Evidence Hub

Different Omega-3 Formulations Yield to Diverse Clinical Response: A Case-Report

L. Gallelli, Andzelika Michniewicz, R. Stefanelli, Roberto Cannataro, Paola Longo, M. Perri, E. Cione, M. Caroleo

Current Drug Safety, 2016

1 citation

Abstract

Treatment guidelines recommend omega-3 with Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) and Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA) content not above 85% in patients with high plasma levels of triglycerides. Since the different up to date formulation of omega-3 available in commerce must be similar to clinical efficacy and safety, herein, we report the case a 52-year-old woman who presented clinical inefficacy using Olevia(®) omega-3 treatment. Clinical evaluation excluded the presence of intestinal or systemic diseases able to reduce the drug absorption. Switching the therapy from (Olevia(®)) to an equivalent omega-3 formulation (Esapent(®)), we documented a decrease in her plasma triglycerides levels. In order to evaluate a possible difference between these formulations we performed a single blind in vitro dissolution test using three pills for each formulation of omega-3 (Olevia(®), Esapent® and another one chosen between the several formulations available in commerce: DOC Generic(®)) that revealed a significant difference (>20%) in the dissolution time of three different omega- 3 commercially available drug formulation.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free