Posted on 09/17/2012 10:37:49 PM PDT by neverdem
Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation Not Associated With Lower Risk of Major Cardiovascular Disease Events
In a study that included nearly 70,000 patients, supplementation with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids was not associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, cardiac death, sudden death, heart attack, or stroke, according to an analysis of previous studies published in the Sept. 12 issue of JAMA.
"Treatment with marine-derived omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for the prevention of major cardiovascular adverse outcomes has been supported by a number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and refuted by others. Although their mechanism of action is not clear, their postulated effect on cardiovascular outcomes may be due to their ability to lower triglyceride levels, prevent serious arrhythmias, or even decrease platelet aggregation and lower blood pressure. Current guidelines issued by major societies recommend their use, either as supplements or through dietary counseling, for patients after myocardial infarction [MI; heart attack], whereas the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved their administration only as triglyceride-lowering agents in patients with overt hypertriglyceridemia, and some (but not all) European national regulatory agencies have approved the omega-3 administration for cardiovascular risk modification. The controversy stemming from the varying labeling indications causes confusion in everyday clinical practice about whether to use these agents for cardiovascular protection," according to background information in the article.
Evangelos C. Rizos, M.D., Ph.D., of the University Hospital of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece, and colleagues performed a large-scale synthesis of the available randomized evidence by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between omega-3 PUFAs and major cardiovascular outcomes.
Of the 3,635 citations retrieved, 20 studies with 68,680 randomized patients were included, reporting 7,044 deaths, 3,993 cardiac deaths, 1,150 sudden deaths, 1,837 heart attacks, and 1,490 strokes. Analysis indicated no statistically significant association with all-cause mortality, cardiac...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
“Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation Not Associated With Lower Risk of Major Cardiovascular Disease...”
Sounds like the patent ran out. What’s next?
Thank you. I have but a rudimentary understanding of stats and studies (obviously) from my intro classes in college. The tedious process of studies drives me to boredom and I personally believe that stats in many cases are worthless (as you can’t negate all biasses from them).
I figured there was some slight-of-hand used in this “study”.
I take the Carsons Oil pills myself. I’m going to do so until they quit making it.
The headline could just as easily read, Prescription Statin Drugs Not Associated With Lower Risk of Major Cardiovascular Disease...
So I guess this means the studies behind FDA approved Lovaza were just wrong?
Will Lovaza get the hook now?
About half of the 70,000 total got omega 3 supplements. One of the things I like about press releases found at ScienceDaily is that they usually link the abstract. Here's part of it:
Data Extraction Descriptive and quantitative information was extracted; absolute and relative risk (RR) estimates were synthesized under a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and I2. Subgroup analyses were performed for the presence of blinding, the prevention settings, and patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and meta-regression analyses were performed for the omega-3 dose. A statistical significance threshold of .0063 was assumed after adjustment for multiple comparisons.First, it's a Meta-analysis, so caveat emptor. They picked 20 studies out of 3,635 citations . Were they cherry picked? The usual level of statistical significance is that you would expect the results to happen by chance five times or less out of one hundred. I have no idea why they went for 63 times out of 10,000.
It was nothing of the sort. This study was of Omega-3s that are processed in standardized forms by pharmaceutical companies and prescribed as drugs. That is different from "natural" Omega-3s, since (by law) any pills made by pharmaceutical companies have to undergo stringent quality control testing, to include ensuring that a pill containing 5 units of active ingredient actually contains 5 units.
These standardized pills are not comparable to the supplements that you might buy at the store, which undergo very little quality testing, and may not contain anything close to the amount of active ingredient as stated on the label.
Personally, I avoid taking any pills--whether pharmaceuticals manufactured according to strict quality standards, or "natural" supplements purchased in a store--unless I absolutely must. My training in biochemistry tells me that ingesting these active ingredients puts stress on the body's detoxification systems, stress I'd rather avoid unless necessary.
It could be that only those studies contained the data they were specifically analyzing, and met certain inclusion criteria. The number of methodologically flawed studies is truly astounding. No offense, but I have found that most physicians who venture into the realm of research have no clue how to properly design a study, or how to interpret the results.
The reported P value doesn't concern me; it was probably the exact P value that they calculated. I've calculated extremely low P values (where P < 0.0001), but reported them as P < 0.05, because that's the standard acceptable level of significance.
Good point about obscuring medication. When people go to Dr. Atkin’s clinic, they first try to wean the client off as much medication as possible. He even mentions that there are certain medications that really interfere with the nutrients needed for the problem being addressed.
Incidentally, anyone who really wants to rev up their condition and loose weight without a lot of painful hunger should Googe the Atkins Induction Diet, and then the 3 follow-up diets for long term maintenance. If you have a medical condition, you could ask the doctor to supervise your health as you try this, but you probably will get a lot of pooh pooh comments from the medical profession. If you do have a medical condition you will want to research this very carefully. There are several Atkins books available giving a lot of detail on treatment of individuals and success with very low carb diets, especially for diabetes. He also recommends using an array of vitamins and minerals. You really have to study this if you want to help yourself when your doctor is not willing to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.