Does EPA Actually Work? The Clinical Trial Evidence

Introduction

The case for EPA rests primarily on clinical trial data. Several large randomized trials have tested whether EPA reduces cardiovascular events. The results have been inconsistent, with some trials showing striking benefits and others showing none. Making sense of this evidence requires understanding what each trial tested, in whom, and how to interpret conflicting findings.

REDUCE-IT reported a 25% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular events with high-dose EPA. JELIS, conducted in Japan, showed similar magnitude of benefit. But STRENGTH, testing an EPA+DHA combination at similar doses, showed no benefit at all. Understanding why matters for evaluating whether EPA is likely to help any individual patient.

This article reviews the major trials, examines the magnitude of benefit in both relative and absolute terms, and places EPA’s effects in context compared to established therapies. The next article addresses the controversies surrounding these trials, including the placebo debate that has divided experts.

What were the major clinical trials testing EPA for cardiovascular outcomes, and what did each find?

Four major trials form the core evidence base for EPA in cardiovascular disease. REDUCE-IT (2019) tested icosapent ethyl 4 grams daily versus mineral oil placebo in statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides. It showed a 25% relative reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal heart attack, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina.

JELIS (2007) randomized Japanese patients with elevated cholesterol to EPA 1.8 grams daily plus statin versus statin alone. It reported a 19% reduction in major coronary events. STRENGTH (2020) tested an EPA+DHA combination at 4 grams daily versus corn oil placebo in high-risk patients. It was stopped early for futility after showing no cardiovascular benefit.

OMEMI (2021) tested EPA+DHA 1.8 grams daily in elderly patients shortly after myocardial infarction. It also showed no benefit. A meta-analysis pooling these and other trials found that EPA monotherapy reduces cardiovascular events more than EPA+DHA combinations, though the overall omega-3 effect was significant (Khan, 2021).

What was the REDUCE-IT trial, who funded it, and what were its primary findings?

REDUCE-IT enrolled 8,179 patients with established cardiovascular disease or diabetes plus additional risk factors, all with elevated triglycerides (150-499 mg/dL) despite statin therapy. Amarin Corporation, the maker of Vascepa (icosapent ethyl), funded and sponsored the trial. Patients received either icosapent ethyl 4 grams daily or a mineral oil placebo.

After a median follow-up of 4.9 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 17.2% of the EPA group versus 22.0% of the placebo group. This represented an absolute risk reduction of 4.8 percentage points and a relative risk reduction of 25%. All components of the composite endpoint favored EPA, including a significant 20% reduction in cardiovascular death.

The magnitude of benefit was larger than many expected. Network meta-analyses comparing omega-3 trials found EPA superior to placebo for reducing cardiovascular events, though the choice of comparator oil affected results across trials (Yokoyama, 2022). REDUCE-IT’s positive results led to FDA approval of icosapent ethyl for cardiovascular risk reduction.

How large was the cardiovascular risk reduction seen in REDUCE-IT, in both relative and absolute terms?

The relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint was 25%, a meaningful decrease in percentage terms. The hazard ratio was 0.75, meaning patients on EPA had 75% the risk of those on placebo. This relative benefit was consistent across subgroups defined by baseline triglyceride level, diabetes status, and geographic region.

The absolute risk reduction was 4.8 percentage points over 4.9 years. This translates to a number needed to treat (NNT) of approximately 21. Treating 21 patients for about 5 years would prevent one primary endpoint event. For harder endpoints, the NNT was higher. Preventing one cardiovascular death required treating approximately 111 patients.

These absolute numbers provide important context. An NNT of 21 is clinically meaningful and comparable to other cardiovascular interventions. However, patients considering EPA should understand the distinction between relative and absolute benefit. A 25% reduction sounds large, but the underlying risk determines how many people actually benefit.

What was the JELIS trial, and why is it important despite being conducted only in Japan?

JELIS enrolled 18,645 Japanese patients with elevated total cholesterol (mean approximately 275 mg/dL) who were assigned to EPA 1.8 grams daily plus low-dose statin versus statin alone. The open-label design meant patients and physicians knew who received EPA. After 4.6 years, major coronary events occurred in 2.8% of the EPA group versus 3.5% of the control group.

A subanalysis of JELIS patients with coronary artery disease showed a 19% reduction in events with EPA therapy (Matsuzaki, 2009). The benefit appeared largest in secondary prevention patients. The trial demonstrated that EPA added to statins could reduce events even when the statin dose was relatively low by Western standards.

JELIS is important because it provided the first large-scale evidence for EPA’s cardiovascular benefits and influenced clinical practice in Japan and Asia. However, its applicability to Western populations has been questioned. The Japanese population has higher baseline fish intake and different cardiovascular risk profiles than Western patients. The open-label design also introduces potential bias.

What was the STRENGTH trial, and why did it fail to show cardiovascular benefit?

STRENGTH randomized 13,078 statin-treated patients at high cardiovascular risk to 4 grams daily of an EPA+DHA combination (carboxylic acid formulation) or corn oil placebo. Unlike REDUCE-IT, which used EPA alone, STRENGTH tested a product containing both EPA and DHA in roughly equal amounts. The trial was stopped early for futility.

After a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 12.0% of the omega-3 group versus 12.2% of the placebo group. There was no significant difference in any component of the primary or secondary endpoints. The trial effectively showed that combined EPA+DHA at high doses did not reduce cardiovascular events in this population.

The contrast with REDUCE-IT sparked intense debate. Meta-analyses attempted to explain the different results by comparing EPA-only versus EPA+DHA trials and by examining the effects of different placebo oils (Yokoyama, 2022). Possible explanations include differences in patient populations, the inclusion of DHA in STRENGTH, and the choice of comparator oil.

Discover the tests and treatments that could save your life

Get our unbiased and comprehensive report on the latest techniques for heart disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

What was the OMEMI trial, and what does it tell us about EPA in post-heart attack patients?

OMEMI enrolled 1,027 elderly patients (aged 70-82 years) who had recently experienced a myocardial infarction. Patients received either 1.8 grams daily of combined EPA and DHA or corn oil placebo. The study focused on a high-risk population where secondary prevention is critical.

After two years, the primary composite endpoint (nonfatal MI, unplanned revascularization, stroke, death, or heart failure hospitalization) occurred in 21.4% of the omega-3 group versus 20.0% of the placebo group. There was no benefit, and if anything, a trend toward harm that was not statistically significant.

OMEMI adds to evidence that combined EPA+DHA products do not provide cardiovascular benefit in secondary prevention. However, the trial used lower doses than REDUCE-IT and tested combined omega-3s rather than EPA alone. Whether high-dose EPA monotherapy would have shown different results in this population remains unknown.

How do we explain the dramatically different results between REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH?

Several hypotheses have been proposed. First, REDUCE-IT used EPA alone while STRENGTH used EPA plus DHA. Research suggests that EPA and DHA have different and potentially opposing effects on LDL cholesterol, and DHA may attenuate some of EPA’s benefits (Mozaffarian and Wu, 2012). Second, the trials used different placebo oils. REDUCE-IT used mineral oil, which critics argue may have artificially inflated EPA’s apparent benefit. STRENGTH used corn oil.

Patient populations differed modestly. REDUCE-IT required elevated triglycerides, while STRENGTH had broader inclusion criteria. Achieved EPA levels were somewhat higher in REDUCE-IT. The EPA/AA ratio, a potential marker of biological effect, changed more in REDUCE-IT than in STRENGTH.

No single explanation fully resolves the discrepancy. The mineral oil placebo controversy remains central to the debate. If mineral oil truly impaired statin absorption or raised inflammatory markers in the placebo group, then REDUCE-IT’s positive result may be partly artifact. If the different omega-3 formulations explain the difference, then EPA alone may genuinely be superior to EPA+DHA.

What is the “number needed to treat” for EPA based on available trial data?

From REDUCE-IT, the NNT for the primary composite endpoint is approximately 21 over 4.9 years. For individual components: NNT of about 28 to prevent one myocardial infarction, 77 to prevent one stroke, 42 to prevent one revascularization, and 111 to prevent one cardiovascular death. These numbers apply to patients similar to those enrolled in the trial.

From JELIS, the NNT was approximately 143 over 4.6 years for the primary endpoint, reflecting the lower baseline event rate in the Japanese population. In the secondary prevention subgroup, the NNT was lower, roughly comparable to REDUCE-IT.

NNT depends heavily on baseline risk. Patients at higher absolute risk derive greater absolute benefit from a therapy that provides a consistent relative risk reduction. The REDUCE-IT NNT of 21 reflects a relatively high-risk population. Lower-risk patients would have higher NNTs even if the relative risk reduction were similar.

Did EPA trials measure outcomes that matter to patients (heart attacks, strokes, death) or just surrogate markers?

The major EPA trials measured hard clinical outcomes. REDUCE-IT’s primary endpoint included cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina. These are events patients care about, not just laboratory values. EPA significantly reduced these clinical endpoints in pooled analyses (Khan, 2021).

Secondary outcomes in these trials included total mortality and individual cardiovascular events. REDUCE-IT showed statistically significant reductions in cardiovascular death and total mortality (the latter as a pre-specified secondary endpoint). The consistency of benefit across multiple endpoints strengthened the case for a real clinical effect.

Some critics argue that softer components like revascularization and unstable angina hospitalization may be influenced by physician knowledge of treatment assignment. However, the effect sizes for heart attack and cardiovascular death, which are objective outcomes, remained statistically significant in REDUCE-IT.

How long were patients followed in EPA trials, and is that long enough to draw conclusions?

REDUCE-IT followed patients for a median of 4.9 years. JELIS for 4.6 years. STRENGTH was stopped after about 3.5 years. OMEMI followed patients for only 2 years. These durations are typical for cardiovascular outcomes trials and sufficient to observe meaningful differences in event rates.

The Kaplan-Meier curves in REDUCE-IT separated early (within the first year) and continued to diverge throughout follow-up. This pattern suggests a sustained treatment effect rather than early benefit that fades. Whether benefits would persist beyond 5 years cannot be determined from the available data.

For individual patients, the relevant question is how long they would need to take EPA to derive benefit. Based on REDUCE-IT, benefits become measurable within 1-2 years and accumulate with continued treatment. Patients stopping EPA would lose ongoing protection, though they would retain whatever risk reduction occurred during treatment.

Do the cardiovascular benefits of EPA persist after stopping treatment?

This question cannot be definitively answered because no major trial has followed patients after discontinuing EPA to assess whether benefits persist. Cardiovascular risk presumably returns to baseline (or near baseline) after stopping, since the mechanisms of benefit require ongoing EPA exposure.

EPA’s effects on triglycerides, inflammation, and membrane composition all require continued intake. Blood and tissue EPA levels decline within weeks to months after stopping supplementation. There is no biological reason to expect lasting cardiovascular protection after discontinuation.

Practically, patients should view EPA as ongoing therapy similar to statins, not a course of treatment with lasting effects. The decision to start EPA implies a commitment to long-term use if the goal is cardiovascular risk reduction.

Discover the tests and treatments that could save your life

Get our unbiased and comprehensive report on the latest techniques for heart disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

Which patient populations showed the greatest benefit from EPA in clinical trials?

In REDUCE-IT, the absolute benefit was larger in patients with established cardiovascular disease (secondary prevention) than in those with diabetes only (primary prevention), though relative risk reductions were similar. Patients with higher baseline triglycerides tended to derive greater absolute benefit, though the interaction was not statistically significant.

Japanese patients with coronary artery disease in JELIS showed robust benefits from EPA therapy (Matsuzaki, 2009). Subgroup analyses suggested that secondary prevention patients and those with lower baseline EPA/AA ratios may benefit most, though such analyses should be interpreted cautiously.

Current guidelines recommend EPA specifically for patients on statins with established cardiovascular disease or diabetes plus additional risk factors, and with triglycerides between 150-499 mg/dL. This reflects the REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria and represents the population with the strongest evidence of benefit.

Did patients with established heart disease benefit more than those taking EPA for primary prevention?

Yes, though both groups showed benefit in REDUCE-IT. Among patients with established cardiovascular disease (about 70% of the trial), the hazard ratio was 0.73. Among those enrolled based on diabetes with risk factors (primary prevention), the hazard ratio was 0.78. Both groups benefited, but the absolute risk reduction was larger in secondary prevention because baseline risk was higher.

This pattern is typical of cardiovascular prevention therapies. Statins, aspirin, and blood pressure medications also show larger absolute benefits in higher-risk patients. Relative risk reductions tend to be relatively constant, but absolute benefit scales with baseline risk.

For practical decision-making, patients with established heart disease have the strongest indication for EPA. Primary prevention patients may benefit, but the NNT is higher and the decision requires more careful individualization based on overall risk profile.

What do meta-analyses of EPA trials conclude when pooling all available evidence?

A comprehensive meta-analysis of 38 randomized trials found that omega-3 fatty acids significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and coronary events (Khan, 2021). Importantly, EPA monotherapy showed larger benefits than EPA+DHA combinations. The risk of atrial fibrillation increased with omega-3 therapy.

Network meta-analyses comparing different omega-3 formulations found EPA-only products superior to EPA+DHA combinations and to placebo oils for reducing cardiovascular events (Yokoyama, 2022). The analysis suggested that placebo oil type influenced results, with trials using mineral oil showing larger treatment effects than those using other comparators.

These pooled analyses support cardiovascular benefit from EPA, particularly EPA alone at high doses. However, they also highlight heterogeneity across trials and the ongoing debate about how much of the observed benefit is genuine versus artifact of study design choices.

How does the magnitude of EPA’s benefit compare to the benefit seen with statins?

The relative risk reduction for cardiovascular events in REDUCE-IT (25%) is comparable to what high-intensity statins achieve in secondary prevention. The 4S trial showed simvastatin reduced major coronary events by about 34%. FOURIER showed evolocumab (a PCSK9 inhibitor added to statins) reduced cardiovascular events by 15%.

However, EPA was added on top of statin therapy, meaning it provides incremental benefit. The absolute risk reduction with EPA in REDUCE-IT (4.8% over 5 years) is somewhat smaller than what statins achieve in high-risk populations. The comparison depends heavily on baseline risk and comparator.

EPA should not be viewed as an alternative to statins but as a potential add-on therapy for patients with residual risk despite statin treatment. Adding EPA to statin therapy reduces events beyond what statins alone achieve (Matsuzaki, 2009). The decision to add EPA involves weighing incremental benefit against cost, side effects, and uncertainty.

Conclusion

The clinical trial evidence for EPA is substantial but contested. REDUCE-IT showed large cardiovascular benefits with high-dose purified EPA. JELIS provided supportive evidence from Japan. But STRENGTH and OMEMI showed no benefit with EPA+DHA combinations, raising questions about why results differ.

Patients considering EPA should understand both the relative risk reduction (approximately 25% in REDUCE-IT) and the absolute risk reduction (NNT of about 21 over 5 years in a high-risk population). The benefit appears real for purified high-dose EPA, though the ongoing controversies about trial design deserve consideration. The next article examines these controversies in detail, including the mineral oil placebo debate and why experts remain divided.