Risks and benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review systematically the evidence for an effect of long chain and shorter chain omega 3 fatty acids on total mortality, cardiovascular events, and cancer. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases searched to February 2002; authors contacted and bibliographies of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) checked to locate studies. REVIEW METHODS: Review of RCTs of omega 3 intake for (3) 6 months in adults (with or without risk factors for cardiovascular disease) with data on a relevant outcome. Cohort studies that estimated omega 3 intake and related this to clinical outcome during at least 6 months were also included. Application of inclusion criteria, data extraction, and quality assessments were performed independently in duplicate. RESULTS: Of 15,159 titles and abstracts assessed, 48 RCTs (36,913 participants) and 41 cohort studies were analysed. The trial results were inconsistent. The pooled estimate showed no strong evidence of reduced risk of total mortality (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.03) or combined cardiovascular events (0.95, 0.82 to 1.12) in participants taking additional omega 3 fats. The few studies at low risk of bias were more consistent, but they showed no effect of omega 3 on total mortality (0.98, 0.70 to 1.36) or cardiovascular events (1.09, 0.87 to 1.37). When data from the subgroup of studies of long chain omega 3 fats were analysed separately, total mortality (0.86, 0.70 to 1.04; 138 events) and cardiovascular events (0.93, 0.79 to 1.11) were not clearly reduced. Neither RCTs nor cohort studies suggested increased risk of cancer with a higher intake of omega 3 (trials: 1.07, 0.88 to 1.30; cohort studies: 1.02, 0.87 to 1.19), but clinically important harm could not be excluded. CONCLUSION: Long chain and shorter chain omega 3 fats do not have a clear effect on total mortality, combined cardiovascular events, or cancer.

Primary standardization of assays for anticonvulsant drugs: comparison of accuracy and precision.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy and precision of methods for the measurement of the anticonvulsants phenytoin, phenobarbital, primidone, carbamazepine, ethosuximide, and valproate in human serum were assessed in 297 laboratories that were participants in the United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Scheme (UKNEQAS). METHODS: We distributed lyophilized, serum-based materials containing low, medium, and high weighed-in concentrations of the drugs. The 297 participating laboratories received the materials on two occasions, 7 months apart. Expected concentrations were determined by gas chromatography or HPLC methods in five laboratories using serum-based NIST reference materials as calibrators. RESULTS: In general, bias was consistent across concentrations for a method but often differed in magnitude for different drugs. Bias ranged from -1.9% to 8.6% for phenytoin, -2.7% to 3.1% for phenobarbital, -2.7% to 0.5% for primidone, -8.6% to 0.3% for carbamazepine, -5.6% to 2.0% for ethosuximide, and -7.2% to 0.1% for valproate. Intralaboratory sources of imprecision significantly exceeded interlaboratory sources for many drug/method combinations. The mean CVs for intra- and interlaboratory errors for the different drugs were 6.3-7.8% and 3.3-4.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For these long-established and relatively high-concentration analytes, the closed analytical platforms generally performed no better than open systems or chromatography, where use of calibrators prepared in house predominated. To improve the accuracy of measurements, work is required principally by the manufacturers of immunoassays to ensure minimal calibration error and to eliminate batch-to-batch variability of reagents. Individual laboratories should concentrate on minimizing dispensing errors.

Scoring and performance of analysis and interpretation of toxicologic cases assessed by external quality assurance.

Quantitative analysis of toxicology cases requires knowledgeable interpretation. We describe a scoring scheme that integrates analytical and interpretive performance for such cases using a reward/penalty scoring scheme. This scheme has been validated on cases circulated over the previous 5 years to volunteer participants in the UKNEQAS for Drug Assays Scheme. We have been able to identify a subset of poorly performing laboratories that should desist from toxicologic analysis and interpretation.