DLM: Elevated Triglycerides and Omega-3 Fatty Acids (2007)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:
To examine the safety and efficacy of Omacor in patients with triglyceride (TG) values between 5.65 and 22.6 mmol/L (500-2000 mg/dl).
Inclusion Criteria:
  • Male or female patients between the ages of 18-75 years
  • Serum TG > 5.65 mmol/L and < 22.6 mmol/L
Exclusion Criteria:
  • TG > 22.6 mmol/L (high risk for development of acute pancreatitis and referred for treatment)
  • Consumption of cold-water fish > 1 time per week
  • Type III hyperlipidemia
  • Myocardial infarction < 6 months before entering study
  • Serum alanine aminogransferase > three times the upper normal value
  • Fasting serum glucose > 200 mg/dl
  • Serum creatinine > 2 mg/dl
  • Platelet counts < 60 x 109/L
  • Hemoglobin < 10 g/dl
  •  Presence of any clinically significant disease (as judged by the investigators)
  • Excessive use of alcohol (< two drinks/day)
  • Drug abuse
  • Any condition associated with a risk of poor compliance
  • If female, could not be pregnant or breastfeeding
  • If taking gemfibrozil, were required to discontinue the drug > 6 weeks before entering the study dietary phase
  • If consuming omego-3 fatty acid-containing products such as cod liver oil, required to discontinue > 4 weeks before beginning the study
  • If consuming lipid decreasing fibers, required to discontinue 4 233ks before beginnning study
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment Not discussed

 

Design Prospective, randomized doubled-blind, parallel study

 

Blinding used (if applicable) Not discussed

 

Intervention (if applicable)

  • All subjects received instruction in the National Cholesterol Education Program Step I diet by the hospital dietitian before beginning the dietary phase
    • Subjects were urged to maintain a stable lifestyle, including diet, exercise, smoking and alcohol consumption throughout the trial Dietary run in phase x 4 weeks
  • Dietary run in phase x 4 weeks
  • Serum TG were measured four times, 1 week apart (weeks -4, -2, -1 and 0 (because the TG concentration is known to fluctuate considerably in persons with hypertriglyceridemia) during the run-in phase
    • The mean of weeks -2 and -1 was  used for purposes of qualification to enter the study
    • The mean of weeks -2, -1 and 0 for aseline balues was used in subsequent data analysis
  • Randomized to Omacor or placebo for 16 weeks
    • Omacor (85% omega-3 fatty acid ethyl esters)
      • Contains 3.4 g Eicosapentonoic acid (EPA) + docosahexanoic acid (DHA) + 18 mg vitamin E per day
    • Placebo (corn oil)
  • Other visits took place at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after the subjects had been assigned to groups.

Statistical Analysis

  • Results are expressed as means ± SD
  • For all parameters except TG, comparisons within groups were analyzed by the Student's t test for paired samples.
  • For comparisons of the changes from baseleine to endoint between groups were analyzed by the two-sample t-test.
  • Because TG were not normally distributed in these subjects, the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used within groups and the Mann-Whitney rank sum test between groups.
  • Parametric analyses were carried out using the Data Analysis Pak in Excel 5.0 and the nonparametric tests by the primer program of Glantz
  • Two-tailed P value of less than 5% was required for statistical significance
  • All P values refer to comparisons between groups (not between baseline and end), unless otherwise indicated.
Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

  • All patients received instruction in the National Cholesterol Education Program Step 1 diet by the hospital dietitian before beginning the dietary phase.
    • All subjects were urged to maintain a stable lifestyle, including diet, exercise, smoking and alcohol consumption throughout the trial

 

week - 4

week - 2 week - 1 Visit 0 (baseline) Visit 4 Visit 8 Visit 12 week 14 week 16
Dietary assessment         x x     x
Serum TG x x x x x x x x x
Total cholesterol       x         x
VLDL       x         x
HDL       x         x
LDL       x         x
Apo A-1       x         x

  •  All clinic visits occurred in the morning after a 12 hour fast
  • Subjects were instructed to consume no alcohol in the 24 hours before each clinic visit.

 

Dependent Variables

  • Adverse Events
    • Reported spontaneously by the subject or elicited through open (non-leading) questioning.
    • Seriousness
      • Serious
      • Unexpected
      • Both
      • None
    • Severity (according to WHO)
      • Severe
      • Moderate
      • Mild
    • Relation to the trial medication rated by the investigators
      • Probable
      • Possible
      • Unlikely
      • Definitely not
  • Lipids
    • Both institutions participated in the Lipid Standardization Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
      • Each was standardized for measurement of total cholesterol, TG, and HDL cholesterol
      • Both determine LDL concentrations by Lipid Research Clinics methods (beta-quantification)
      • Cholesterol and TG concentrations were measured by enzymatic methods in Kansas City
      • HDL chlesterol was measured by the same enzymatic mathods after precipitation of ApoB-containing lipoproteins with magnesium and dextran sulfate.
      • All samples generated at each center were analyzed at that center.
      • Serum ApoA-1 was measured by immunonephelometry using a Beckman nephelometer in New York and by immunoturbidity using the Cobas Mira in Kansas City.
      • Serum ApoB-100 was not measureable because of the extreme turbidity of many samples.
      • All samples from a given individual were analyzed in the same run
      • The interassay and intra-assay coefficients of variation are < 5% for both assays.
    • ApoE genotyping was performed in New York on samples from all patients, by means of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method using the HhaI restriction enzyme.
    • Plasma phopholipid fatty acid composition and concentration for samples from both centers were analyzed in Kansas City
      • The plasma lipids were extracted according to the method of Bligh and Dyer and separated by thin-layer chromatography.
      • Dipheptadecanoyl-phosphotidyl choline was added to the serum sample for an internal standard to allow for calculation of serum concentration of phospholipid-bound fatty acids.

Independent Variables

  • Four capsules Omacor per day
  • Placebo

 

Control Variables

 

Description of Actual Data Sample:

 

Initial N:

  • Placebo: N=20
  • Omacor: N=22

Subject characteristics at baseline (Week 0,mean±SD)1

Parameter

Placebo

N=20

Omacor

N=22

Sex (M/F) 13/7 17/5
Age, yr 45±9 46±11
Ht, cm 172±7 175±11
Wt, kg 88±18 86±18
BMI (kg/m2) 29±5 28±4
SBP (mm Hg) 127±13 127±11
DBP (mm Hg) 82±8 83±7
Concurrent disease (no/yes) 5/15 4/18
Concomitant medication (no/yes) 5/15 3/19

TG (mmol/L)

(mg/dl)

9.91±3.062

(877±271)

10.38±4.312

(919381)

Choleserol mmol/L

(mg/dl)

7.80±2.12

(301±82)

6.94±1.81

(268±70)

HDL (mmol/L)

(mg/dl)

0.73±0.18

(28±7)

0.78±0.34

(30±13)

VLDL (mmol/L)

(mg/dl)

4.51±2.25

(174±87

4.12±2.23

(159±86)

LDL (mmol/L)

(mg/dl)

2.49±0.91

(96±35)

2.05±0.93

(79±36)

ApoA-I (g/L) 1.28±0.26 1.32±0.41

ApoE genotype

 

 
€4/€4, 3 or 2 8 9
€3/€3 or 2 12 13

€2/€2

0 0

1 For serum TG, cholesterol and HDL cholesterol, baseline was the mean of values obtained at visits -2, -1 and 0.

2 Median vlues were 9.50 and 9.24 mmol/L (841 and 818 mg/dl), respectively.

Attrition (final N): same as above

Age: see above

Ethnicity: not discussed

Other relevant demographics: not discussed

Anthropometrics see above

Location: Conducted simultaneously at two sites: the University of Kansas Medical center and Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center

 

Summary of Results:

 Serum Lipids, Lipoproteins and Apoproteins 

  Placebo   Omacor   P  
  Baseline End Baseline End Change from baseline for placebo vs change from baseline for Omacor Placebo vs Omacor

Cholesterol (mmol/L)

[mg/dl]

7.80±2.12

[301±82]

7.64±2.05

[295±70

6.94±1.81

268±70

5.91±1.30

228±50

0.001 0.033

Triglyceride (mmol/L)

[mg/dl]

9.91±3.06

877±271

11.38±4.61

1007±408

10.38±4.31

919±381

4.71±3.44

505±304

<0.0001 <0.0001

VLDL chol (mmol/L)

[mg/dl}

4.59±2.28

177±88

4.56±2.38

176±92

4.12±2.23

159±86

2.33±1.27

90±49

0.0001 0.001

LDL chol (mmol/L)

[mg/dl]

2.49±0.93

96±36

2.36±0.91

91±35

2.05±0.93

79±36

2.69±0.98

104±38

0.0014 0.002

HDL chol (mmol/L)

[mg/dl]

 0.73±0.18

28±7

0.73±0.21

28±8 

0.78±0.34

30±13 

0.88±0.36

34±14 

0.014 0.004
chol:HDL chol  11.2±4.9 11.5±5.3  10.5±4.9  7.4±2.4  0.0003 0.0013
LDL:HDL  3.4±1.1 3.2±0.9  2.9±1.3  3.3±1.4  NS NS
ApoA-1 (g/L)  1.28±0.26 1.26±027  1.32±0.41  1.31±0.34  NS NS

  • The mean percent change in TG values (baseline to end):
    • Omacor: -45±23%
      • 18/22 subjects responded with a > 35% reduction in TG levels
      • 4/22 subjects had a < 15% reduction
    • Placebo: 16±35%
    • P<0.0001
    • Although the effect was slightly greater at 4 months than 1 month (-45% and -40%), the difference between 4 and 1 month values was not statistically significant.
  • VLDL cholesterol
    • Reduction of 32% (P=0.001)
  • LDL cholesterol
    • Increase of 32% (P=0014)
    • LDL concentrations were significantly lower at baseline in the Omacor group  because of the chance allocation to this group of 6 subjects with LDL concentrations < 1.30 mmol/L (50 mg/dl) while only 1 subject was included in the placebo group.
    • Omacor group
      • 1 month: 2.64 mmol/L (102 mg/dl)
      • 4 months: 2.69 mmol/L (104 mg/dl)
  • HDL cholesterol
    • Omacor group:
      • Increased by 13±19% (P=0.004)
  • Ratio of total choleserol to HDL cholesterol
    • Omacor group
      • Decreased by 20% (P=0.0013)
  • Serum ApoA-I concentration
    •  No significant differences between the groups.
  • ApoE genotypes
    • None of the subjects had type III hyperlipoproteinemia

Effects of Omacor and placebo on selected serum phospholipid fatty acids (percent of total fatty acids) [mean±SD]

  Linoleic Acid   Arachidonic Acid   EPA   DHA  
  Placebo Omacor Placebo Omacor Placebo Omacor Placebo Omacor
Baseline 18.7±2.3 18.6±3.2 8.9±1.5 8.5±17 1.3±0.5 1.4±0.5 2.8±1.4 2.5±1.4
 1 Month 18.9±3.1 15.2±3.1 9.1±2.0 7.4±1.5 1.3±0.7 3.8±1.4** 2.7±1.3 5.4±1.5**
4 Months 19.4±3.4 14.6±2.7* 8.5±2.2 7.0±1.4* 1.4±0.9 4.1±1.1** 2.6±1.4 5.9±1.6**

*P<0.02 placebo compared with Omacor at 4 months

**P<0.001 placebo compared with Omacor at 1 and 4 months, and baseline compared with 4 months within the Omacor group.

  • After both 1 and 4 months of treatment, Omacor increased serum EPA and DHA concentrations 2-3 fold.
  • The omega-3 fatty acids appeared to replace the principal omega-6 fatty acids (linoleic and arachidonic), which were significantly decreased,
  • When used to assess compliance, the fatty acid results could be expressed either as a percent of total phospholipid fatty acids (in which case EPA concentrations increased from baseline by 193%) or as a concentration (µmol/L) [EPA concentrations increased by 163%].

Side Effects

  • 7 subjects reported some form of gastrointestinal problem (not including "burping a fishy taste" during the 4 month trail
    • Placebo=3
    • Omacor=4
  • No side effect judged as "probably or possibly reltaed to treatment" was considered to be serious by the investigators
  • No subject discontinued treatment because of side effects
  • Omacor had no impact on an of the safety panel parameters measured including glucose, hemoglobin A1c, liver enzymes, kidney function and platelet counts.

 

Other Findings

Compliance and body weight

  • Overall compliance average 94% (range 66-100%), with no differences noted b etween groups
  • The additional 4 gm oil per day did not significantly alter body weights from baseline within groups (0.4 kg change with placebo; -0.1 kg change with Omacor).

 

Author Conclusion:
  • Treatment of severely hypertriglyceridemic subjects with four capsules of Omacor daily markedly reduced serum triglyceride and cholesterol concentrations and raised HDL cholesterol concentrations.
  • No important adverse effects were noted.
  • Omacor may be an important addition to the pharmaceutical armamentarium for the treatment of severe increases in TG concentrations.
Funding Source:
Industry:
Pronova Biocare
Pharmaceutical/Dietary Supplement Company:
University/Hospital: University of Kansas Medical center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons
Reviewer Comments:

Study was supported by a grant from Pronova Biocare, Oslo, Norway. The last author is affiliated with Pronova Biocare.

No sample size calculation.

Randomization procedure not described.

How were investigators blinded to treatment group assignment? Were the Omacor capsules and corn oil capsules similar in appearance?

What did dietary assessment consist of? Did the diet change during run in phase and during the study? Did the same RD at each site conduct the assessment? No description of dietary changes, if any, during the study.

How was the Omacor administered? Once daily or multiple times per day? With meals?

Did the vitamin E (18 mg) in the Omacor have any effect on the results?

Short term study (16 weeks)

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? Yes
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) No
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) Yes
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? N/A
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? Yes
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? Yes
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) Yes
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? N/A
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? Yes
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? ???
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) Yes
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? N/A
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? Yes
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? N/A
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? Yes
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? N/A
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? Yes
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? ???
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? No
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? Yes
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? No
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? No
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? No
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? ???
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? ???