Omega-3 and polyunsaturated fat for prevention of depression and anxiety symptoms: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: There is strong public belief that polyunsaturated fats protect against and ameliorate depression and anxiety. AIMS: To assess effects of increasing omega-3, omega-6 or total polyunsaturated fat on prevention and treatment of depression and anxiety symptoms. METHOD: We searched widely (Central, Medline and EMBASE to April 2017, trial registers to September 2016, ongoing trials updated to August 2019), including trials of adults with or without depression or anxiety, randomised to increased omega-3, omega-6 or total polyunsaturated fat for ≥24 weeks, excluding multifactorial interventions. Inclusion, data extraction and risk of bias were assessed independently in duplicate, and authors contacted for further data. We used random-effects meta-analysis, sensitivity analyses, subgrouping and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment. RESULTS: We included 31 trials assessing effects of long-chain omega-3 (n = 41 470), one of alpha-linolenic acid (n = 4837), one of total polyunsaturated fat (n = 4997) and none of omega-6. Meta-analysis suggested that increasing long-chain omega-3 probably has little or no effect on risk of depression symptoms (risk ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.92-1.10, I2 = 0%, median dose 0.95 g/d, duration 12 months) or anxiety symptoms (standardised mean difference 0.15, 95% CI 0.05-0.26, I2 = 0%, median dose 1.1 g/d, duration 6 months; both moderate-quality evidence). Evidence of effects on depression severity and remission in existing depression were unclear (very-low-quality evidence). Results did not differ by risk of bias, omega-3 dose, duration or nutrients replaced. Increasing alpha-linolenic acid by 2 g/d may increase risk of depression symptoms very slightly over 40 months (number needed to harm, 1000). CONCLUSIONS: Long-chain omega-3 supplementation probably has little or no effect in preventing depression or anxiety symptoms. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: L.H. and A.A. were funded to attend the World Health Organization Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group (NUGAG) Subgroup on Diet and Health meetings and present review results. The authors report no other conflicts of interest.

Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Reducing saturated fat reduces serum cholesterol, but effects on other intermediate outcomes may be less clear. Additionally, it is unclear whether the energy from saturated fats eliminated from the diet are more helpfully replaced by polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, carbohydrate or protein. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of reducing saturated fat intake and replacing it with carbohydrate (CHO), polyunsaturated (PUFA), monounsaturated fat (MUFA) and/or protein on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity, using all available randomised clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) on 15 October 2019, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 October 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included trials fulfilled the following criteria: 1) randomised; 2) intention to reduce saturated fat intake OR intention to alter dietary fats and achieving a reduction in saturated fat; 3) compared with higher saturated fat intake or usual diet; 4) not multifactorial; 5) in adult humans with or without cardiovascular disease (but not acutely ill, pregnant or breastfeeding); 6) intervention duration at least 24 months; 7) mortality or cardiovascular morbidity data available. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed inclusion, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression, subgrouping, sensitivity analyses, funnel plots and GRADE assessment. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (16 comparisons, 56,675 participants), that used a variety of interventions from providing all food to advice on reducing saturated fat. The included long-term trials suggested that reducing dietary saturated fat reduced the risk of combined cardiovascular events by 17% (risk ratio (RR) 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.98, 12 trials, 53,758 participants of whom 8% had a cardiovascular event, I² = 67%, GRADE moderate-quality evidence). Meta-regression suggested that greater reductions in saturated fat (reflected in greater reductions in serum cholesterol) resulted in greater reductions in risk of CVD events, explaining most heterogeneity between trials. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 56 in primary prevention trials, so 56 people need to reduce their saturated fat intake for ~four years for one person to avoid experiencing a CVD event. In secondary prevention trials, the NNTB was 53. Subgrouping did not suggest significant differences between replacement of saturated fat calories with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate, and data on replacement with monounsaturated fat and protein was very limited. We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all-cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants), both with GRADE moderate-quality evidence. There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07) or CHD mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16, both low-quality evidence), but effects on total (fatal or non-fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non-fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality. There was little or no effect on cancer mortality, cancer diagnoses, diabetes diagnosis, HDL cholesterol, serum triglycerides or blood pressure, and small reductions in weight, serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI. There was no evidence of harmful effects of reducing saturated fat intakes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this updated review suggest that reducing saturated fat intake for at least two years causes a potentially important reduction in combined cardiovascular events. Replacing the energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate appear to be useful strategies, while effects of replacement with monounsaturated fat are unclear. The reduction in combined cardiovascular events resulting from reducing saturated fat did not alter by study duration, sex or baseline level of cardiovascular risk, but greater reduction in saturated fat caused greater reductions in cardiovascular events.

Effects of total fat intake on body fatness in adults.

BACKGROUND: The ideal proportion of energy from fat in our food and its relation to body weight is not clear. In order to prevent overweight and obesity in the general population, we need to understand the relationship between the proportion of energy from fat and resulting weight and body fatness in the general population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of proportion of energy intake from fat on measures of body fatness (including body weight, waist circumference, percentage body fat and body mass index) in people not aiming to lose weight, using all appropriate randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least six months duration. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to October 2019. We did not limit the search by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials fulfilled the following criteria: 1) randomised intervention trial, 2) included adults aged at least 18 years, 3) randomised to a lower fat versus higher fat diet, without the intention to reduce weight in any participants, 4) not multifactorial and 5) assessed a measure of weight or body fatness after at least six months. We duplicated inclusion decisions and resolved disagreement by discussion or referral to a third party. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on the population, intervention, control and outcome measures in duplicate. We extracted measures of body fatness (body weight, BMI, percentage body fat and waist circumference) independently in duplicate at all available time points. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression, subgrouping, sensitivity, funnel plot analyses and GRADE assessment. MAIN RESULTS: We included 37 RCTs (57,079 participants). There is consistent high-quality evidence from RCTs that reducing total fat intake results in small reductions in body fatness; this was seen in almost all included studies and was highly resistant to sensitivity analyses (GRADE high-consistency evidence, not downgraded). The effect of eating less fat (compared with higher fat intake) is a mean body weight reduction of 1.4 kg (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.7 to -1.1 kg, in 53,875 participants from 26 RCTs, I2 = 75%). The heterogeneity was explained in subgrouping and meta-regression. These suggested that greater weight loss results from greater fat reductions in people with lower fat intake at baseline, and people with higher body mass index (BMI) at baseline. The size of the effect on weight does not alter over time and is mirrored by reductions in BMI (MD -0.5 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.6 to -0.3, 46,539 participants in 14 trials, I2 = 21%), waist circumference (MD -0.5 cm, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2, 16,620 participants in 3 trials; I2 = 21%), and percentage body fat (MD -0.3% body fat, 95% CI -0.6 to 0.00, P = 0.05, in 2350 participants in 2 trials; I2 = 0%). There was no suggestion of harms associated with low fat diets that might mitigate any benefits on body fatness. The reduction in body weight was reflected in small reductions in LDL (-0.13 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.05), and total cholesterol (-0.23 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.14), with little or no effect on HDL cholesterol (-0.02 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.00), triglycerides (0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.07), systolic (-0.75 mmHg, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.07) or diastolic blood pressure(-0.52 mmHg, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.09), all GRADE high-consistency evidence or quality of life (0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07, on a scale of 0 to 10, GRADE low-consistency evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trials where participants were randomised to a lower fat intake versus a higher fat intake, but with no intention to reduce weight, showed a consistent, stable but small effect of low fat intake on body fatness: slightly lower weight, BMI, waist circumference and percentage body fat compared with higher fat arms. Greater fat reduction, lower baseline fat intake and higher baseline BMI were all associated with greater reductions in weight. There was no evidence of harm to serum lipids, blood pressure or quality of life, but rather of small benefits or no effect.

Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Reducing saturated fat reduces serum cholesterol, but effects on other intermediate outcomes may be less clear. Additionally, it is unclear whether the energy from saturated fats eliminated from the diet are more helpfully replaced by polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, carbohydrate or protein. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of reducing saturated fat intake and replacing it with carbohydrate (CHO), polyunsaturated (PUFA), monounsaturated fat (MUFA) and/or protein on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity, using all available randomised clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) on 15 October 2019, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 October 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included trials fulfilled the following criteria: 1) randomised; 2) intention to reduce saturated fat intake OR intention to alter dietary fats and achieving a reduction in saturated fat; 3) compared with higher saturated fat intake or usual diet; 4) not multifactorial; 5) in adult humans with or without cardiovascular disease (but not acutely ill, pregnant or breastfeeding); 6) intervention duration at least 24 months; 7) mortality or cardiovascular morbidity data available. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed inclusion, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression, subgrouping, sensitivity analyses, funnel plots and GRADE assessment. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (16 comparisons, ~59,000 participants), that used a variety of interventions from providing all food to advice on reducing saturated fat. The included long-term trials suggested that reducing dietary saturated fat reduced the risk of combined cardiovascular events by 21% (risk ratio (RR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.93, 11 trials, 53,300 participants of whom 8% had a cardiovascular event, I² = 65%, GRADE moderate-quality evidence). Meta-regression suggested that greater reductions in saturated fat (reflected in greater reductions in serum cholesterol) resulted in greater reductions in risk of CVD events, explaining most heterogeneity between trials. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 56 in primary prevention trials, so 56 people need to reduce their saturated fat intake for ~four years for one person to avoid experiencing a CVD event. In secondary prevention trials, the NNTB was 32. Subgrouping did not suggest significant differences between replacement of saturated fat calories with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate, and data on replacement with monounsaturated fat and protein was very limited. We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all-cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants), both with GRADE moderate-quality evidence. There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07) or CHD mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16, both low-quality evidence), but effects on total (fatal or non-fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non-fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality. There was little or no effect on cancer mortality, cancer diagnoses, diabetes diagnosis, HDL cholesterol, serum triglycerides or blood pressure, and small reductions in weight, serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI. There was no evidence of harmful effects of reducing saturated fat intakes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this updated review suggest that reducing saturated fat intake for at least two years causes a potentially important reduction in combined cardiovascular events. Replacing the energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate appear to be useful strategies, while effects of replacement with monounsaturated fat are unclear. The reduction in combined cardiovascular events resulting from reducing saturated fat did not alter by study duration, sex or baseline level of cardiovascular risk, but greater reduction in saturated fat caused greater reductions in cardiovascular events.

Omega-3, Omega-6, and Polyunsaturated Fat for Cognition: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Neurocognitive function may be influenced by polyunsaturated fat intake. Many older adults consume omega-3 supplements hoping to prevent cognitive decline. We assessed effects of increasing omega-3, omega-6, or total polyunsaturated fats on new neurocognitive illness and cognition. DESIGN AND INCLUSION CRITERIA: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults, with duration ≥24 weeks, assessing effects of higher vs lower omega-3, omega-6, or total polyunsaturated fats and outcomes: new neurocognitive illness, newly impaired cognition, and/or continuous measures of cognition. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and trials registers (final update of ongoing trials December 2018). We duplicated screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Neurocognitive measures were grouped to enable random effects meta-analysis. GRADE assessment, sensitivity analyses, and subgrouping by dose, duration, type of intervention, and replacement were used to interrogate our findings. RESULTS: Searches generated 37,810 hits, from which we included 38 RCTs (41 comparisons, 49,757 participants). Meta-analysis suggested no or very little effect of long-chain omega-3 on new neurocognitive illness [risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-1.10, 6 RCTs, 33,496 participants, I2 36%), new cognitive impairment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92-1.06, 5 RCTs, 33,296 participants, I2 0%) or global cognition assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MD 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.16, 13 RCTs, 14,851 participants, I2 0%), all moderate-quality evidence. Effects did not differ with sensitivity analyses, and we found no differential effects by dose, duration, intervention type, or replacement. Effects of increasing α-linolenic acid, omega-6, or total PUFA were unclear. CONCLUSIONS: This extensive trial data set enabled assessment of effects on neurocognitive illness and cognitive decline not previously adequately assessed. Long-chain omega-3 probably has little or no effect on new neurocognitive outcomes or cognitive impairment. IMPLICATIONS: Long-chain omega-3 supplements do not help older adults protect against cognitive decline.

Omega-3, omega-6 and total dietary polyunsaturated fat on cancer incidence: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between long-chain omega-3 (LCn3), alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), omega-6 and total polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) intakes and cancer risk is unclear. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and trials registries for RCTs comparing higher with lower LCn3, ALA, omega-6 and/or total PUFA, that assessed cancers over ≥12 months. Random-effects meta-analyses, sensitivity analyses, subgrouping, risk of bias and GRADE were used. RESULTS: We included 47 RCTs (108,194 participants). Increasing LCn3 has little or no effect on cancer diagnosis (RR1.02, 95% CI 0.98-1.07), cancer death (RR0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.06) or breast cancer diagnosis (RR1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.20); increasing ALA has little or no effect on cancer death (all high/moderate-quality evidence). Increasing LCn3 (NNTH 334, RR1.10, 95% CI 0.97-1.24) and ALA (NNTH 334, RR1.30, 95% CI 0.72-2.32) may slightly increase prostate cancer risk; increasing total PUFA may slightly increase risk of cancer diagnosis (NNTH 125, RR1.19, 95% CI 0.99-1.42) and cancer death (NNTH 500, RR1.10, 95% CI 0.48-2.49) but total PUFA doses were very high in some trials. CONCLUSIONS: The most extensive systematic review to assess the effects of increasing PUFAs on cancer risk found increasing total PUFA may very slightly increase cancer risk, offset by small protective effects on cardiovascular diseases.

Omega-3 fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from oily fish (long-chain omega-3 (LCn3)), including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)), as well as from plants (alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)) may benefit cardiovascular health. Guidelines recommend increasing omega-3-rich foods, and sometimes supplementation, but recent trials have not confirmed this. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of increased intake of fish- and plant-based omega-3 fats for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, adiposity and lipids. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to February 2019, plus ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry to August 2019, with no language restrictions. We handsearched systematic review references and bibliographies and contacted trial authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that lasted at least 12 months and compared supplementation or advice to increase LCn3 or ALA intake, or both, versus usual or lower intake. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed validity. We performed separate random-effects meta-analysis for ALA and LCn3 interventions, and assessed dose-response relationships through meta-regression. MAIN RESULTS: We included 86 RCTs (162,796 participants) in this review update and found that 28 were at low summary risk of bias. Trials were of 12 to 88 months' duration and included adults at varying cardiovascular risk, mainly in high-income countries. Most trials assessed LCn3 supplementation with capsules, but some used LCn3- or ALA-rich or enriched foods or dietary advice compared to placebo or usual diet. LCn3 doses ranged from 0.5 g a day to more than 5 g a day (19 RCTs gave at least 3 g LCn3 daily). Meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses suggested little or no effect of increasing LCn3 on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.01; 143,693 participants; 11,297 deaths in 45 RCTs; high-certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 117,837 participants; 5658 deaths in 29 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), cardiovascular events (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01; 140,482 participants; 17,619 people experienced events in 43 RCTs; high-certainty evidence), stroke (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12; 138,888 participants; 2850 strokes in 31 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) or arrhythmia (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 77,990 participants; 4586 people experienced arrhythmia in 30 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). Increasing LCn3 may slightly reduce coronary heart disease mortality (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 334, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.00; 127,378 participants; 3598 coronary heart disease deaths in 24 RCTs, low-certainty evidence) and coronary heart disease events (NNTB 167, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97; 134,116 participants; 8791 people experienced coronary heart disease events in 32 RCTs, low-certainty evidence). Overall, effects did not differ by trial duration or LCn3 dose in pre-planned subgrouping or meta-regression. There is little evidence of effects of eating fish. Increasing ALA intake probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20; 19,327 participants; 459 deaths in 5 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence),cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.25; 18,619 participants; 219 cardiovascular deaths in 4 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), coronary heart disease mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26; 18,353 participants; 193 coronary heart disease deaths in 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and coronary heart disease events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22; 19,061 participants; 397 coronary heart disease events in 4 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). However, increased ALA may slightly reduce risk of cardiovascular disease events (NNTB 500, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; but RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.04 in RCTs at low summary risk of bias; 19,327 participants; 884 cardiovascular disease events in 5 RCTs; low-certainty evidence), and probably slightly reduces risk of arrhythmia (NNTB 91, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; 4912 participants; 173 events in 2 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). Effects on stroke are unclear. Increasing LCn3 and ALA had little or no effect on serious adverse events, adiposity, lipids and blood pressure, except increasing LCn3 reduced triglycerides by ˜15% in a dose-dependent way (high-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-3 fats on cardiovascular health to date. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence suggests that increasing LCn3 slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease mortality and events, and reduces serum triglycerides (evidence mainly from supplement trials). Increasing ALA slightly reduces risk of cardiovascular events and arrhythmia.

Omega-3 fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have suggested that omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from oily fish (long-chain omega-3 (LCn3), including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)), as well as from plants (alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)) benefit cardiovascular health. Guidelines recommend increasing omega-3-rich foods, and sometimes supplementation, but recent trials have not confirmed this. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of increased intake of fish- and plant-based omega-3 for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CVD) events, adiposity and lipids. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to April 2017, plus ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry to September 2016, with no language restrictions. We handsearched systematic review references and bibliographies and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that lasted at least 12 months and compared supplementation and/or advice to increase LCn3 or ALA intake versus usual or lower intake. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed validity. We performed separate random-effects meta-analysis for ALA and LCn3 interventions, and assessed dose-response relationships through meta-regression. MAIN RESULTS: We included 79 RCTs (112,059 participants) in this review update and found that 25 were at low summary risk of bias. Trials were of 12 to 72 months' duration and included adults at varying cardiovascular risk, mainly in high-income countries. Most studies assessed LCn3 supplementation with capsules, but some used LCn3- or ALA-rich or enriched foods or dietary advice compared to placebo or usual diet. LCn3 doses ranged from 0.5g/d LCn3 to > 5 g/d (16 RCTs gave at least 3g/d LCn3).Meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses suggested little or no effect of increasing LCn3 on all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03, 92,653 participants; 8189 deaths in 39 trials, high-quality evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03, 67,772 participants; 4544 CVD deaths in 25 RCTs), cardiovascular events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04, 90,378 participants; 14,737 people experienced events in 38 trials, high-quality evidence), coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09, 73,491 participants; 1596 CHD deaths in 21 RCTs), stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, 89,358 participants; 1822 strokes in 28 trials) or arrhythmia (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05, 53,796 participants; 3788 people experienced arrhythmia in 28 RCTs). There was a suggestion that LCn3 reduced CHD events (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97, 84,301 participants; 5469 people experienced CHD events in 28 RCTs); however, this was not maintained in sensitivity analyses - LCn3 probably makes little or no difference to CHD event risk. All evidence was of moderate GRADE quality, except as noted.Increasing ALA intake probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20, 19,327 participants; 459 deaths, 5 RCTs),cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.25, 18,619 participants; 219 cardiovascular deaths, 4 RCTs), and CHD mortality (1.1% to 1.0%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26, 18,353 participants; 193 CHD deaths, 3 RCTs) and ALA may make little or no difference to CHD events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, 19,061 participants, 397 CHD events, 4 RCTs, low-quality evidence). However, increased ALA may slightly reduce risk of cardiovascular events (from 4.8% to 4.7%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07, 19,327 participants; 884 CVD events, 5 RCTs, low-quality evidence with greater effects in trials at low summary risk of bias), and probably reduces risk of arrhythmia (3.3% to 2.6%, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10, 4,837 participants; 141 events, 1 RCT). Effects on stroke are unclear.Sensitivity analysis retaining only trials at low summary risk of bias moved effect sizes towards the null (RR 1.0) for all LCn3 primary outcomes except arrhythmias, but for most ALA outcomes, effect sizes moved to suggest protection. LCn3 funnel plots suggested that adding in missing studies/results would move effect sizes towards null for most primary outcomes. There were no dose or duration effects in subgrouping or meta-regression.There was no evidence that increasing LCn3 or ALA altered serious adverse events, adiposity or lipids, except LCn3 reduced triglycerides by ˜15% in a dose-dependant way (high-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-3 fats on cardiovascular health to date. Moderate- and high-quality evidence suggests that increasing EPA and DHA has little or no effect on mortality or cardiovascular health (evidence mainly from supplement trials). Previous suggestions of benefits from EPA and DHA supplements appear to spring from trials with higher risk of bias. Low-quality evidence suggests ALA may slightly reduce CVD event and arrhythmia risk.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the health effects of total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) is equivocal. Fish oils are rich in omega-3 PUFA and plant oils in omega-6 PUFA. Evidence suggests that increasing PUFA-rich foods, supplements or supplemented foods can reduce serum cholesterol, but may increase body weight, so overall cardiovascular effects are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of increasing total PUFA intake on cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality, lipids and adiposity in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to April 2017 and clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to September 2016, without language restrictions. We checked trials included in relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher with lower PUFA intakes in adults with or without cardiovascular disease that assessed effects over 12 months or longer. We included full texts, abstracts, trials registry entries and unpublished data. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality and events, risk factors (blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure), and adverse events. We excluded trials where we could not separate effects of PUFA intake from other dietary, lifestyle or medication interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We wrote to authors of included trials for further data. Meta-analyses used random-effects analysis, sensitivity analyses included fixed-effects and limiting to low summary risk of bias. We assessed GRADE quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 49 RCTs randomising 24,272 participants, with duration of one to eight years. Eleven included trials were at low summary risk of bias, 33 recruited participants without cardiovascular disease. Baseline PUFA intake was unclear in most trials, but 3.9% to 8% of total energy intake where reported. Most trials gave supplemental capsules, but eight gave dietary advice, eight gave supplemental foods such as nuts or margarine, and three used a combination of methods to increase PUFA.Increasing PUFA intake probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (risk 7.8% vs 7.6%, risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.07, 19,290 participants in 24 trials), but probably slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease events from 14.2% to 12.3% (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.06, 15 trials, 10,076 participants) and cardiovascular disease events from 14.6% to 13.0% (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.01, 17,799 participants in 21 trials), all moderate-quality evidence. Increasing PUFA may slightly reduce risk of coronary heart disease death (6.6% to 6.1%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, 9 trials, 8810 participants) andstroke (1.2% to 1.1%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44, 11 trials, 14,742 participants, though confidence intervals include important harms), but has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26, 16 trials, 15,107 participants) all low-quality evidence. Effects of increasing PUFA on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and atrial fibrillation are unclear as evidence is of very low quality.Increasing PUFA intake probably slightly decreases triglycerides (by 15%, MD -0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04, 20 trials, 3905 participants), but has little or no effect on total cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.02, 26 trials, 8072 participants), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, 18 trials, 4674 participants) or low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.06, 15 trials, 3362 participants). Increasing PUFA probably has little or no effect on adiposity (body weight MD 0.76 kg, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.19, 12 trials, 7100 participants).Effects of increasing PUFA on serious adverse events such as pulmonary embolism and bleeding are unclear as the evidence is of very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic review of RCTs conducted to date to assess effects of increasing PUFA on cardiovascular disease, mortality, lipids or adiposity. Increasing PUFA intake probably slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease events, may slightly reduce risk of coronary heart disease mortality and stroke (though not ruling out harms), but has little or no effect on all-cause or cardiovascular disease mortality. The mechanism may be via TG reduction.

Omega-6 fats for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Omega-6 fats are polyunsaturated fats vital for many physiological functions, but their effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is debated. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of increasing omega-6 fats (linoleic acid (LA), gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid (DGLA) and arachidonic acid (AA)) on CVD and all-cause mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to May 2017 and clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to September 2016, without language restrictions. We checked trials included in relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher versus lower omega-6 fat intake in adults with or without CVD, assessing effects over at least 12 months. We included full texts, abstracts, trials registry entries and unpublished studies. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, CVD events, risk factors (blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure), and potential adverse events. We excluded trials where we could not separate omega-6 fat effects from those of other dietary, lifestyle or medication interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts, assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included trials. We wrote to authors of included studies. Meta-analyses used random-effects analysis, while sensitivity analyses used fixed-effects and limited analyses to trials at low summary risk of bias. We assessed GRADE quality of evidence for 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs in 6461 participants who were followed for one to eight years. Seven trials assessed the effects of supplemental GLA and 12 of LA, none DGLA or AA; the omega-6 fats usually displaced dietary saturated or monounsaturated fats. We assessed three RCTs as being at low summary risk of bias.Primary outcomes: we found low-quality evidence that increased intake of omega-6 fats may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.12, 740 deaths, 4506 randomised, 10 trials) or CVD events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.15, 1404 people experienced events of 4962 randomised, 7 trials). We are uncertain whether increasing omega-6 fats affects CVD mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.55, 472 deaths, 4019 randomised, 7 trials), coronary heart disease events (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.17, 1059 people with events of 3997 randomised, 7 trials), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.20, 817 events, 2879 participants, 2 trials) or stroke (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.11, 54 events, 3730 participants, 4 trials), as we assessed the evidence as being of very low quality. We found no evidence of dose-response or duration effects for any primary outcome, but there was a suggestion of greater protection in participants with lower baseline omega-6 intake across outcomes.Additional key outcomes: we found increased intake of omega-6 fats may reduce myocardial infarction (MI) risk (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.02, 609 events, 4606 participants, 7 trials, low-quality evidence). High-quality evidence suggests increasing omega-6 fats reduces total serum cholesterol a little in the long term (mean difference (MD) -0.33 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.16, I2 = 81%; heterogeneity partially explained by dose, 4280 participants, 10 trials). Increasing omega-6 fats probably has little or no effect on adiposity (body mass index (BMI) MD -0.20 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.16, 371 participants, 1 trial, moderate-quality evidence). It may make little or no difference to serum triglycerides (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.21, 834 participants, 5 trials), HDL (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02, 1995 participants, 4 trials) or low-density lipoprotein (MD -0.04 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.14, 244 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-6 fats on cardiovascular health, mortality, lipids and adiposity to date, using previously unpublished data. We found no evidence that increasing omega-6 fats reduces cardiovascular outcomes other than MI, where 53 people may need to increase omega-6 fat intake to prevent 1 person from experiencing MI. Although benefits of omega-6 fats remain to be proven, increasing omega-6 fats may be of benefit in people at high risk of MI. Increased omega-6 fats reduce serum total cholesterol but not other blood fat fractions or adiposity.

Omega-6 fats for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Omega-6 fats are polyunsaturated fats vital for many physiological functions, but their effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is debated. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of increasing omega-6 fats (linoleic acid (LA), gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid (DGLA) and arachidonic acid (AA)) on CVD and all-cause mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to May 2017 and clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to September 2016, without language restrictions. We checked trials included in relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher versus lower omega-6 fat intake in adults with or without CVD, assessing effects over at least 12 months. We included full texts, abstracts, trials registry entries and unpublished studies. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, CVD events, risk factors (blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure), and potential adverse events. We excluded trials where we could not separate omega-6 fat effects from those of other dietary, lifestyle or medication interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts, assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included trials. We wrote to authors of included studies. Meta-analyses used random-effects analysis, while sensitivity analyses used fixed-effects and limited analyses to trials at low summary risk of bias. We assessed GRADE quality of evidence for 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs in 6461 participants who were followed for one to eight years. Seven trials assessed the effects of supplemental GLA and 12 of LA, none DGLA or AA; the omega-6 fats usually displaced dietary saturated or monounsaturated fats. We assessed three RCTs as being at low summary risk of bias.Primary outcomes: we found low-quality evidence that increased intake of omega-6 fats may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.12, 740 deaths, 4506 randomised, 10 trials) or CVD events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.15, 1404 people experienced events of 4962 randomised, 7 trials). We are uncertain whether increasing omega-6 fats affects CVD mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.55, 472 deaths, 4019 randomised, 7 trials), coronary heart disease events (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.17, 1059 people with events of 3997 randomised, 7 trials), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.20, 817 events, 2879 participants, 2 trials) or stroke (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.11, 54 events, 3730 participants, 4 trials), as we assessed the evidence as being of very low quality. We found no evidence of dose-response or duration effects for any primary outcome, but there was a suggestion of greater protection in participants with lower baseline omega-6 intake across outcomes.Additional key outcomes: we found increased intake of omega-6 fats may reduce myocardial infarction (MI) risk (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.02, 609 events, 4606 participants, 7 trials, low-quality evidence). High-quality evidence suggests increasing omega-6 fats reduces total serum cholesterol a little in the long term (mean difference (MD) -0.33 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.16, I2 = 81%; heterogeneity partially explained by dose, 4280 participants, 10 trials). Increasing omega-6 fats probably has little or no effect on adiposity (body mass index (BMI) MD -0.20 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.16, 371 participants, 1 trial, moderate-quality evidence). It may make little or no difference to serum triglycerides (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.21, 834 participants, 5 trials), HDL (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02, 1995 participants, 4 trials) or low-density lipoprotein (MD -0.04 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.14, 244 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-6 fats on cardiovascular health, mortality, lipids and adiposity to date, using previously unpublished data. We found no evidence that increasing omega-6 fats reduces cardiovascular outcomes other than MI, where 53 people may need to increase omega-6 fat intake to prevent 1 person from experiencing MI. Although benefits of omega-6 fats remain to be proven, increasing omega-6 fats may be of benefit in people at high risk of MI. Increased omega-6 fats reduce serum total cholesterol but not other blood fat fractions or adiposity.

Omega-3 fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have suggested that omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from oily fish (long-chain omega-3 (LCn3), including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)), as well as from plants (alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)) benefit cardiovascular health. Guidelines recommend increasing omega-3-rich foods, and sometimes supplementation, but recent trials have not confirmed this. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of increased intake of fish- and plant-based omega-3 for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CVD) events, adiposity and lipids. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to April 2017, plus ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry to September 2016, with no language restrictions. We handsearched systematic review references and bibliographies and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that lasted at least 12 months and compared supplementation and/or advice to increase LCn3 or ALA intake versus usual or lower intake. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed validity. We performed separate random-effects meta-analysis for ALA and LCn3 interventions, and assessed dose-response relationships through meta-regression. MAIN RESULTS: We included 79 RCTs (112,059 participants) in this review update and found that 25 were at low summary risk of bias. Trials were of 12 to 72 months' duration and included adults at varying cardiovascular risk, mainly in high-income countries. Most studies assessed LCn3 supplementation with capsules, but some used LCn3- or ALA-rich or enriched foods or dietary advice compared to placebo or usual diet.Meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses suggested little or no effect of increasing LCn3 on all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03, 92,653 participants; 8189 deaths in 39 trials, high-quality evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03, 67,772 participants; 4544 CVD deaths in 25 RCTs), cardiovascular events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04, 90,378 participants; 14,737 people experienced events in 38 trials, high-quality evidence), coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09, 73,491 participants; 1596 CHD deaths in 21 RCTs), stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, 89,358 participants; 1822 strokes in 28 trials) or arrhythmia (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05, 53,796 participants; 3788 people experienced arrhythmia in 28 RCTs). There was a suggestion that LCn3 reduced CHD events (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97, 84,301 participants; 5469 people experienced CHD events in 28 RCTs); however, this was not maintained in sensitivity analyses - LCn3 probably makes little or no difference to CHD event risk. All evidence was of moderate GRADE quality, except as noted.Increasing ALA intake probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20, 19,327 participants; 459 deaths, 5 RCTs),cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.25, 18,619 participants; 219 cardiovascular deaths, 4 RCTs), and it may make little or no difference to CHD events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, 19,061 participants, 397 CHD events, 4 RCTs, low-quality evidence). However, increased ALA may slightly reduce risk of cardiovascular events (from 4.8% to 4.7%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07, 19,327 participants; 884 CVD events, 5 RCTs, low-quality evidence), and probably reduces risk of CHD mortality (1.1% to 1.0%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26, 18,353 participants; 193 CHD deaths, 3 RCTs), and arrhythmia (3.3% to 2.6%, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10, 4,837 participants; 141 events, 1 RCT). Effects on stroke are unclear.Sensitivity analysis retaining only trials at low summary risk of bias moved effect sizes towards the null (RR 1.0) for all LCn3 primary outcomes except arrhythmias, but for most ALA outcomes, effect sizes moved to suggest protection. LCn3 funnel plots suggested that adding in missing studies/results would move effect sizes towards null for most primary outcomes. There were no dose or duration effects in subgrouping or meta-regression.There was no evidence that increasing LCn3 or ALA altered serious adverse events, adiposity or lipids, although LCn3 slightly reduced triglycerides and increased HDL. ALA probably reduces HDL (high- or moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-3 fats on cardiovascular health to date. Moderate- and high-quality evidence suggests that increasing EPA and DHA has little or no effect on mortality or cardiovascular health (evidence mainly from supplement trials). Previous suggestions of benefits from EPA and DHA supplements appear to spring from trials with higher risk of bias. Low-quality evidence suggests ALA may slightly reduce CVD event risk, CHD mortality and arrhythmia.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the health effects of total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) is equivocal. Fish oils are rich in omega-3 PUFA and plant oils in omega-6 PUFA. Evidence suggests that increasing PUFA-rich foods, supplements or supplemented foods can reduce serum cholesterol, but may increase body weight, so overall cardiovascular effects are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of increasing total PUFA intake on cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality, lipids and adiposity in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to April 2017 and clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to September 2016, without language restrictions. We checked trials included in relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher with lower PUFA intakes in adults with or without cardiovascular disease that assessed effects over 12 months or longer. We included full texts, abstracts, trials registry entries and unpublished data. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality and events, risk factors (blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure), and adverse events. We excluded trials where we could not separate effects of PUFA intake from other dietary, lifestyle or medication interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We wrote to authors of included trials for further data. Meta-analyses used random-effects analysis, sensitivity analyses included fixed-effects and limiting to low summary risk of bias. We assessed GRADE quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 49 RCTs randomising 24,272 participants, with duration of one to eight years. Eleven included trials were at low summary risk of bias, 33 recruited participants without cardiovascular disease. Baseline PUFA intake was unclear in most trials, but 3.9% to 8% of total energy intake where reported. Most trials gave supplemental capsules, but eight gave dietary advice, eight gave supplemental foods such as nuts or margarine, and three used a combination of methods to increase PUFA.Increasing PUFA intake probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (risk 7.8% vs 7.6%, risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.07, 19,290 participants in 24 trials), but probably slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease events from 14.2% to 12.3% (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.06, 15 trials, 10,076 participants) and cardiovascular disease events from 14.6% to 13.0% (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.01, 17,799 participants in 21 trials), all moderate-quality evidence. Increasing PUFA may slightly reduce risk of coronary heart disease death (6.6% to 6.1%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, 9 trials, 8810 participants) andstroke (1.2% to 1.1%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44, 11 trials, 14,742 participants, though confidence intervals include important harms), but has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26, 16 trials, 15,107 participants) all low-quality evidence. Effects of increasing PUFA on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and atrial fibrillation are unclear as evidence is of very low quality.Increasing PUFA intake slightly reduces total cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.02, 26 trials, 8072 participants) and probably slightly decreases triglycerides (MD -0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04, 20 trials, 3905 participants), but has little or no effect on high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, 18 trials, 4674 participants) or low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.06, 15 trials, 3362 participants). Increasing PUFA probably causes slight weight gain (MD 0.76 kg, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.19, 12 trials, 7100 participants).Effects of increasing PUFA on serious adverse events such as pulmonary embolism and bleeding are unclear as the evidence is of very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic review of RCTs conducted to date to assess effects of increasing PUFA on cardiovascular disease, mortality, lipids or adiposity. Increasing PUFA intake probably slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease events, may slightly reduce risk of coronary heart disease mortality and stroke (though not ruling out harms), but has little or no effect on all-cause or cardiovascular disease mortality. The mechanism may be via lipid reduction, but increasing PUFA probably slightly increases weight.

An evaluation of rheumatology practitioner outreach clinics: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Services for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) have evolved with the development of independently led outreach Rheumatology Practitioner (RP) clinics in Primary Care (PC). Their clinical and cost effectiveness, compared with Secondary Care (SC) services, has not been assessed. The RECIPROCATE study aims to evaluate their clinical and cost effectiveness. This part of the study aimed to explore health professionals' opinions of rheumatology outreach service. METHODS: Using a qualitative design, semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs, practice nurses, hospital doctors and RPs, from one hospital and seven PC practices in Norfolk, to elicit their opinions of the service. The interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: All participants agreed the service was supportive and valuable providing high quality personalised care, disease management, social, and educational support. Advantages identified included convenience, continuity of care and proximity of services to home. RPs helped bridge the communication gap between PC and SC. Some participants suggested having a doctor alongside RPs. The service was considered to be cost effective for patients but there was uncertainty about cost effectiveness for service providers. Few disadvantages were identified the most recurring being the lack of other onsite services when needed. It was noted that more services could be provided by RPs such as prescribing and joint injections as well as playing a more active role in knowledge transfer to PC. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals involved in the care of RA patients recognised the valuable role of the RP outreach clinics. This service can be further developed in rheumatology and the example can be replicated for other chronic conditions.

Use of indirect comparison methods in systematic reviews: a survey of Cochrane review authors.

Because of insufficient evidence from direct comparison trials, the use of indirect or mixed treatment comparison methods has attracted growing interest recently. We investigated the views and knowledge of Cochrane systematic review authors regarding the use of indirect comparison and related methods in the evaluation of competing healthcare interventions. An online survey was sent to 84 authors of Cochrane systematic review reviews between January and March 2011. The response rate was 57%. Most respondents (87%) had heard of/had some knowledge of indirect comparison, and 23% actually used indirect comparison methods. Some were suspicious of the methods (9%). Most authors (89%) felt they needed more training, especially in assessing the validity of indirect evidence. Almost all felt that the validity of indirect comparison could potentially be influenced by a large number of effect modifiers. Many reviewers (76%) accepted that indirect evidence is needed as it may be the only source of information for relative effectiveness of competing interventions, provided that review authors and readers are conscious of its limitations. Time commitment and resources needed were identified as an important concern for Cochrane reviewers. In summary, there is an acceptance of the increasing demand for indirect comparison and related methods and an urgent need to develop structured guidance and training for its use and interpretation. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Predictors of the quality of care for asthma in general practice: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common and important health condition in the UK, predominantly managed in primary care. Little is known about how characteristics of practices and patients are associated with achievement of quality indicators (QIs) for asthma. OBJECTIVE: To measure the recorded quality of primary care for asthma and to assess whether quality of care differed by patient and practice characteristics. METHODS: Medical records were examined for 253 randomly selected asthma patients from 18 general practices in England. Quality of care was assessed against seven predetermined QIs. Logistic regression models were used to test variations in quality of care by age, gender, patient postcode deprivation rank, practice size and time point. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in achievement of individual QIs (range 39-97%). Participants whose postcodes were in the most deprived areas were more likely to be asked about difficulties sleeping [odds ratios (ORs) 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-2.5] or whether asthma interfered with daily activities (OR 1.8, CI 1.2-2.7) than those from middle or least deprived postcode areas. QIs were more likely to be achieved in 2005 than 2003 (ORs 4.4, 2.4, 3.0). There were no significant differences by other characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Great variations exist in the quality of primary care for asthma and considerable scope for improvement. Asthma care improved over time. The preliminary findings that quality of asthma care varied with deprivation support the idea that primary care may be targeting care to those in most need. However, variations were small and only significant for two QIs.