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 determine the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in HIV-infected subjects with hypertriglyceridemia who were receiving combination antiretroviral therapy.
Inclusion Criteria:
  • HIV-infected adults who had 8-h fasting serum TG levels of >200 mg/dL
  • Receiving at least 3 antiretrovirals for >3 months
  • Stable statin therapy ok
Exclusion Criteria:
  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Heart disease with an American Heart Association classification of class 1 or greater
  • Taking fibrates within 6 weeks prior to study entry
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment Recruited from the University of North Carolina Infectious Diseases Clinic

 

Design Open label, randomized, controlled trial

 

Blinding used (if applicable)

 

Intervention (if applicable)

  • Diet and exercise counseling
    • All subjects regardless of treatment assignment
    • Diet and exercise plan devised and reviewed in accordance to with American Heart Association recommendations
      • General information on strategies to reduce intake of overall dietary fat and trans fatty acid, to increase intake of fiber and how to adopt a daily aerobic exercise program
      • Increased intake of food rich in omega-3 fatty acid was discussed in general terms
      • Target weight and exercise goals were tailored to the needs and capabilities of each subject
  • Subjects randomized to one of two intervention groups
    • Diet and exercise group
    • Fish oil group
      • Diet + exercise + 16 week course of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation
      • Coromega (1750 mg EPA +1150 mg DHA) taken daily with food.
        • Total dose is within the 2-4 gm of EPA and DHA per day recommended by the American Heart Association for patients who need to lower TG levels.
        • Liquid formulation
        • High-level bioavailability of EPA and DHA per manufacturer

 

Statistical Analysis

  • Outcomes
    • Primary: to compare the mean change (defined as the week 4 value minus the entry value, divided by the entry value) in fasting TG levels from baseline to week 4 within and between the study arms.
    • Secondary:
      • Comparison of the 2 study arms with respect to the mean TG levels from baseline to week 16 and the change from study entry to weeks 4 and 8 in mean absolute change in TG levels
      • Change in weight
      • Change in the levels of total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, LDl cholesterol and lipoprotein A
      • Safety and tolerability of study medication
  • Statistical tests
    • Paired Student's t tests were used for comparing the changes from baseline in lipid values, platelet function assay results and weight.
    • Wilcoxon rand sum test was used to analyze the absolute change in TG levels

 

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

 

                                                       Baseline Week 4 Week 16
Diet/exercise counseling x x x
Three day food record/24 hour recall x x x
Physical activity questionnaire x x x
Fasting TG x x x
Cholesterol x x x
HDL-cholesterol x x x
LDL cholesterol x x x
Lipoprotein A x x x
Oral glucose tolerancetest x x x
Platelet function analysis x x x
Basic blood chemistries x x x
Adverse clinical/lab events x x x

Dependent Variables

  • Lipids
    • Fasting TG 
    • Cholesterol
    • HDL-cholesterol
    • LDL-cholesterol
    • Lipoprotein A
  • Two hour oral glucose tolerance test
  • Platelet function analysis
  • Adverse clinical/laboratory event grading: NIH Health Division of AIDS toxicity grading table
  • Dietary/medication/supplement intake: three day food record or 24 hour recall if food record not available
  • Physical activity questionnaire: self assessed using the Lipid Research Clinics questionnaire
  • Adherence to study medication was assessed using the AIDS Clinical Trials group self-reported adherence measure

Independent Variables

 Diet + exercise vs Diet + exercise + fish oil

Control Variables

 

Description of Actual Data Sample:

 

Initial N: N=52

  • Diet + exercise: N=26  (92.3% male)
  • Fish oil: N=26 (88.5% male)

Attrition (final N):

  • At 4 week evaluation: N=44 (85% completed)
    • Diet + exercise: N=20
      • Disappointed not randomized to fish oil (6)
    • Fish oil: N=24
      • Discomfort of phlebotomy (1)
      • Lost to follow up (1)
  • At 16 week evaluation: N=41 (79% completed)
    • Diet + exercise: N=19
      • Relocation to another state (1)
    • Fish oil: N=22
      • Toxicity (1)
      • Dislike of liquid fish oil formulation (1)
  • No major differences in demographic characteristics or laboratory values among the subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the week 4 evaluation and those who continued.

Age: (mean years)

  • Diet + exercise: 45.3 years
  • Fish oil: 42.0 years

Ethnicity:

  • Diet + exercise: 46.2% non white race
  • Fish oil: 61.5% non white race

Other relevant demographics:

Anthropometrics No statistically significance differences between the arms in any characteristic at baseline.

                                                           Diet + exercise Fish oil
BMI 27.2 27.4
CD4 cell count, cell/µL 478 577
Plasma HIV RNA  level, copies/mL 30,454 38,618
Antiretroviral therapy, %    
1 Protease inhibitor 12 15
2 protease inhibitors 15 8
1 non-cleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor 8 31
Protease inhibitor+ nonnucleoside reverse transcriptse inhibitor 31 23
Only nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors 0 4
Ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor 35 19
Any of the above with stavudine 19 15
Any of the above with ritonavir 50 35

  • In addition: the mean number of National Cholesterol Education Program-defined cardiovascular disease risk factors was 1.9 per subject.

Location: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

 

Summary of Results:

 Lipid End Points

  Mean value     Mean % change from baseline (95% CI)    
                       Baseline Week 4 Week 16 Week 4                                    P, Baseline vs Week 4 (between grps) Week 16                               P, Baseline vs week 16 (between grps)
TG, mg/dl              
Fish oil 461 306 304 -25.1 (-34.6 to -15.7) 0.0074 -19.5 (-34.9 to -4.0) 0.12
Diet/exercise 502 503 513 2.8 (-17.5 to 23.1) 0.0074 -5.7 (-24.6 to 13.2) 0.12
Total cholesterol, mg/dl              
Fish oil 227 219 218 -3.1 (-8.9 to 2.7) 0.61 -0.31 (-10.4 to 9.8) 0.80
Diet/exercise 254 242 259 -5.1 (10.6 to 0.43) 0.61 -1.8 (-8.5 to 4.9) 0.80
Direct LDL cholesterol, mg/dl              
Fish oil 110 126 136 15.6 (4.8 to 26.4) 0.14 22.4 (7.91 to 36.8) 0.73
Diet/exercise 116 113 131 (3.5 (-9.0 to 16.0) 0.14 18.4 (-0.6 to 37.4) 0.73
HDL cholesterol,mg/dl              
Fish oil 40 38 40 -0.4 (-5.2 to 4.3) 0.28 -1.7 (-6.21 to 9.69) 0.41
Diet/exercise 43 41 42 -3.86 (-8.0 to 0.2) 0.28 -2.0 (-6.97 to 3.03) 0.41
Lipoprotein A, mg/dl              
Fish oil 11 8 8 -2.88 (.36.7  to 31.0) 0.41 23.37 (-21.7to 68.4) 0.33
Diet/exercise 12 10 10 30.18 (-44.9 to 105.3) 0.41 -2.34 (-32.5 to 27.8) 0.33

  1.  At week 4 there was a statistically significant mean decrease in fasting TG levels in the fish oil arm compared with the mean change in the diet/exercise arm.
  2. After controlling for baseline TG levels, a significant difference in the change in TG remained (P=0.001).
  3. The mean absolute change in TG levels was significantly different between study arms: -138.8 mg/dl in the fish oil group compared with -25 mg/dl in the diet/exercise group (P=0.03).
  4. At week 4, the mean TG levels of the fish oil group were significantly lower than those of the diet/exercise group (P=0.03).
  5. The percentage of subjects who achieved a TG level of <200 mg/dl at week 4 was 39.1% in the fish oil group and 10.0% in the diet/exercise group (P=0.04).
  6. At study week 16, subjects in the fish oil group continued to have a statistically significant mean reduction in TG levels since study entry, while the diet/exercise group experienced a modest mean decline in TG levels from baseline, which was not statistically different from the mean level at study entry. However, the difference between the study groups was no longer statistically significant (P=0.12).
  7. There was a trend toward lower mean TG levels in fish fish oil group compared with the diet/exercise group: 304±219 mg/dl vs 513±626 mg/dl; P=0.09).
  8. The difference between study groups in the percentage of subjects with TG levels of <200 mg/dl became statistically insignificant at week 16 (31.8% for the fish oil gorup vs 22.2% for the diet/exercise group; P=0.50).
  9. Total and HDl-cholesterol levels and lipoprotein A levels did not change significantly from baseline in either group.
  10. LDL cholesterol levels did significantly increase in the fish oil group but not in the diet/exercise group.

Assessment of glucose tolerance, insulin resistance and BMI

                                Mean value     Mean % change from baseline (95% CI)                                                                    
  Baseline Week 4 Week 16 Week 4 P, baseline vs week 4 (between grps) Week 16 P, baseline vs week 16 (between grps)
Insulin, IU                                   
Fish oil 11 17 10 82.6 (7.2 to 157.9) 0.06 24.3 (-20.6 to 69.5) 0.35
Diet/exercise 11 10 18 6.8 (-22.0 to 35.5) 0.06 119.8 (-88.1 to 327.8) 0.35
Glucose, mg/dl*              
Fish oil 107 100 103 -3.7 (-12.7 to 5.4) 0.08 -1.0 (-9.1 to 7.2) 0.19
Diet/exercise 100 110 107 11.2 (-4.3 to 26.6) 0.08 11.1 (-6.1 to 28.2) 0.19

* Determined by 2-h oral glucose tolerance test.

  1. Glucose tolerance did not change significantly in either group, and there were no differences in 2-h oral glucose testing results between study groups at any point in the study.
  2. Significant increase from baseline in the mean insulin level in the fish oil group at week 4 (but not at week 16), and there was a trend toward a greater increase in the mean insulin level in the fish oil group than in the diet/exercise arm.
  3. In the diet/exercise arm, BMI was stable at week 4 but had declined significantly by week 16 (mean change, -0.63; P=0.04).
  4. The fish oil group experienced a significant mean reduction in BMI at week 4 (mean change, -0.24; P=0.02) but not at week 16.

Adherence to fish oil therapy

  1. Subjects reported high levels of adherence to study medication: 83% of subjects at week 4 and 86% of subjects at week 16 stated they had not missed a dose within the prior 4 days.

Adherence to diet

  Mean value        
                                Baseline Mean change from baseline  P         Week 16  P          
Total calorie intake, kcal/day          
Fish oil 2053 -206 0.90 -42 >0.05
Diet/exercise 2276 -227   -392  
Total fat intake, g/day          
Fish oil   -12.4 0.50 9.1 0.04
Diet/exercise   -3.2   -19.1  

Adherence to exercise

  1. At study entry 65% of the fish oil and 69% of the diet/exercise group had very low or low levels of physical activity.
  2. In the diet/exercise group, the percentage of subjects with very low or low physical activity levels dropped to 52% at week 4 and to 32% at week 16.
  3. In the fish oil group, very low or low activity levels were recorded for 82% of the subjects at week 4 and for 41% at week 16.

Safety and tolerability

  1. One subject in the fish oil arm discontinued therapy after 8 weeks because of new grade 2 nausea and vomiting which remitted after the fish oil was discontinued.
  2. No new grade >3 signs, symptoms or laboratory abnormalities in either study group.
  3. No significant change in platelet function from baseline as assessed by the platelet frunction analysis assay in either group, and no reports of increased bleeding tendency were made by any subject.

 

Other Findings

  1. No reports of discontinuation or modification of HIV therapy by any subjects.
  2. None of the subjects initiated nonstudy lipid-lowering therapy and no subject in the diet/exercise group reported taking fish oil supplementation during the study.

 

Author Conclusion:
  • Daily administration of omega-3 fatty acids combined with a diet and exercise program was safe and well tolerated and reduced fasting TG levels among HIV-infected subjects receiving antiretroviral therapy.
  • Increased in LDL cholesterol levels were consistently seen in subjects assigned to the fish oil arm. Further study of the effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cholesterol subsets is warranted.
  • Diet and exercise counseling alone did not lead to significant improvements in TG levels or other lipid parameters.
  • Atherotech and European Reference Botanical Laboratories supplied the study medication at no charge.
  • Two of the authors (Wohl, Simpson) serve on the speakers' bureaus of various pharmaceutical companies and also receive grant support from these pharmaceutical companies.

 

Funding Source:
University/Hospital: University of North Carolina Center for AIDS Research
Reviewer Comments:

Small sample size, no sample size calculation; however this was a pilot study.

Subjects were not blinded to fish oil supplementation.

Subjects self-reported adherence to fish oil treatment.

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? No
  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? No
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? No
  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? Yes
  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? Yes
  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? Yes
  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)? ???
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? N/A
  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? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes