DLM: Omega-3 Fatty Acids (2009-2010)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

To examine the association of alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) intake, specifically with the risk of sudden cardiac death as well as with other causes of cardiac death and non-fatal MI, during 18 years of follow-up.

Inclusion Criteria:
  • Enrolled in the Nurses' Health Study
  • Returned the 1984 dietary questionnaire
  • Could have a reported prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), including angina, MI, coronary revascularization or stroke, at baseline.
Exclusion Criteria:
  • 10 or more blank items on the 1984 dietary questionnaire
  • Improbable reported food intakes (under 660kcal or over 3,500kcal per day) from the questionnaire
  • History of cancer (except non-melanoma skin cancer) before 1984.
Description of Study Protocol:
  • Recruitment: Current participant in the Nurses' Health Study
  • Design: Cohort study
  • Blinding used: Physicians examining medical records to confirm outcomes were blinded to exposure status.

Intervention

  • Semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was mailed to participants in 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994 and 1998
  • Follow-up every two years, with mailed questionnaires that update exposure information and inquire about newly-diagnosed medical illnesses
  • Deaths were reported by next of kin or postal authorities or identified through a search of the National Death Index
    • Acquisition of death certificates to confirm deaths
    • Medical record review
    • Interview next of kin if medical records were inadequate.

Statistical Analysis

  •  Age-adjusted means or proportions of cardiovascular risk factors were calculated across quintiles of ALA intake
    • Person-months of follow-up were calculated from the date of return of the 1984 questionnaire to the date of the first end point, death or June 1, 2002, whichever came first
    • Because the authors thought short-term intake might be more likely to affect risk, an updated dietary analysis was performed that used the most recent dietary intake and carried forward the last observation for those with missing values (24% of updated observations).
  • Proportional hazards models were used to compute age- and multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios as estimates of relative risk across quintiles of ALA
    • Two multivariate models used:
      • The first controlled for coronary risk factors, updated prior report of CVD, alcohol intake, aspirin, vitamin supplements and post-menopausal hormone use
      • The second included the covariates in Model One and additionally controlled for intake of other fatty acids that resulted in a change of more than 10% in the parameter estimate for ALA intake.
    • All variables, including dietary variables, were treated as time-varying covariates, with the most recent exposure used to predict outcome
    • Tests for linear trend were performed by assigning the median value to each quintile and modeling this as a continuous variable in separate proportional hazards models
    • Examined the possibility of a non-linear relationship between ALA intake and sudden cardiac death risk non-parametrically, by using restricted cubic spline transformations and tested for non-linearity with the likeihood ratio test.
  • To determine whether the effect of ALA might differ in secondary or primary prevention, similar analyses were performed after stratifying the population by the presence or absence of a confirmed cardiovascular event
    • Performed stratified analyses that tested for an effect modification by long-chain n-3 fatty acids
    • Examined interactions with aspirin intake, age (under 60 vs. 60 or more years) and n-6 fatty acids, by adding cross-product terms between ALA and exposure of interest into the full multivariate model.
Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

  • FFQ was completed and mailed at five time points
  • Questionnaires updating exposure information and health information were mailed every two years.

Dependent Variables

  • Sudden cardiac death: Death or cardiac arrest that precipitated death occurred within one hour of symptom onset
  • Fatal CHD: Defined by ICD-9 codes 410 to 412, if confirmed by hospital records or autopsy or if CHD was the most probable cause and was listed as the cause of death on the death certificate
  • Nonfatal MI.

Independent Variables

ALA intake: Total linolenic acid values were used as a surrogate for ALA intake, as the USDA database contains values only for total linolenic acid and ALA constitutes the vast majority of total dietary linolenic intake.

Control Variables

  • Age
  • Calories
  • Smoking status
    • Never
    • In the past
    • Currently one to 14 cigarettes per day
    • 15 to 24 cigarettes per day
    • 25 or more cigarettes per day.
  • BMI
    • Under 22
    • 22 to 22.9
    • 23 to 24.9
    • 25 to 28.9
    • 29 or higher.
  • Menopausal status and post-menopausal hormone use
  • Vigorous to moderate activity
    • Less than two hours per week
    • Two to 3.9 hours per week
    • Four or more hours per week.
  • Usual aspirin use
    • Less than once per week
    • Once to six times per week
    • Seven times or more per week.
  • Multi-vitamin use (yes or no)
  • Vitamin E supplement use (yes or no)
  • History of hypertension (yes or no)
  • Hypercholesterolemia (yes or no)
  • Diabetes (yes or no)
  • Family history of MI
    • None
    • Before 60 years of age
    • After 60 years of age
  • History of prior CVD (yes or no)
  • Trans-unsaturated fat
  • Ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fat
  • Omega-3 fatty acids.
Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N

  • 97,423 women returned the baseline questionnaire in 1984
    • 15,666 excluded for reasons related to completion of questionnaire
    • 4,994 excluded for history of cancer before 1984

Attrition (Final N)

76,763.

Age

See table below.

Ethnicity

Not described.

Other Relevant Demographics

See table below.

Anthropometrics

See table below.

Relationship of Quintiles of Linolenic Acid Intake to CHD Risk Factors at Baseline*

Variable Quintile One Quintile Two Quintile Three Quintile Four Quintile Five
Median (Energy Percentage) 0.37 0.45 0.52 0.60 0.74
No. Women, Mean (SD), y 50.7 (7.3) 50.4 (7.2) 50.6 (7.1) 51.0 (7.1) 51.3 (7.0)
Smoking, N (Percentage) Past 4,610 (30.0) 4,660 (30.4) 4,752 (31.0) 5,090 (33.2) 5,362 (34.9)
Current; 1-14 Cigarettes Per Day
1,138 (7.4) 103 (7.2) 1,096 (7.1) 1,166 (7.6) 1,240 (8.1)
Current ;15-24 Cigarettes Per Day 1,450 (9.4) 1,497 (9.7) 1,492 (9.7) 1,421 (9.3) 1,609 (10.5)
Current; ≥25 Cigarettes Per Day 121 (7.3) 1,022 (6.6) 1,039 (6.7) 1,011 (6.6) 1,163 (7.6)
Reported Diagnosis Diabetes, N (Percentage) 473 (3.1) 447 (3.0) 482 (3.2) 502 (3.2) 569 (3.6)
Hypercholesterolemia, N (Percentage) 1,465 (9.6) 1,322 (8.8)  1,232 (8.1) 1,321 (8.5)  1,379 (8.8) 
Hypertension, N (Percentage) 3,475 (22.7) 3,270 (21.7)  3,289 (21.6) 3,457 (22.3)  3,532 (22.6) 
CVD, N (Percentage) 608 (3.9) 511 (3.4)  499 (3.3)  484 (3.1)  509 (3.2) 
BMI ≥29 2,301 (15.0) 2,432 (15.9)  2,463 (16.1) 2,615 (17.0) 2,666 (17.3) 
Parental h/o MI Before 60 Years 2,240 (14.6) 2,310 (15.0)  2,291 (14.9)  2,278 (14.9)  2,313 (15.1) 
Alcohol Intake 0.1g to 4.9g Per Day
4,681 (30.4) 5,244 (34.0)  5,206 (33.9)  5,247 (34.3)  5,279 (34.5) 
5.0g to 14.9g Per Day 2,816 (18.3) 3,108 (20.2)  3,351 (21.8) 3,587 (23.4) 3,608 (23.5) 
≥15.0g Per Day 2,523 (16.5) 2,061 (13.5)  2,029 (13.3)  1,976 (12.9)  1,861 (12.1) 
Aspirin Use (≥7 Times Per Week, Percentage) 2,970 (19.3) 2,792 (18.3)  2,817 (18.4)  2,872 (18.7)  2,756 (17.9) 
Post-Menopausal Hormone Use (Current) 2,106 (3.8) 1,956 (13.0)  2,031 (13.4)  2,091 (13.5)  2,113 (13.4) 
Physical Activity (Moderate and Vigorous) 2 to 3.9 Hours per week 2,641 (17.2) 2,808 (18.3)  2,726 (17.7)  2,696 (17.6)  2,651 (17.3) 
4 to 6.9 Hours per week 4,389 (28.6) 4,403 (28.6)  4,448 (28.9)  4,547 (29.7) 4,372 (28.6) 
≥7 Hours per week 538 (3.5) 450 (2.9)  450 (2.9)  527 (3.5)  513 (3.4) 
Vitamin Supplement Use Vitamin E, N (Percentage) 2,870 (18.7) 2,498 (16.4)  2,500 (16.3)  2,562 (16.7)  2,668 (17.3) 
Multivitamin, N (Percentage) 6,217 (40.5) 5,679 (37.0)  5,659 (36.9)  5,447 (35.5)  5,365 (34.9) 

 *All percentages standardized for age to the total cohort.

Location

Brigham & Women's Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard School of Public Health; Boston, MA.

Summary of Results:

 Relative Risks (95% CI) of CHD According to Quintiles of Updated Linolenic Fatty Acid Intake

  Quintile One Quintile Two Quintile Three Quintile Four Quintile Five P for Trend
Median, Energy Percentage 0.37 0.45 0.52 0.60 0.75  
Sudden Cardiac Death No. of Cases 54 44 40 32 36  
Person-Years 265,219 264,770 264,962 264,647 264,520  
Incidence Rate* 20 17 15 12 14  
Age-Adjusted 1.0 0.89
(0.60-1.33)
0.82
(0.54-1.25)
0.67
(0.43-1.04)
0.70
(0.45-1.07)
0.06
Multivariate One 1.0  0.85
(0.57-1.27)
0.76
(0.50-1.16)
0.63
(0.40-0.98)
0.63
(0.41-0.98) 
0.02 
Multivariate Two 1.0  0.86
(0.57-1.29)
0.76
(0.50-1.16)
0.62
(0.39-0.98)
0.60
(0.37-0.96)
0.02 
Other Fatal CHD No. of Cases 146 144 116 112 123  
Person-Years 262,158 261,640  261,741  261,735  261,359   
Incidence Rate* 56 55  44  43  47   
Age-Adjusted 1.0 1.18
(0.94-1.49) 
1.03
(0.80-1.32) 
1.03
(0.80-1.32)
1.04
(0.81-1.33) 
0.89 
Multivariate One 1.0 1.13
(0.89-1.43) 
0.91
(0.71-1.17) 
0.93
(0.72-1.19)
0.93
(0.73-1.19) 
0.27 
Multivariate Two 1.0 1.13
(0.89-1.43) 
0.92
(0.71-1.18) 
0.96
(0.74-1.25) 
1.01
(0.77-1.33) 
0.74 
Non-Fatal MI No. of Cases 340 321  307  302  334   
Incidence Rate* 130 123  117  115  128   
Age-Adjusted 1.0 1.06
(0.91-1.23) 
1.07
(0.91-1.25) 
1.07
(0.91-1.25) 
1.14
(0.98-1.34) 
0.11 
Multivariate One  1.0 1.03
(0.88-1.20)
1.01
(0.86-1.18) 
1.00
(0.86-1.18) 
1.05
(0.90-1.23) 
0.62 
Multivariate Two  1.0 1.03
(0.88-1.20)
1.01
(0.86-1.18) 
1.02
(0.86-1.20)
1.09
(0.92-1.29)
0.38 

 *Incidence per 100,000 person-years

  • ALA was the predominant N-3 fatty acid consumed, with intake ranging from 0.37% of total energy intake in the lowest quintile to 0.74% in the highest. Corresonding percentages for combined EPA and DHA were 0.03% to 0.23%, respectively. The median absolute intake of ALA was 0.66g per day in the lowest and 1.39g per day in the highest.
  • In age-adjusted analyses, greater ALA intake was associated with a trend toward a lower risk of sudden cardiac death
  • After controlling for multiple coronary risk factors, the inverse relationship became significant and remained significant when other fatty acids were included in the model
  • ALA intake was not significantly related to other non-sudden fatal CHD events or to non-fatal MI in any of the age-adjusted or multivariate models
  • The inverse association with sudden cardiac death became significant in the fourth quintile of intake, corresponding to a median absolute intake of 1.16g per day. Multivariate spline regression confirmed a linear relation (P for linear trend, 0.02).
  • For every 0.1% increase in energy intake from ALA, the associated hazard ratio was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.80-0.98)
  • Women in the two highest quintiles of ALA intake had a 38% to 40% lower sudden cardiac death risk.

Primary vs. Secondary Prevention: Relative Risks (95% CI) of Sudden Cardiac Death, According to Quintiles of Linolenic Acid Intake, Stratified by History of Non-Fatal CVD Before the Sudden Cardiac Death

  Quintile One Quintile Two Quintile Three Quintile Four Quintile Five P for Trend
Median Energy Percentage 0.37 0.45 0.52 0.60 0.74  
No Prior History of CVD No. of Cases 40 34 34 24 27  
Person-Years 252,241 251,981 251,869 251,644 251,727  
Incidence Rate* 16 13 14 10 11  
Age-Adjusted 1.0 0.92
(0.58-1.45)
0.92
(0.58-1.47)
0.65
(0.39-1.09)
0.68
(0.41-1.12)
0.06
Multivariate 1.0 0.89
(0.56-1.41)
0.86
(0.54-1.39)
0.60
(0.35-1.03)
0.59
(0.34-1.02)
0.03
Prior History of CVD Median Energy Percentage 0.35 0.43 0.49 0.58 0.72  
No. of Cases 13 9 6 10 9  
Person-Years 13,007 12,965 12,936 12,907 12,841  
Incidence Rate* 100 69 46 77 70  
Age-Adjusted 1.0 0.67
(0.28-1.58)
0.44
(0.16-1.16)
0.75
(0.32-1.75)
0.65
(0.27-1.57)
0.50
Multivariate 1.0 0.68
(0.28-1.64)
0.38
(0.14-1.06)
0.76
(0.30-1.88)
0.53
(0.19-1.45)
0.33

*Incidence per 100,000 person-years

  1. The dose-response relationship between ALA and sudden cardiac death was only apparent among women without a history of prior CVD. The test for interaction was not significant (P=0.55).

Other Findings

  • The lowest risks for sudden cardiac death were among those women with the highest intakes of both EPA and DHA. Compared with those with the lowest intakes, the relative hazard for sudden cardiac death was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.21-0.79, P=0.008) among those in the highest quintile of ALA intake who were also above the median for EPA plus DHA intake.
  • There was no evidence of interaction between ALA intake and aspirin use, N-6 fatty acid intake or age.
Author Conclusion:

This data provides evidence for an inverse association between alpha-linolenic acid intake and sudden cardiac death rise among women.

Funding Source:
Government: NIH
Reviewer Comments:
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) Yes
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? N/A
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) N/A
  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? Yes
  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? N/A
  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? Yes
  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? N/A
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? Yes
  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? 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)? Yes
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  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