Eicosapentaenoic acid vs. docosahexaenoic acid for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Populations with greater fatty fish intake have lower risk of coronary heart disease. However, trials testing omega-3 fatty acids (FA) on cardiovascular outcomes have yielded inconsistent results. In this review, we summarize the major cardiovascular trials examining omega-3 FA supplementation, and compare differences with eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) alone vs. docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) combined with EPA.

RECENT FINDINGS

The JELIS and REDUCE-IT trials both demonstrated significant reduction in cardiovascular events with high dose epa in the form of icosapent ethyl (IPE), with a similar trend seen in the RESPECT-epa trial. In contrast, the ASCEND, VITAL, STRENGTH, and OMEMI trials examining EPA+DPA combinations failed to demonstrate benefit. Beyond the difference in omega-3 FA formulations (IPE vs. omega-3 carboxylic acid), other differences between REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH include the achieved epa levels, differing properties that epa and DHA have on membrane stabilization, and the comparator oils tested in the trials.

SUMMARY

The totality of evidence suggests epa alone, administered in a highly-purified, high-dose form, improves cardiovascular outcomes among patients with elevated triglycerides at high cardiovascular risk, but epa and DHA together does not. Current guidelines endorse the use of IPE in statin-treated patients at high cardiovascular risk who have triglycerides >135 mg/dl.