| Literature DB >> 30637118 |
Scott S Malinowski1, Katie E Barber1,2, Omayma A Kishk3, Andrew A Mays2, Sara R Jones2, Adrian L Turner4, Daniel M Riche1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Anecdotally, several strategies have been suggested in order to improve tolerability of fish oil supplements, but there is little evidence supporting any of these strategies. The aim of this study was to determine if there is a difference among four methods of oral administration of fish oil supplementation in terms of tolerability and adherence.Entities:
Keywords: Adherence; Adverse effects; Docosahexaenoic acid; Eicosapentaenoic acid; Fish oil; N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids; Safety; Tolerability
Year: 2019 PMID: 30637118 PMCID: PMC6323689 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-018-0387-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud ISSN: 2055-5784
Fish oil product details
| Supplement Facts | Quantity |
|---|---|
| Calories | 11 |
| Calories from fat | 9 |
| Total fat | 1 g |
| Cholesterol | 4 mg |
| Natural fish oil concentratea [omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA)] | 1000 mg [300 mg] |
| Ingredients | Fish oil concentrate, gelatin, purified water USP, glycerin, natural flavors |
aContains anchovy, sardine, herring, and soy
Fig. 1Enrollment strategy
Subject baseline demographics (n = 60)
| Characteristic | With Food | Frozen | With Milk | No Food | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 13 | 15 | 17 | – | |
| Age (years) a | 36 ± 16 | 31 ± 12 | 29 ± 7 | 27 ± 4 | 0.06b |
| Sex (%) (M) c | 53 | 38 | 53 | 29 | 0.44d |
| Race (%) (CA/AA/Asian) | 80/7/13 | 77/23/0 | 87/13/0 | 82/6/12 | N/A |
ITT intention-to-treat, M male, CA Caucasian, AA African American
aData reported as means ± standard deviation
bANOVA for between group comparisons. The only significant pairwise comparison was “Food” vs. “No Food”
cAscertained by self-report
dChi-squared test
Adherence results by pill count
| Food ( | Frozen ( | Milk ( | No food ( | |
| 100% adherence | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Overall mean adherence rate | 65% | 63% | 77% | 62% |
| Overall median adherence rate | 75% | 63% | 78% | 68% |
| All reasons for non-adherencea,b | Food ( | Frozen ( | Milk ( | No Food ( |
| Forgot | 9 [81.80%] | 7 [77.8%] | 9 [75.0%] | 13 [86.7%] |
| Adverse effect | 1 | 2 | – | 2 |
| Did not want to take | – | 1 | 1 | 3 [20.0%] |
| Hard to swallow | 1 | – | 2 | 1 |
| Pill burden | 5 [45.50%] | 3 [33.3%] | 5 [41.7%] | 5 [33.3%] |
| Other (reason given below) | ||||
| Convenience | 4 [36.4%] | 2 | 2 | 4 [26.7%] |
| Irregular diet | 1 | – | – | |
| Milk availability | – | – | 4 [33.3%] | |
| Freezing ability | – | 2 | – | |
| Most common self-reported reason for non-adherenceb | Food ( | Frozen ( | Milk ( | No Food ( |
| Forgot | 8 [72.7%] | 5 [55.6%] | 5 [41.7%] | 9 [60.0%] |
| Adverse effect | 1 | 1 | – | 2 |
| Did not want to take | – | – | – | 1 |
| Hard to swallow | – | – | 1 | – |
| Pill burden | – | – | 1 | 1 |
| Other (reason given below) | ||||
| Convenience | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Milk availability | – | – | 3 [25.0%] | – |
| Freezing ability | – | 2 | – | – |
aPatients could select any reasons that were applicable
bPatients with 100% adherence not included
Fig. 2Adherence rates. Means ± standard deviation