The REDUCE-IT clinical trial formed the basis for the expanded recommendations for use of Vascepa, the prescription fish-oil medication. This was an expensive trial, involving 11 countries and hundreds of medical centers with 999 physicians who recruited subjects, collected data, and kept track of the subjects for close to five years. With over 8,000 subjects, this was no easy task. As I said in Thursday’s Memo, they examined the primary and secondary prevention when the medication is taken with statins versus a placebo with statins.

While this was a tremendous effort, there are still some concerns, in my opinion.

Study Concerns

A board made up of physicians and the pharmaceutical company’s staff designed the study and helped execute it; the pharmaceutical company paid for the clinical trial, collected and managed the data, analyzed the data, and interpreted the results. Then the statistics were reviewed by an independent statistician. This creates a huge conflict of interest regardless of safeguards that may have been put in place.

When any type of study is supported by companies with vested interests in the outcome, there will always be questions. That has been true for every dietary supplement manufacturer that’s ever funded a study as well as the milk and sugar industry. It’s especially true for this study. I began by talking about a report from the financial sector. Billions of dollars are on the line. That has to be considered by the FDA before final approval is given.

I have a tendency to have faith in science, as skeptical as I may be at times. And that’s where my concerns lie; not in the financial aspect but in the study design and results.

My Concerns

As complicated as this study was, it was incomplete in my opinion. They did not collect any data on the subjects’ diet; a small change in diet could have reduced triglycerides (TG) enough to have a positive impact on secondary outcomes. The median change in TG over five years with the medication was 45 mg/dl, from about 215 down to 170 in the medication group, while it was reduced 13 mg/dl in the placebo group. We don’t know whether a group that focused on dietary changes to reduce TG would have the same reduction in CVD events; that would have been an excellent addition to the study design.

They also didn’t have a group using fish oil from dietary supplements. True, it’s not their responsibility, but we can’t know whether the same benefit might not occur if the dosing of EPA were equal:

• Almost every study that has used fish oil to examine whether CVD outcomes could be reduced has used fish oil with 1 gram of EPA.
• If the amount of EPA were the same, a head-to-head comparison between a supplement and medication that each had 4 grams EPA might have found a similar benefit.

The real issue is that we don’t know what makes the fish-oil medication work, just like we don’t know completely how dietary omega-3 fatty acids work. Is it just the reduction in the TG or how the oils work in the body? Are genetics involved? Diet? The microbiome? We have no idea at this time.

The Bottom Line

I’ll keep on eye on the approval process for this fish-oil pharmaceutical and let you know how it will be prescribed in the future. The decrease in TG found in the study can be done with lifestyle changes alone, so is it going to be worth the cost of a pharmaceutical for a slight reduction in CVD events? Remember the difference between medication and placebo was just 4.8%. If you fall in that category, you’ll have to decide for yourself: pharmaceutical fish oil or lifestyle change. In this case, a little work may go a long way.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

P.S. This will be the last Memo until after Thanksgiving. Paula and I are doing something we haven’t done in 20 years: go on a real vacation, just us, just for fun. No work of any type. Talk to you again December 3.

Reference: N Engl J Med 2019;380:11-22. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1812792.