A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial of Ethyl-Eicosapentaenoate for Major Depressive Disorder
J Clin Psychiatry 2009;70(12):1636-1644
© Copyright 2016 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.
Purchase This PDF for $40.00
If you are not a paid subscriber, you may purchase the PDF.
(You'll need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
Receive immediate full-text access to JCP. You can subscribe to JCP online-only ($86) or print + online ($156 individual).
With your subscription, receive a free PDF collection of the NCDEU Festschrift articles. Hurry! This offer ends December 31, 2011.
If you are a paid subscriber to JCP and do not yet have a username and password, activate your subscription now.
As a paid subscriber who has activated your subscription, you have access to the HTML and PDF versions of this item.
Click here to login.
Did you forget your password?
Still can't log in? Contact the Circulation Department at 1-800-489-1001 x4 or send email
Objective: To examine the efficacy and tolerability of ethyl-eicosapentaenoate (EPA-E) monotherapy for major depressive disorder (MDD).
Method: Fifty-seven adults with DSM-IV MDD were randomly assigned from January 2003 until June 2006 to receive 1 g/d of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or placebo for 8 weeks in a double-blind, randomized, controlled pilot study. Response
criteria were on the basis of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17). Subjects’ plasma lipid profiles were examined by gas chromatography.
Results: Thirty-five subjects (63% female; mean ± SD age = 45 ± 13 years) were eligible for
the intent to treat (ITT) analysis. In the ITT sample, mean ± SD HDRS-17 scores decreased from 21.6 ± 2.7 to 13.9 ± 8.9 for the EPA group (n = 16) and from 20.5 ± 3.6 to 17.5 ± 7.5 for the placebo group (n = 19) (P = .123); the effect size for EPA was 0.55. ITT response rates were 38% (6/16) for EPA, and 21% (4/19) for placebo (P = .45). Among the 24 study completers, mean ± SD HDRS-17 scores decreased from 21.3 ± 3.0 to 11.1 ± 8.1 for the EPA group and from 20.5 ± 3.8 to 16.3 ± 6.9 for the placebo group (P = .087); the effect size for EPA was 0.73. Completer response rates were 45% (5/11) for EPA, and 23% (3/13) for placebo (P = .39). Among EPA subjects, baseline n-6/n-3 ratio was associated with decrease in HDRS-17 score (r = −0.686, P = .030) and with treatment response (P = .032); change in n-6/n-3 ratio was associated with change in HDRS-17 score (r = .784, P = .032). Side effects, reported in 2 EPA subjects and 5 placebo subjects, were exclusively gastrointestinal, mild, and not
associated with discontinuation.
Conclusions: EPA demonstrated an advantage over placebo that did not reach statistical significance, possibly due to the small sample and low completer rates, which were the major study limitations.
Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00096798
Submitted: August 7, 2008; accepted November 10, 2008.
Online ahead of print: August 25, 2009.
Corresponding author: David Mischoulon, PhD, 50 Staniford St, Suite 401, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114