Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 22, 2025
Author Spotlight: Exploring the Impact of Reduced Resistance Exercise Volume on Metabolic Health
Published on: December 1, 2023
A possible explanation for the contrasting results of REDUCE-IT vs. STRENGTH: cohort study mimicking trial designs
Takahito Doi1,2,3, Anne Langsted1,2,3, Børge G Nordestgaard1,2,3
1Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 73, Herlev 2730, Denmark.
Aims:
We tested the hypothesis that the contrasting results for the effect of high-dose, purified omega-3 fatty acids on the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in two randomized trials, Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) vs. Long-Term Outcomes Study to Assess Statin Residual Risk with Epanova in High Cardiovascular Risk Patients with Hypertriglyceridaemia (STRENGTH), can be explained by differences in the effect of active and comparator oils on lipid traits and C-reactive protein.
Methods And Results:
In the Copenhagen General Population Study (CGPS) with 106 088 individuals, to mimic trial designs we analysed those who met key inclusion criteria in REDUCE-IT (n = 5684; ASCVD = 852) and STRENGTH (n = 6862; ASCVD = 697). Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease incidence was followed for the median durations of REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH (4.9 and 3.5 years), respectively. When combining changes in plasma triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and C-reactive protein observed in the active oil groups of the original studies, estimated hazard ratios for ASCVD in the CGPS were 0.96 [95% confidence interval 0.93-0.99] mimicking REDUCE-IT and 0.94 (0.91-0.98) mimicking STRENGTH. In the comparator oil groups, corresponding hazard ratios were 1.07 (1.04-1.10) and 0.99 (0.98-0.99). Combining these results, the active oil vs. comparator oil hazard ratio was 0.88 (0.84-0.93) in the CGPS mimicking REDUCE-IT compared to 0.75 (0.68-0.83) in the REDUCE-IT. The corresponding hazard ratio was 0.96 (0.93-0.99) in the CGPS mimicking STRENGTH compared to 0.99 (0.90-1.09) in STRENGTH.
Conclusion:
The contrasting results of REDUCE-IT vs. STRENGTH can partly be explained by a difference in the effect of comparator oils (mineral vs. corn), but not of active oils [eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) vs. EPA + docosahexaenoic acid], on lipid traits and C-reactive protein. The unexplained additional 13% risk reduction in REDUCE-IT likely is through other effects of EPA or mineral oil.
More Related Videos
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
12:59Improving Strength, Power, Muscle Aerobic Capacity, and Glucose Tolerance through Short-term Progressive Strength Training Among Elderly People
Published on: July 5, 2017
Related Concept Videos
01:20Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
01:15Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
01:15Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...
01:16Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.
01:52Regression Toward the Mean
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...