composite, including cardiovascular death (0·85 [0·74-0·98]), myocardial infarction (0·80 [0·71-0·90]), stroke (0·73 [0·61-0·87]), and coronary revascularisation (0·80 [0·66-0·96]).

Interpretation: In patients aged 75 years and older, lipid lowering was as effective in reducing cardiovascular events as it was in patients younger than 75 years. These results should strengthen guideline recommendations for the use of lipid-lowering therapies, including non-statin treatment, in older patients.

Author/s:

Gencer, Baris, Marston, Nicholas A., Im, KyungAh, Cannon, Christopher P., Sever, Peter, Keech, Anthony, Braunwald, Eugene, Giugliano, Robert P., Sabatine, Marc S.

Association of Nonfasting vs Fasting Lipid Levels With Risk of Major Coronary Events in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial–Lipid Lowering Arm

Tracy Ashby — Thu, 30 May 2019 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

May 30, 2019

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publisher:

American Medical Association

Publication Date:

May 28, 2019

URL:

Association of Nonfasting vs Fasting Lipid Levels With Risk of Major Coronary Events in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial–Lipid Lowering Arm

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0392

Keywords

PMID (1):

31135812

MeSH

fasting

Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

cardiovascular diseases

risk factors

cholesterol, LDL

myocardial infarction

coronary disease

For purposes of risk assessment and decisions about risk reduction, non-fasting lipid levels seem to be fine (no real need to obtain fasting lipid levels). James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

IMPORTANCE:

Recent guidelines have recommended nonfasting for routine testing of lipid levels based on comparisons of nonfasting and fasting populations. However, no previous study has examined the association of cardiovascular outcomes with fasting vs nonfasting lipid levels measured in the same individuals.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the association of nonfasting and fasting lipid levels with prospectively ascertained coronary and vascular outcomes and to evaluate whether a strategy of using nonfasting instead of fasting lipid level measurement would result in misclassification of risk for individuals undergoing evaluation for initiation of statin therapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

This post hoc prospective follow-up of a randomized clinical trial included 8270 of 10 305 participants from the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Lipid Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA) with nonfasting and fasting lipid levels measured 4 weeks apart (including 6855 participants with no prior vascular disease) (median follow-up, 3.3 years; interquartile range, 2.8-3.6 years). Data were collected from February 1, 1998, to December 31, 2002, and analyzed from February 1, 2016, to November 30, 2018. Multivariable Cox models, adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors, were calculated for 40-mg/dL (1-mmol/L) higher values of nonfasting and fasting lipids.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

The trial's primary end point consisted of major coronary events (nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI] and fatal coronary heart disease [212 events]). Secondary analyses examined atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events (including MI, stroke, and ASCVD death [351 events]).

RESULTS:

Among the 8270 participants (82.1% male; mean [SD] age, 63.4 [8.5] years), nonfasting samples had modestly higher triglyceride levels and similar cholesterol levels compared to fasting samples. Associations of nonfasting lipid levels with coronary events were similar to those for fasting lipid levels. For example, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) per 40-mg/dL of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were 1.32 (95% CI, 1.08-1.61; P = .007) for nonfasting levels and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.07-1.55; P = .008) for fasting levels. For the primary prevention group, adjusted HRs were 1.42 (95% CI, 1.13-1.78; P = .003) for nonfasting levels and 1.37 (95% CI, 1.11-1.69; P = .003) for fasting levels. Results were consistent by randomized treatment arm (atorvastatin calcium, 10 mg/d, or placebo) and similar for ASCVD events. Concordance of fasting and nonfasting lipid levels for classifying participants into appropriate ASCVD risk categories was high (94.8%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Measurement of nonfasting and fasting lipid levels yields similar results in the same individuals for association with incident coronary and ASCVD events. These results suggest that routine measurement of nonfasting lipid levels may help facilitate ASCVD risk screening and treatment, including consideration of when to initiate statin therapy.

Author/s:

Mora, Samia, Chang, C. Lan, Moorthy, M. Vinayaga, Sever, Peter S.

2018 Cholesterol Clinical Practice Guidelines: Synopsis of the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety Cholesterol Guideline

Tracy Ashby — Wed, 29 May 2019 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

May 29, 2019

Journal/Publication:

Annals of Internal Medicine

Publisher:

The American College of Physicians

Publication Date:

May 28, 2019

URL:

2018 Cholesterol Clinical Practice Guidelines: Synopsis of the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety Cholesterol Guideline.

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.7326/M19-0365

Keywords

cholesterol

primary prevention

cardiovascular disease

statin therapy

risk factors

PMID (1):

31132793

MeSH

Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

secondary prevention

This is the 2018 version of the AHA/ACC Guideline on cholesterol management. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Description:

In November 2018, the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) released a new clinical practice guideline on cholesterol management. It was accompanied by a risk assessment report on primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Methods:

A panel of experts free of recent and relevant industry-related conflicts was chosen to carry out systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined cardiovascular outcomes. High-quality observational studies were used for estimation of ASCVD risk. An independent panel systematically reviewed RCT evidence about the benefits and risks of adding nonstatin medications to statin therapy compared with receiving statin therapy alone in persons who have or are at high risk for ASCVD.

Recommendation:

The guideline endorses a heart-healthy lifestyle beginning in childhood to reduce lifetime risk for ASCVD. It contains several new features compared with the 2013 guideline. For secondary prevention, patients at very high risk may be candidates for adding nonstatin medications (ezetimibe or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitors) to statin therapy. In primary prevention, a clinician–patient risk discussion is still strongly recommended before a decision is made about statin treatment. The AHA/ACC risk calculator first triages patients into 4 risk categories. Those at intermediate risk deserve a focused clinician–patient discussion before initiation of statin therapy. Among intermediate-risk patients, identification of risk-enhancing factors and coronary artery calcium testing can assist in the decision to use a statin. Compared with the 2013 guideline, the new guideline gives more attention to percentage reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol as a treatment goal and to long-term monitoring of therapeutic efficacy. To simplify monitoring, nonfasting lipid measurements are allowed.

Author/s:

Grundy, Scott M, Stone, Neil J., Guideline Writing Committee for the 2018 Cholesterol Guidelines

Management of Blood Cholesterol

Jeffrey Wilson — Tue, 05 Feb 2019 20:01:21 +0000

Date Added:

February 5, 2019

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publisher:

American Medical Association

Publication Date:

February 4, 2019

URL:

Management of Blood Cholesterol

DOI (1):

doi:10.1001/jama.2019.0015

Keywords

MeSH

myocardial infarction

cholesterol

This is an update to the 2013 blood cholesterol guidelines developed by the AHA, ACC and others. It re-adds LDL targets and the addition of cholesterol-lowering agents other than statins when necessary.

Pharmacologically lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) consistently reduces ASCVD events (myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death), and the principle that lower LDL-C is better was reaffirmed by trials that added ezetimibe or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors to statin therapy. The 2013 guideline removed specific LDL-C treatment targets, but high-quality trials since offered the opportunity to reintroduce such goals based on risk gradations.

Author/s:

Alenghat, Francis J., Davis, Andrew M.

Cholesterol Management in Primary Care

Jeffrey Wilson — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 15:42:28 +0000

Date Added:

September 5, 2018

Journal/Publication:

Healthy Hearts for Oklahoma

Publisher:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Type:

Clinical Decision Aids

Format:

Slides

Keywords

MeSH

Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

cholesterol

primary prevention

This is the decision aid for statin use developed for the Healthy Hearts for OK Project.

Free full text

Patients with existing disease or major risk factors should be prescribed statins unless contraindicated.

Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease: Current State of the Evidence

Tracy Ashby — Mon, 20 Aug 2018 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

August 21, 2018

Journal/Publication:

Effective Health Care Program

Publisher:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publication Date:

July 25, 2017

Issue:

URL:

Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease: Current State of the Evidence

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

Keywords

MeSH

Marine oil supplements high in omega 3 fatty acids significantly lower triglycerides and increase HDL and LDL a little, but they don’t reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.

Free full text

Focus of This Summary

This is a summary of a systematic review that evaluated the recent evidence regarding the effects of omega-3 fatty acids (FAs), primarily from marine oil supplements, on clinical and selected intermediate cardiovascular (CV) outcomes (i.e., blood pressure, lipid concentrations) and the association of omega-3 FA dietary intake and biomarkers with CV outcomes. The systematic review included 147 articles published between 2000 and June 2015. Studies that analyzed levels of fish (or other food) consumption without exact quantification of omega-3 FA intake were excluded from this review. This summary is provided to assist in informed clinical decisionmaking. However, reviews of evidence should not be construed to represent clinical recommendations or guidelines.

Background

The first observation of a link between fish consumption and cardiovascular (CV) health was made in the late 1970s in a Greenland Eskimo population. This population exhibited a comparatively low rate of CV mortality and consumed a greater than average amount of fish. Since this original observation, there have been hundreds of studies conducted to evaluate the effect of omega-3 fatty acids (FAs) on cardiovascular disease (CVD), its risk factors, and its biomarkers.

The omega-3 FAs include eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). These are essential long-chain and very-long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids that have many physiological effects, including inflammation regulation. EPA, DHA, and DPA are found in fish and other seafood (called dietary marine oils), as well as in supplements prepared from these foods (referred to here as marine oil supplements). ALA is found in walnuts, leafy green vegetables, and oils such as canola, soy, and flaxseed.

An original systematic review of omega-3 FAs was prepared by the Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality in 2004.1,2 Based on the observational studies available at that time, several expert panels suggested that regular consumption of fish and seafood is associated with lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiac death. The recommendations were based on assumptions of benefits from EPA and DHA and their content in fish and seafood.

The current systematic review aimed to update the evidence in light of the more recent literature published on the topic and included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Studies that analyzed levels of fish (or other food) consumption without exact quantification of omega-3 FA intake were excluded.

Conclusions

Observational studies suggest possible benefits of dietary intake of marine oils (such as through consumption of fish) for CV death and total stroke (mainly ischemic stroke).

In contrast, there is high strength of evidence (SOE) from RCTs that marine oil supplements do not affect the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause death, sudden cardiac death, revascularization, or high blood pressure (BP). Marine oil supplements also have no effect on the risk of atrial fibrillation (moderate SOE). Importantly, RCTs focused primarily on marine oil supplements, not on food sources.

Marine oil supplements affect several intermediate outcomes. First, they significantly lower triglycerides (TGs)—possibly having greater effects in higher doses and in people with higher baseline TGs. Second, they cause small increases in both high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c). Finally, marine oil supplements produce small changes in the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL-c (high SOE).

Author/s:

Balk, Ethan M., Adam, Gaelen P., Langberg, Valerie, Halladay, Christopher, Chung, Mei, Lin, Lin, Robertson, Sarah, Yip, Agustin, Steele, Dale, Smith, Bryant T., Lau, Joseph, Lichtenstein, Alice H., Trikalinos, Thomas A.