Primary Research · 2019
Marine n-3 Fatty Acids and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer (VITAL trial)
Manson JE, Cook NR, Lee IM, et al. · New England Journal of Medicine, 2019
Key finding
Large primary-prevention RCT (n=25,871) found n-3 fatty acid supplementation did not reduce major cardiovascular events overall but did reduce myocardial infarction risk, with greatest benefit in low-fish-intake participants.
Abstract
PubMed · PMID 30415637 →BACKGROUND: Higher intake of marine n-3 (also called omega-3) fatty acids has been associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer in several observational studies. Whether supplementation with n-3 fatty acids has such effects in general populations at usual risk for these end points is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, with a two-by-two factorial design, of vitamin D3 (at a dose of 2000 IU per day) and marine n-3 fatty acids (at a dose of 1 g per day) in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer among men 50 years of age or older and women 55 years of age or older in the United States. Primary end points were major cardiovascular events (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes) and invasive cancer of any type. Secondary end points included individual components of the composite cardiovascular end point, the composite end point plus coronary revascularization (expanded composite of cardiovascular events), site-specific cancers, and death from cancer. Safety was also assessed. This article reports the results of the comparison of n-3 fatty acids with placebo. RESULTS: A total of 25,871 participants, including 5106 black participants, underwent randomization. During a median follow-up of 5.3 years, a major cardiovascular event occurred in 386 participants in the n-3 group and in 419 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.06; P=0.24). Invasive cancer was diagnosed in 820 participants in the n-3 group and in 797 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.13; P=0.56). In the analyses of key secondary end points, the hazard ratios were as follows: for the expanded composite end point of cardiovascular events, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.04); for total myocardial infarction, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.90); for total stroke, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.31); for death from cardiovascular causes, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.21); and for death from cancer (341 deaths from cancer), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.20). In the analysis of death from any cause (978 deaths overall), the hazard ratio was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.15). No excess risks of bleeding or other serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not result in a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer than placebo. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; VITAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01169259 .).
Abstract sourced from PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Displayed in the authors’ own words for context; our critique is in the sections below.
About the supplement
Omega-3 Fatty Acids
Dose · mechanism · evidence grade · safety →
Read the full paper
Cited in 1 guide
How to read a study like this
The same questions worth asking about any research paper, not just this one. Worth a minute even if you trust the grade.
Who was studied, and do you resemble them?
Supplement effects often depend on baseline status. Vitamin D helps people who are deficient; iron helps people who are anemic. A result in people unlike you may not apply to you.
What was measured, and does it matter in daily life?
A study that shows a blood marker moved isn't the same as a study that shows people felt or functioned better. Ask what the outcome means in practice.
How large was the effect — not just whether it was significant.
'Statistically significant' only means the effect is unlikely to be zero. It doesn't tell you the effect is large enough to notice. Look for effect sizes, not just p-values.
Who paid for the trial, and what did they stand to gain?
Industry-funded trials are several times more likely to report positive results than independent ones. It's not usually fraud — it's subtle design and reporting choices. Weight accordingly.
Has anyone else replicated this?
Single positive trials are hypotheses. Replication by independent groups is what turns a hypothesis into reliable evidence. If the only positive trial is the one you're reading, wait.
Does the dose in the trial match what's being sold?
Supplement marketing routinely cites trials that used 5–10× the dose in the product. If the effective dose was 2 g/day and the capsule has 200 mg, expect roughly no effect.
About this page
Formulate maintains a registry of clinical studies cited across its guides and evidence grades. This page links the study metadata to the content that cites it — one canonical entry per landmark study.
The full citation chain is public so readers can verify claims without hunting through individual guide pages. Browse all cited studies →
Note: Study summaries on this page are editorial interpretations of the research. Always consult the primary source before drawing clinical conclusions.