Effect of Eicosapentaenoic Acid/Docosahexaenoic Acid on Coronary High-Intensity Plaques Detected Using Noncontrast T1-weighted Imaging: The AQUAMARINE EPA/DHA Randomized Study.

AIM: Omega-3 fatty acids have emerged as a new option for controlling the residual risk for coronary artery disease (CAD) in the statin era. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) is associated with reduced CAD risk in the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention trial, whereas the Statin Residual Risk with Epanova in High Cardiovascular Risk Patients with Hypertriglyceridemia trial that used the combination EPA/docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) has failed to derive any clinical benefit. These contradictory results raise important questions about whether investigating the antiatherosclerotic effect of omega-3 fatty acids could help to understand their significance for CAD-risk reduction. METHODS: The Attempts at Plaque Vulnerability Quantification with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using Noncontrast T1-weighted Technic EPA/DHA study is a single-center, triple-arm, randomized, controlled, open-label trial used to investigate the effect of EPA/DHA on high-risk coronary plaques after 12 months of treatment, detected using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in patients with CAD receiving statin therapy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to no-treatment, 2-g/day, and 4-g/day EPA/DHA groups. The primary endpoint was the change in the plaque-to-myocardium signal intensity ratio (PMR) of coronary high-intensity plaques detected by CMR. Coronary plaque assessment using computed tomography angiography (CTA) was also investigated. RESULTS: Overall, 84 patients (mean age: 68.2 years, male: 85%) who achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of ＜100 mg/dL were enrolled. The PMR was reduced in each group over 12 months. There were no significant differences in PMR changes among the three groups in the primary analysis or analysis including total lesions. The changes in CTA parameters, including indexes for detecting high-risk features, also did not differ. CONCLUSION: The EPA/DHA therapy of 2 or 4 g/day did not significantly improve the high-risk features of coronary atherosclerotic plaques evaluated using CMR under statin therapy.

A possible explanation for the contrasting results of REDUCE-IT vs. STRENGTH: cohort study mimicking trial designs.

AIMS: We tested the hypothesis that the contrasting results for the effect of high-dose, purified omega-3 fatty acids on the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in two randomized trials, Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) vs. Long-Term Outcomes Study to Assess Statin Residual Risk with Epanova in High Cardiovascular Risk Patients with Hypertriglyceridaemia (STRENGTH), can be explained by differences in the effect of active and comparator oils on lipid traits and C-reactive protein. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Copenhagen General Population Study (CGPS) with 106 088 individuals, to mimic trial designs we analysed those who met key inclusion criteria in REDUCE-IT (n = 5684; ASCVD = 852) and STRENGTH (n = 6862; ASCVD = 697). Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease incidence was followed for the median durations of REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH (4.9 and 3.5 years), respectively. When combining changes in plasma triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and C-reactive protein observed in the active oil groups of the original studies, estimated hazard ratios for ASCVD in the CGPS were 0.96 [95% confidence interval 0.93-0.99] mimicking REDUCE-IT and 0.94 (0.91-0.98) mimicking STRENGTH. In the comparator oil groups, corresponding hazard ratios were 1.07 (1.04-1.10) and 0.99 (0.98-0.99). Combining these results, the active oil vs. comparator oil hazard ratio was 0.88 (0.84-0.93) in the CGPS mimicking REDUCE-IT compared to 0.75 (0.68-0.83) in the REDUCE-IT. The corresponding hazard ratio was 0.96 (0.93-0.99) in the CGPS mimicking STRENGTH compared to 0.99 (0.90-1.09) in STRENGTH. CONCLUSION: The contrasting results of REDUCE-IT vs. STRENGTH can partly be explained by a difference in the effect of comparator oils (mineral vs. corn), but not of active oils [eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) vs. EPA + docosahexaenoic acid], on lipid traits and C-reactive protein. The unexplained additional 13% risk reduction in REDUCE-IT likely is through other effects of EPA or mineral oil.