Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Against a background of considerable epidemiological and other evidence implicating omega-3 fatty acids in the prevention of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the negative results of the Age-Related Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) were unexpected. The possibility that the design, setting, intake or subjects of AREDS2 may not have permitted the prophylactic potential of omega-3 to be adequately demonstrated is considered. Epidemiological studies had indicated potential preventative effects of omega-3, and an earlier randomised prospective study (NAT2) showed that patients who achieved high red blood cell membrane EPA/DHA (eicosapentaenoic acid/docosahexaenoic acid) levels were significantly protected against AMD compared with those with permanently low EPA/DHA levels. Various methodological differences between these studies are considered. NAT2 included a true placebo group, whereas control subjects in AREDS2 received a nutritional formula already found to be effective in AREDS1, but no placebo for DHA/EPA supplementation. Differences in the handling of non-compliant subjects and the formulation of the test formulations are considered. Given these considerations, and other lines of evidence from laboratory and clinical studies, closing the chapter on omega-3 in AMD prevention may be premature.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Souied et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: