A randomized, crossover, head-to-head comparison of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid supplementation to reduce inflammation markers in men and women: the Comparing EPA to DHA (ComparED) Study
A randomized, crossover, head-to-head comparison of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid supplementation to reduce inflammation markers in men and women: the Comparing EPA to DHA (ComparED) Study
复制标题
DOI：
10.3945/ajcn.116.131896
复制
发表时间：
2016-08-01
影响因子：
7.1
通讯作者：
Lamarche, Benoit
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Allaire, Janie;Couture, Patrick;Lamarche, Benoit
背景资料：迄今为止，大多数关于二十碳五烯酸（EPA）和二十二碳六烯酸（DHA）在人体中抗炎作用的研究都使用了这两种脂肪酸以各种形式和比例的混合物。（再酯化三酰甘油; 90%纯度）对炎症标志物的影响（主要结局）和血脂（次要结果）在男性和女性的心血管疾病的风险。设计：在一项双盲、随机、交叉、对照研究中，患有腹部肥胖和轻度全身炎症的健康男性（n = 48）和女性（n = 106）在10周的时间内每天服用3 g以下补充剂：1）EPA（2.7 g/d），2）DHA（2.7 g/d），和3）玉米油作为对照，每次补充由9周的洗脱期分开。初步分析评估了EPA和DHA之间心脏代谢结果的差异。结果：与补充EPA相比，补充DHA导致白细胞介素-18（IL-18）的更大降低（分别为-7.0% +/- 2.8%和-0.5% +/-3.0%; P = 0.01）和脂联素增加幅度更大（分别为3.1% +/- 1.6%和-1.2% +/-1.7%; P < 0.001）。在DHA和EPA之间，CRP的变化（分别为-7.9% +/- 5.0%和-1.8% +/-6.5%; P = 0.25），IL-6（分别为-12.0% +/- 7.0%和-13.4% +/-7.0%; P = 0.86），肿瘤坏死因子-a（分别为-14.8% +/- 5.1%和-7.6% +/-10.2%; P = 0.63）为NS。与EPA相比，DHA导致甘油三酯更明显的减少（分别为-13.3% +/- 2.3%和-11.9% +/-2.2%; P = 0.005）和胆固醇：HDL-胆固醇比值（分别为-2.5% +/- 1.3%和0.3% +/-1.1%; P = 0.006）和HDL胆固醇增加幅度更大（分别为7.6% +/- 1.4%和-0.7% +/-1.1%; P < 0.0001）和LDL胆固醇（分别为6.9% +/- 1.8%和2.2% +/-1.6%; P = 0.04）。与EPA相比，DHA的LDL-胆固醇浓度的增加在男性中是显著的，但在女性中不是（P-治疗x性别相互作用= 0.046）。结论：DHA在调节炎症和血脂的特定标志物方面比EPA更有效。需要进一步的研究来确定长期补充DHA本身对心血管疾病风险的影响。
Background: To date, most studies on the anti-inflammatory effects of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in humans have used a mixture of the 2 fatty acids in various forms and proportions.Objectives: We compared the effects of EPA supplementation with those of DHA supplementation (re-esterified triacylglycerol; 90% pure) on inflammation markers (primary outcome) and blood lipids (secondary outcome) in men and women at risk of cardiovascular disease.Design: In a double-blind, randomized, crossover, controlled study, healthy men (n = 48) and women (n = 106) with abdominal obesity and low-grade systemic inflammation consumed 3 g/d of the following supplements for periods of 10 wk: 1) EPA (2.7 g/d), 2) DHA (2.7 g/d), and 3) corn oil as a control with each supplementation separated by a 9-wk washout period. Primary analyses assessed the difference in cardiometabolic outcomes between EPA and DHA.Results: Supplementation with DHA compared with supplementation with EPA led to a greater reduction in interleukin-18 (IL-18) (-7.0% +/- 2.8% compared with -0.5% +/- 3.0%, respectively; P = 0.01) and a greater increase in adiponectin (3.1% +/- 1.6% compared with -1.2% +/- 1.7%, respectively; P < 0.001). Between DHA and EPA, changes in CRP (-7.9% +/- 5.0% compared with -1.8% +/- 6.5%, respectively; P = 0.25), IL-6 (-12.0% +/- 7.0% compared with -13.4% +/- 7.0%, respectively; P = 0.86), and tumor necrosis factor-a (-14.8% +/- 5.1% compared with -7.6% +/- 10.2%, respectively; P = 0.63) were NS. DHA compared with EPA led to more pronounced reductions in triglycerides (-13.3% +/- 2.3% compared with -11.9% +/- 2.2%, respectively; P = 0.005) and the cholesterol: HDL-cholesterol ratio (-2.5% +/- 1.3% compared with 0.3% +/- 1.1%, respectively; P = 0.006) and greater increases in HDL cholesterol (7.6% +/- 1.4% compared with -0.7% +/- 1.1%, respectively; P < 0.0001) and LDL cholesterol (6.9% +/- 1.8% compared with 2.2% +/- 1.6%, respectively; P = 0.04). The increase in LDL-cholesterol concentrations for DHA compared with EPA was significant in men but not in women (P-treatment x sex interaction = 0.046).Conclusions: DHA is more effective than EPA in modulating specific markers of inflammation as well as blood lipids. Additional studies are needed to determine the effect of a long-term DHA supplementation per se on cardiovascular disease risk.