Eicosapentaenoic acid versus docosahexaenoic acid in mild-to-moderate depression: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Abstract Controversy exists as to whether eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or both are responsible for the efficacy of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in depression. We conducted a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-arm, parallel-group trial,...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European neuropsychopharmacology 2013-07, Vol.23 (7), p.636-644 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Abstract Controversy exists as to whether eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or both are responsible for the efficacy of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in depression. We conducted a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-arm, parallel-group trial, comparing the efficacy of EPA versus DHA as adjuvants to maintenance medication treatments for mild-to-moderate depression. Eighty-one mild-to-moderately depressed outpatients were randomly assigned to receive either 1 g/d of EPA or DHA or placebo (coconut oil) for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) final score in the modified intention-to-treat population, which comprised of all randomized patients with at least 1 post-randomization observation ( n =62; 61.3% female; mean age 35.1±1.2 years). Allocated treatments were well tolerated. Although there was no significant difference between groups at baseline, patients in the EPA group showed a significantly lower mean HDRS score at study endpoint compared with those in the DHA ( p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0924-977X 1873-7862 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2012.08.003 |