Fish oil may be hurting your brain, new study finds

 Godawful click-bait headline! Ask your competent? doctor if stroke is not comparable to the events descried here. 

Fish oil may be hurting your brain, new study finds

Date:

April 26, 2026

Source:

Medical University of South Carolina

Summary:

Fish oil has long been praised as brain-boosting, but new research suggests the story may be more complicated. Scientists found that in people with repeated mild head injuries, a key omega-3 fatty acid in fish oil—EPA—may actually interfere with the brain’s ability to repair itself. Instead of helping recovery, it appears to weaken blood vessel stability, disrupt healing signals, and even contribute to harmful protein buildup linked to cognitive decline.

A new study from the Medical University of South Carolina is raising fresh concerns about fish oil supplements, especially for people who experience repeated mild traumatic brain injuries. Writing in the journal Cell Reports, researchers report that these widely used supplements, often promoted as protective for the brain, could actually interfere with healing after injury.

The research was led by neuroscientist Onder Albayram, Ph.D., an associate professor at MUSC and a member of the National Trauma Society Committee. His team focused on the biological processes involved in repairing blood vessels in the brain after injury.

Rising Popularity of Omega-3 Supplements

Interest in omega-3 fatty acids, the key components of fish oil, has been growing rapidly. According to Fortune Business Insights, these supplements are now appearing not only in capsules but also in drinks, dairy alternatives, and snack products.

That surge in popularity does not surprise Albayram. "Fish oil supplements are everywhere, and people take them for a range of reasons, often without a clear understanding of their long-term effects," he said.

"But in terms of neuroscience, we still don't know whether the brain has resilience or resistance to this supplement. That's why ours is the first such study in the field."

Albayram collaborated with Eda Karakaya, Ph.D., Adviye Ergul, M.D., Ph.D., and several other researchers at MUSC and partner institutions. Among them was Semir Beyaz, Ph.D., at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Cancer Center in New York.

EPA Identified as a Potential Weak Point in Brain Recovery

The team discovered what they describe as a context-dependent metabolic vulnerability. In simple terms, this means that changes in how cells use energy may reduce the brain's ability to recover under certain conditions. This vulnerability appears to be linked to the buildup of eicosapentaenoic acid, or EPA, one of the main omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil.

In their experimental models, higher levels of EPA in the brain were associated with weaker repair after injury.

Albayram noted that not all omega-3s behave the same way. Docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, is well known for its beneficial role in the brain and is a major part of neuronal membranes. EPA, however, follows a different pathway. It is less incorporated into brain structures, and its effects can vary depending on how long it is present and the surrounding biological conditions. Because of this, the long-term impact of omega-3 intake on brain recovery and blood vessel adaptation has remained unclear.

Experiments Link Diet, Brain Biology, and Recovery

To better understand these effects, the researchers used a series of models to connect diet, brain function, and healing. In mice, they examined how long-term fish oil use influenced the brain's response to repeated mild head impacts. Their focus was on signals related to blood vessel stability and repair.

They also studied human brain microvascular endothelial cells, which form part of the barrier between the brain and the bloodstream. In these cells, EPA, but not DHA, was linked to reduced repair capacity, aligning with the findings from the animal models.

To extend the findings to real-world disease, the team analyzed postmortem brain tissue from individuals diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) who had a history of repeated brain injury.

The researchers described the results as having "implications for precision nutrition, therapeutic strategies and the design of dietary interventions targeting brain injury and neurodegeneration."

Key Findings From the Study

The study identified several major patterns, which are summarized below along with simplified explanations.

EPA-driven neurovascular instability triggers perivascular tauopathy and cognitive decline following TBI.

"In a sensitive brain state modeled in mice, long-term fish oil supplementation revealed a delayed vulnerability. The animals showed poorer neurological and spatial learning performance over time, together with clear evidence of vascular-associated tau accumulation in the cortex, linking impaired recovery to neurovascular dysfunction and perivascular tau pathology," Albayram said.

EPA reprograms cortical transcriptional responses and suppresses angiogenic signaling following traumatic brain injury.

"In the injured cortex, the team observed a coordinated shift in gene programs that normally support vascular stability and repair," Albayram said. "The pattern included reduced expression of genes tied to extracellular matrix organization and endothelial integrity, alongside broader changes consistent with altered lipid handling after injury."

EPA utilization under permissive metabolic conditions impairs angiogenesis and endothelial integrity, recapitulating post-traumatic brain injury cerebrovascular dysfunction.

Albayram said that in human brain microvascular endothelial cells, EPA did not act as a universal toxin. "Instead, when cells were placed in conditions that encouraged fatty acid engagement, EPA was associated with weaker angiogenic network formation and reduced endothelial barrier integrity, matching key features of the neurovascular repair deficit seen in vivo."

CTE brain reveals neurovascular and fatty acid metabolic reprogramming consistent with EPA-linked vulnerability.

"In postmortem cortex from neuropathologically confirmed CTE cases with a history of repetitive brain injury, the researchers found evidence of disrupted fatty acid balance and broad transcriptional changes affecting vascular and metabolic pathways," Albayram said. "This human arm was used to provide translational context, asking whether chronic disease tissue shows convergent signatures of altered lipid handling and reduced vascular stability."

What the Findings Mean for Fish Oil Use

Albayram stressed that the study should not be interpreted as a blanket warning against fish oil. "I am not saying fish oil is good or bad in some universal way," he said. "What our data highlight is that biology is context-dependent. We need to understand how these supplements behave in the body over time, rather than assuming the same effect applies to everyone."

The researchers hope their work encourages a more careful look at omega-3 supplementation, both in clinical settings and among the general public. Their experiments focused on a specific scenario, repeated mild brain injury, and used CTE tissue to provide supporting observations rather than direct proof of cause and effect.

"As with any study, there are important boundaries," Albayram said. "In the human CTE tissue, we can observe patterns, but we cannot prove what drove them. We also cannot capture every variable that shapes omega-3 handling in real life, including overall diet, health status and lifestyle."

Next Steps in Understanding Omega-3 Effects

The team plans to continue investigating how EPA moves through the body, including how it is absorbed, transported, and distributed. They are especially interested in the mechanisms that control fatty acid movement.

"This paper is a starting point," Albayram said, "but it is an important one. It opens a new conversation about precision nutrition in neuroscience, and it gives the field a framework to ask better, more testable questions."

A new study from the Medical University of South Carolina is raising fresh concerns about fish oil supplements, especially for people who experience repeated mild traumatic brain injuries. Writing in the journal Cell Reports, researchers report that these widely used supplements, often promoted as protective for the brain, could actually interfere with healing after injury.

The research was led by neuroscientist Onder Albayram, Ph.D., an associate professor at MUSC and a member of the National Trauma Society Committee. His team focused on the biological processes involved in repairing blood vessels in the brain after injury.

Rising Popularity of Omega-3 Supplements

Interest in omega-3 fatty acids, the key components of fish oil, has been growing rapidly. According to Fortune Business Insights, these supplements are now appearing not only in capsules but also in drinks, dairy alternatives, and snack products.

That surge in popularity does not surprise Albayram. "Fish oil supplements are everywhere, and people take them for a range of reasons, often without a clear understanding of their long-term effects," he said.

"But in terms of neuroscience, we still don't know whether the brain has resilience or resistance to this supplement. That's why ours is the first such study in the field."

Albayram collaborated with Eda Karakaya, Ph.D., Adviye Ergul, M.D., Ph.D., and several other researchers at MUSC and partner institutions. Among them was Semir Beyaz, Ph.D., at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Cancer Center in New York.

EPA Identified as a Potential Weak Point in Brain Recovery

The team discovered what they describe as a context-dependent metabolic vulnerability. In simple terms, this means that changes in how cells use energy may reduce the brain's ability to recover under certain conditions. This vulnerability appears to be linked to the buildup of eicosapentaenoic acid, or EPA, one of the main omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil.

In their experimental models, higher levels of EPA in the brain were associated with weaker repair after injury.

Albayram noted that not all omega-3s behave the same way. Docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, is well known for its beneficial role in the brain and is a major part of neuronal membranes. EPA, however, follows a different pathway. It is less incorporated into brain structures, and its effects can vary depending on how long it is present and the surrounding biological conditions. Because of this, the long-term impact of omega-3 intake on brain recovery and blood vessel adaptation has remained unclear.

Experiments Link Diet, Brain Biology, and Recovery

To better understand these effects, the researchers used a series of models to connect diet, brain function, and healing. In mice, they examined how long-term fish oil use influenced the brain's response to repeated mild head impacts. Their focus was on signals related to blood vessel stability and repair.

They also studied human brain microvascular endothelial cells, which form part of the barrier between the brain and the bloodstream. In these cells, EPA, but not DHA, was linked to reduced repair capacity, aligning with the findings from the animal models.

To extend the findings to real-world disease, the team analyzed postmortem brain tissue from individuals diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) who had a history of repeated brain injury.

The researchers described the results as having "implications for precision nutrition, therapeutic strategies and the design of dietary interventions targeting brain injury and neurodegeneration."

Key Findings From the Study

The study identified several major patterns, which are summarized below along with simplified explanations.

EPA-driven neurovascular instability triggers perivascular tauopathy and cognitive decline following TBI.

"In a sensitive brain state modeled in mice, long-term fish oil supplementation revealed a delayed vulnerability. The animals showed poorer neurological and spatial learning performance over time, together with clear evidence of vascular-associated tau accumulation in the cortex, linking impaired recovery to neurovascular dysfunction and perivascular tau pathology," Albayram said.

EPA reprograms cortical transcriptional responses and suppresses angiogenic signaling following traumatic brain injury.

"In the injured cortex, the team observed a coordinated shift in gene programs that normally support vascular stability and repair," Albayram said. "The pattern included reduced expression of genes tied to extracellular matrix organization and endothelial integrity, alongside broader changes consistent with altered lipid handling after injury."

EPA utilization under permissive metabolic conditions impairs angiogenesis and endothelial integrity, recapitulating post-traumatic brain injury cerebrovascular dysfunction.

Albayram said that in human brain microvascular endothelial cells, EPA did not act as a universal toxin. "Instead, when cells were placed in conditions that encouraged fatty acid engagement, EPA was associated with weaker angiogenic network formation and reduced endothelial barrier integrity, matching key features of the neurovascular repair deficit seen in vivo."

CTE brain reveals neurovascular and fatty acid metabolic reprogramming consistent with EPA-linked vulnerability.

"In postmortem cortex from neuropathologically confirmed CTE cases with a history of repetitive brain injury, the researchers found evidence of disrupted fatty acid balance and broad transcriptional changes affecting vascular and metabolic pathways," Albayram said. "This human arm was used to provide translational context, asking whether chronic disease tissue shows convergent signatures of altered lipid handling and reduced vascular stability."

What the Findings Mean for Fish Oil Use

Albayram stressed that the study should not be interpreted as a blanket warning against fish oil. "I am not saying fish oil is good or bad in some universal way," he said. "What our data highlight is that biology is context-dependent. We need to understand how these supplements behave in the body over time, rather than assuming the same effect applies to everyone."

The researchers hope their work encourages a more careful look at omega-3 supplementation, both in clinical settings and among the general public. Their experiments focused on a specific scenario, repeated mild brain injury, and used CTE tissue to provide supporting observations rather than direct proof of cause and effect.

"As with any study, there are important boundaries," Albayram said. "In the human CTE tissue, we can observe patterns, but we cannot prove what drove them. We also cannot capture every variable that shapes omega-3 handling in real life, including overall diet, health status and lifestyle."

Next Steps in Understanding Omega-3 Effects

The team plans to continue investigating how EPA moves through the body, including how it is absorbed, transported, and distributed. They are especially interested in the mechanisms that control fatty acid movement.

"This paper is a starting point," Albayram said, "but it is an important one. It opens a new conversation about precision nutrition in neuroscience, and it gives the field a framework to ask better, more testable questions."

Materials provided by Medical University of South Carolina. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:

Eda Karakaya, Burak Berber, Onur Eskiocak, Jazlyn Edwards, Randy Bent Barker, Sarah Jamil, Weiguo Li, Yasir Abdul, Maria Ericsson, Thor Stein, Ann McKee, Adviye Ergul, Semir Beyaz, Onder Albayram. Eicosapentaenoic acid reprograms cerebrovascular metabolism and impairs repair after brain injury, with relevance to chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Cell Reports, 2026; 117135 DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2026.117135

Materials provided by Medical University of South Carolina. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Should you be taking an omega-3 supplement?

I do even though I usually get two servings of salmon a week. Don't follow me, your doctor should know more about this than I do. 

Should you be taking an omega-3 supplement?

The answer to that question is becoming clearer, thanks to new research.

Published: April, 2019

Some 10% of American adults regularly take an omega-3 supplement, despite uncertainty about whether these products truly live up to their health claims. But two new studies published in November 2018 shed some light on who might benefit from omega-3 supplements — and who probably won't.

VITAL

The first study was the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), a large multiyear study with 25,871 healthy adults with no history of cardiovascular (heart or blood vessel–related) disease and at "usual risk" for it. The group was racially diverse and chosen to be representative of the general population, says the study's lead author Dr. JoAnn E. Manson, professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women's Health at Harvard Medical School.
Researchers tested, among other things, whether a moderate dosage (1 gram a day) of an omega-3 supplement could help prevent major cardiovascular events, compared with a placebo. Cardiovascular events included not only heart attacks, but stroke, and angioplasty procedures to clear blocked arteries.(Oh god, completely out-of-date.

The WHO reclassified stroke in 2006, now a neurological disease not a cardiovascular disease.)

"The findings are somewhat complex and nuanced. It's not a simple yes, or no, or one-size-fits-all answer. Some groups tended to benefit, while other groups didn't," says Dr. Manson.
Although a daily 1-gram omega-3 supplement did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events over all, there was a 28% reduction in heart attacks and promising signals for other heart-related endpoints, she says. While the supplement didn't seem to protect most healthy people against future heart problems, certain groups did appear to benefit, particularly people who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish a week or didn't eat fish at all. "For these people, there was a significant 19% reduction in the primary endpoint of major cardiovascular events, with a 40% reduction in heart attacks," says Dr. Manson.
The supplements also appeared to benefit African American participants, who saw a 77% reduction in heart attack for those receiving the omega-3 supplement, compared with those taking the placebo, says Dr. Manson. It's unclear why this group benefited more, and additional studies are needed to confirm the finding.

REDUCE-IT

The second study, called the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with EPA–Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT), included more than 8,000 middle-aged and older adults who had elevated triglyceride levels and who had already experienced a cardiovascular event or had other significant risk factors for one. It aimed to find out if a daily high-dose, 4-gram prescription omega-3 medication could protect participants against future cardiovascular events, compared with a placebo. This trial, led by Dr. Deepak Bhatt, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, found a substantial 25% reduction in the risk of dying from heart disease or suffering a cardiovascular event among people who took the medication, compared with those who had the placebo.
High doses of omega-3 supplements, like the high-dose omega-3 product used in this trial, aren't appropriate for everyone because they pose risks, such as bleeding or an increase in a type of abnormal heart rhythm known as atrial fibrillation, says Dr. Manson. "However, while high doses are associated with some risk, overall benefits of the high-dose omega-3 product used in the trial appeared to outweigh the risks for people with high triglyceride levels and a history of, or at high risk of, cardiovascular disease," says Dr. Manson.

Choosing the right supplement Looking for an over-the-counter omega-3 supplement? Here's what to look for: A 1-gram dose, unless your doctor recommends more. A combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Each of these fatty acids provides different health benefits. A quality supplement. Good quality indicators are seals from U.S. Pharmacopeia, NSF International, or ConsumerLab.com. If your triglyceride levels are abnormally high and you have an elevated risk for cardiovascular disease, talk to your doctor about whether a high-dose omega-3 prescription might be an option.

Putting the findings into practice

So, what do these findings mean for you?
People in good health. If you're healthy and at low or average risk for heart disease, chances are you don't need an omega-3 supplement, provided you eat fish often, says Dr. Manson. You should eat at least two servings a week of fatty fish, such as salmon, tuna, or herring. Aim for fish that are high in two different omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), each of which provides unique health benefits.
Getting your omega-3 fatty acids from food is always preferable to a supplement. Not only do you get the marine omega-3 fatty acids from the fish, but you also potentially replace less healthful foods in your diet, such as red meat, processed foods, or refined grains, says Dr. Manson. "It's a good lifestyle change to make and has been a recommendation for a while. Nothing in these studies supersedes the recommendation for moderate fish intake," she says.
Non–fish eaters and African Americans. However, if you can't eat fish or don't like fish, an omega-3 supplement is something to consider. (Algae-based supplements are an option if you are a vegetarian or allergic to fish.) African Americans might also consider a supplement because of the unique benefits revealed in this trial.
For these two groups, a daily 1-gram supplement could provide a good balance between safety and efficacy. "Talk to your health care provider about whether you're a candidate for a supplement," says Dr. Manson.
Already taking omega-3s? If you're already taking an over-the-counter omega-3 supplement, you don't necessarily need to stop taking it if you don't fall into one of the categories above, unless your doctor tells you to. But if you're not taking an omega-3 supplement, whether you should start really depends on your individual risk factors, says Dr. Manson.
Regardless of whether you opt for an omega-3 supplement, you should always strive to maintain a healthy diet and lifestyle. "No dietary supplement is a substitute. We already know that, and I think this is an important point to reinforce," says Dr. Manson. "Healthy lifestyle practices, including regular physical activity, healthy diet, and not smoking, will reduce heart disease risk by close to 80%, and that's really the main recommendation for heart health," she says.
Cardiovascular risk factors. If you have an elevated triglyceride level and a history of cardiovascular disease or have major risk factors for it, a high-dose omega-3 medication may be advisable. This is true even if you're already taking a statin medication. The omega-3 drug does not replace the statin.

Fast facts about the two trials The Vitamin D and Omega-3 trial (VITAL) This study was published online Nov. 10, 2018, by The New England Journal of Medicine. Funding source: The U.S. National Institutes of Health. Who: 25,871 healthy, racially diverse individuals, including 12,786 men ages 50 and older and 13,085 women ages 55 and older. What: A daily 1-gram omega-3 prescription supplement that included a combination of two omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). A 1-gram dose was chosen because it is a moderate amount that is unlikely to produce side effects. A control group took a placebo. Key takeaways: Omega-3 supplements likely won't benefit people who eat at least 1.5 servings of fish per week. Omega-3 supplements may benefit people with low fish consumption or those with African American heritage. The Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with EPA–Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) This study was published online Nov. 10, 2018, by The New England Journal of Medicine. Funding source: Amarin, Inc., the company that makes the prescription-strength medication used in the study. Who: 8,179 middle-aged men and women who had high triglyceride levels and risk factors for heart disease or had already experienced a heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular event. Risk factors included conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes. Everyone in the trial was taking a statin to reduce high cholesterol. What: A daily high-dose, 4-gram prescription omega-3 medication or a placebo. Unlike over-the-counter omega-3s, the medication included EPA only. Key takeaways: This medication may help to protect high-risk individuals from cardiovascular events. Those taking it were 25% less likely to die from heart disease or to have a heart attack, stroke, or a type of chest pain called angina. They were also less likely to need a procedure to open a blocked heart artery. If you have a high triglyceride level and have had a heart attack or stroke or have risk factors for cardiovascular disease, you might benefit from taking the high-dose omega-3 product.

Marine n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and the risk of ischemic stroke

You don't want another stroke so have your doctor create a diet protocol for this.  You need to know EXACT amounts per body weight and sex. No guessing allowed.

YOUR DOCTORS' RESPONSIBILITY!

Marine n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and the risk of ischemic stroke

Stroke — Venø SK, et al. | January 07, 2019

In this investigation, researchers tested the premise that total marine n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), especially eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in diet and adipose tissue (biomarkers of long-term intake and endogenous exposure), are inversely linked to ischemic stroke risk and its subtypes. Study participants included 57,053 enrollees of the Diet, Cancer and Health cohort (aged 50-65 years). A full 1,879 participants had an ischemic stroke during 13.5 years of follow-up. Apart from cardioembolism, EPA was associated with lower risks of most types of ischemic stroke, whereas inconsistent findings were observed for total marine n-3 PUFA and DHA. The EPA content in adipose tissue was inversely linked to small-vessel occlusion.

Read the full article on Stroke

Marine n-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and the Risk of Ischemic Stroke

Useless without giving us protocol amounts per weight and sex. And we have to figure out what EPA and DHA are. Why the fuck was this research done if not to accomplish helping those at risk for stroke? Damn it all, not your job?

Marine n-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and the Risk of Ischemic Stroke

Stine K. Venø

,

Christian S. Bork

,

Marianne U. Jakobsen

,

Søren Lundbye-Christensen

,

Peter L. McLennan

,

Flemming W. Bach

,

Kim Overvad

,

Erik B. Schmidt

Originally published3 Jan 2019https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023384Stroke. 2019;0:STROKEAHA.118.023384

Abstract

Background and Purpose—

We hypothesized that total marine n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), in particular eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in the diet and in adipose tissue (biomarkers of long-term intake and endogenous exposure) were inversely associated with the risk of ischemic stroke and its subtypes.

Methods—

The Diet, Cancer and Health cohort consisted of 57 053 participants aged 50 to 65 years at enrolment. All participants filled in a food frequency questionnaire and had an adipose tissue biopsy taken at baseline. Information on ischemic stroke during follow-up was obtained from The Danish National Patient Register, and all cases were validated. Cases and a random sample of 3203 subjects from the whole cohort had their fatty acid composition of adipose tissue determined by gas chromatography.

Results—

During 13.5 years of follow-up 1879 participants developed an ischemic stroke. Adipose tissue content of EPA was inversely associated with total ischemic stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62–0.88) when comparing the highest with the lowest quartile. Also, lower rates of large artery atherosclerosis were seen with higher intakes of total marine n-3 PUFA (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50–0.95), EPA (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48–0.91) and DHA (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53–0.99), and higher adipose tissue content of EPA (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.36–0.76). Higher rates of cardioembolism were seen with higher intakes of total marine n-3 PUFA (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.38–4.53) and DHA (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.21–3.69) as well as with higher adipose tissue content of total marine n-3 PUFA (HR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.33–5.19) and DHA (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.04–3.84). The EPA content in adipose tissue was inversely associated with small-vessel occlusion (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55–0.88).

Conclusions—

EPA was associated with lower risks of most types of ischemic stroke, apart from cardioembolism, while inconsistent findings were observed for total marine n-3 PUFA and DHA.

Footnotes

Presented in part at the European Atherosclerosis Society Congress, Lisbon, Portugal, May 8, 2018.
The online-only Data Supplement is available with this article at https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/suppl/10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023384.

Correspondence to Stine Krogh Venø, MD, Department of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Søndre Skovvej 15, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark. Email s.venoe@rn.dk

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies of eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic long-chain omega-3 fatty acids and coronary heart disease risk

I really hate these literature searches and meta-analysis, they always seem to need more followup to be useful rather than doing it right in the first place and doing some real research. Regardless, I bet your doctor does nothing with this information. I assume higher CHD risk pretty much correlates to higher stroke risk, to be confirmed with your doctor.
A. Because s/he never read it.
B. Because s/he could not be bothered to understand how to implement it in a protocol.
C. It is not my job. I am waiting for SOMEONE ELSE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

https://www.mdlinx.com/internal-medicine/medical-news-article/2017/01/17/coronary-heart-disease/6996471/?

Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 01/17/2017 Alexander DD, et al.

The target of this study was to assess the impact of eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acid (EPA+DHA) on coronary heart disease (CHD), and to lead meta–analyses of prospective cohort studies to estimate the association between EPA+DHA consumption and CHD risk. Outcomes show that EPA+DHA might be connected with lessening CHD risk, with a greater benefit found among higher–risk populations in RCTs.

Methods

• For this study they design a systematic literature search. From January 1, 1947, to November 2, 2015 they search Ovid/Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, 18 RCTs and 16 prospective cohort studies examining EPA+DHA from foods or supplements and CHD, including myocardial infarction, sudden cardiac death, coronary death, and angina, were recognized.
• Random–effects meta–analysis models were utilized to generate summary relative risk estimates (SRREs) and 95% CIs.
• Heterogeneity was analyzed in subgroup and sensitivity examinations and by meta–regression.
• Dose–response was assessed in stratified dose or consumption investigations.
• Publication bias evaluations were performed.

Results

• Among RCTs, there was a nonstatistically significant decrease in CHD risk with EPA+DHA provision (SRRE=0.94; 95% CI, 0.85–1.05).
• Subgroup examinations of information from RCTs demonstrated a statistically significant CHD risk decrease with EPA+DHA provision among higher–risk populations, including participants with elevated triglyceride levels (SRRE=0.84; 95% CI, 0.72–0.98) and elevated low–density lipoprotein cholesterol (SRRE=0.86; 95% CI, 0.76–0.98).
• Meta–analysis of information from prospective cohort studies resulted in a statistically significant SRRE of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.74–0.92) for higher consumptions of EPA+DHA and risk of any CHD event.

Go to PubMed Go to Abstract Print Article Summary Cat 2 CME Report