Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective: To compare therapeutic effects of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), fluoxetine and a combination of them in major depression.

Method: Sixty outpatients with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder based on DSM-IV criteria and a score ≥15 in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) were randomly allocated to receive daily either 1000 mg EPA or 20 mg fluoxetine, or their combination for 8 weeks. Double dummy technique was used to double blind the study. Patients were assessed at 2 week intervals. Change in HDRS was the primary outcome measure.

Results: Analysis of covariance for HDRS at week 8 across treatment groups was performed in 48 patients who completed at least 4 weeks of the study, with the last observation carried forward. Treatment, age of onset and baseline HDRS had a significant effect on HDRS at week 8. EPA + fluoxetine combination was significantly better than fluoxetine or EPA alone from the fourth week of treatment. Fluoxetine and EPA appear to be equally effective in controlling depressive symptoms. Response rates (≥50% decrease in baseline HDRS) were 50%, 56% and 81% in the fluoxetine, EPA and combination groups, respectively.

Conclusions: In the present 8 week trial EPA and fluoxetine had equal therapeutic effects in major depressive disorder. EPA + fluoxetine combination was superior to either of them alone.

Keywords

EPA fluoxetine major depressive disorder omega-3

Analysis of the global burden of disease in the year 2000 showed that unipolar depressive disorders were ranked as the fourth highest among all diseases [1]. In the age group 15–44 years they generated the second highest burden. By the year 2020, if current trends for demographic and epidemiological transition continue, depression would become the second leading cause of disability-adjusted life years lost worldwide and the highest ranking cause of disease in the developed regions. A systematic review comparing antidepressants with placebo for treatment of depression in primary care showed that both tricyclic antidepressants and selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor were effective in treatment of depressive symptoms compared with placebo, and 56–60% of patients responded well to these antidepressants [2]. On the whole, 19–34% of patients with major depressive disorder will become treatment-resistant [3].

Depression is among the 10 most frequent indications for using complementary and alternative medicine [4]. Use of dietary supplements is common among people being treated for depression. Not very much is known about interactions between drugs and supplements, therefore it is particularly important from a clinical point of view to investigate this [5]. Omega-3 fatty acids (ω−3FAs) are among supplements that depressed patients consume. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) are the two major long chain ω−3FAs considered important in depression. Epidemiological and treatment studies have suggested that dietary ω−3FA deficiency may be of aetiological importance in depression. It has been reported that depression is inversely related to long-term ω−3FA intake in adults, the elderly and adolescents in the island of Crete [6–8]. An ecologic study has provided a strongly negative correlation between fish consumption and major depressive disorder prevalence in several countries [9]. Edwards et al. reported that severity of depression correlated negatively with the red blood cell membrane levels of ω−3FAs and their dietary intake in depressed subjects [10]. There is evidence suggesting that ω−3FAs have therapeutic effects in unipolar depression but the findings have been inconsistent [11–15]. Furthermore, it has been found that elevated ω−6FA: ω−3FAs ratios could predict suicidal behaviour in major depression [16]. A recent systematic review of published trials about effects of ω−3FAs on depressed mood provided little support for the use of ω−3FAs to improve depressed mood and have suggested more trials to detect clinical effects [17]. In contrast, two other reviews supported protective effect of ω−3FA intake in mood disorders and its benefit in unipolar and bipolar depression, but they have suggested further treatment studies to examine the efficacy of ω−3FA and to determine which ω−3FA is optimal in different disorders [18], [19].

The objective of the present study was to compare therapeutic effects of EPA, fluoxetine and a combination of them in major depression. A placebo-only group could not be included for ethical reasons. To our knowledge this is the first report of EPA monotherapy in major depressive disorder.

Methods

Patients

Patients were referred from Roozbeh Psychiatry Hospital, Tehran, Iran to participate in the study. The study was explained to them and if the patients were eligible and willing to participate, written informed consent was then obtained. The protocol, prepared in accordance with the Helsinki declaration, was approved by the Ethical Committee, Research Department of Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

The patients were 20–59 years of age and met DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder without psychotic features based on the semi-structured clinical interview. Their scores on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) were ≥15 and they were free of medication for at least 6 weeks. The exclusion criteria were comorbid psychiatric diagnosis other than dysthymia and anxiety, significant medical illness established by medical history, physical examination or laboratory tests, suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, history of hypomanic/manic/mixed episode, pregnancy and lactation, consumption of ω−3FA supplements in the previous year, and dietary intake of more than one serving of fish per week.

Test drugs

Soft gels of 550 mg ethyl-EPA (500 mg pure EPA and 11 mg vitamin E as antioxidant) were supplied by Minami Nutrition, Belgium. The placebo soft gels contained 550 mg rapeseed oil and 11 mg vitamin E and were identical to the ethyl-EPA soft gels in appearance. Fluoxetine was provided as 20 mg capsules and its placebo contained starch and avicel.

Trial design

Patients were randomly allocated into three groups according to pre-arranged balanced block randomization to receive daily either two ethyl-EPA soft gels (1000 mg EPA) plus fluoxetine placebo, or one fluoxetine capsule (20 mg fluoxetine) plus ethyl-EPA placebo, or two ethyl-EPA soft gels (1000 mg EPA) plus one fluoxetine capsule (20 mg fluoxetine) for 8 weeks. The study was double blind and because the fluoxetine capsule and EPA soft gel were not identical we used a double dummy technique to blind patients and the physician who assessed them.

The patients underwent psychiatric assessment by means of HDRS at baseline and at weeks 2, 4, 6 and 8. Adverse events were recorded in a checklist at each visit. Compliance was estimated by counting pills. Patients were considered compliant if they consumed more than 90% of the medication.

Statistical analysis

Given α = 0.05, β = 0.2 and a final difference between the groups of ≥5 on the HDRS, the sample size was calculated to be at least 15 in each group. Patients who remained in the study for at least 4 weeks were included in analysis. Change on HDRS was the primary outcome measure. Analysis of covariance was used to compare HDRS changes among groups. Differences were considered significant for p < 0.05.

Results

Patients characteristics

A total of 60 patients were recruited into the study (20 in each group). Forty-eight patients completed at least 4 weeks of the study, so they were included in the analysis (four patients in each group dropped out). In the fluoxetine group one patient withdrew because of drowsiness after taking the medications, one was lost due to non-compliance and two were lost to follow up. In the EPA group one patient was excluded due to developing suicidal ideation, one due to non-compliance and two were lost to follow up. In the group receiving EPA and fluoxetine combination one patient dropped out due to steatorrhoea, one because of skin rash, one due to non-compliance and one was lost to follow up.

As shown in Table 1 the groups were matched with regard to sex, age, and duration of recent episode, but there was a difference in age of onset and the number of previous episodes, although it was not statistically significant. These variables were included as covariates in the analysis of covariance.

Table 1.

Patient details

	Fluoxetine (n = 16)	EPA (n = 16)	Fluoxetine + EPA (n = 16)	p
Age (years) †	35.1±9.4	34.9±8.7	34.5±11.3	0.98^†
Gender, n (%)
male	4 (25)	4 (25)	7 (34)	0.42^‡
female	12 (75)	12 (75)	9 (56)
Weight (kg)	73.63±12.63	67.86±17.09	65.83±14.62	0.32^†
No. previous episodes	0.38±1.02	0.5±.97	1.38±2.67	0.26^†
Duration of recent episode(weeks)	13.3±8.3	12.6±9.1	12.9±11.9	0.98^†
Age of onset (years)	32.9±8.9	31.4±9.1	28.1±7.7	0.29^†
Baseline 24-item HDRS (score)	29.31±6.5	29.94±4.9	31.63±5.8	0.50^†

EPA, eicosapentaenoic acid; HDRS, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

^†Analysis of variance; ^‡χ² test.

Between-group analysis

Figure 1 illustrates HDRS scores in the 48 patients who completed at least 4 weeks of the study, with the last observation carried forward.

Figure 1.

Changes in the Hamilton Depression Rating scale (HDRS) over time in the fluoxetine, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and EPA + fluoxetine groups. Analysis of covariance for HDRS adjusted for baseline scores, age of onset and number of previous episodes was performed at weeks 2, 4, 6 and 8. There was a significant effect of treatment at week 4 (F = 4.58, p = 0.016), week 6 (F = 4.28, p = 0.02) and week 8 (F = 6.02, p = 0.005).

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for HDRS at week 8 across treatment groups was performed. Baseline HDRS, age of onset and number of previous episodes were covariates. Results of ANCOVA are shown in Table 2. Treatment, age of onset and baseline HDRS had a significant effect on HDRS at week 8.

Table 2.

Analysis of covariance for HDRS at week 8 across the three groups

Covariate	F	p
Baseline 24-item HDRS	5.25	0.027
Age of onset	7.39	0.009
No. previous episodes	2.4	0.129
Treatment	6.02	0.005

HDRS, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

ANCOVA comparing HDRS at week 8 in the fluoxetine group with the other groups and also the EPA group with the EPA + fluoxetine combination is shown in Table 3. The fluoxetine + EPA combination is significantly better than fluoxetine or EPA alone. Fluoxetine and EPA appear to be equally effective in controlling depressive symptoms.

Table 3.

Pairwise analysis of covarience for HDRS at week 8

Groups	Covariate	F	p
Fluoxetine and EPA
	Baseline HDRS	2.29	0.142
	Age of onset	11.22	0.002
	No. previous episodes	0.184	0.671
	Treatment	0.652	0.426
Fluoxetine and EPA + fluoxetine
	Baseline HDRS	1.36	0.253
	Age of onset	3.84	0.06
	No. previous episodes	2.72	0.11
	Treatment	9.4	0.005∗
EPA and EPA + fluoxetine combination
	Baseline HDRS	10.4	0.003
	Age of onset	1.89	0.18
	No. previous episodes	1.45	0.24
	Treatment	7.82	0.009∗

EPA, eicosapentaenoic acid; HDRS, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

∗Treatment is significantly effective.

ANCOVA for HDRS at weeks 2, 4 and 6 showed that treatment had an effect on HDRS at week 4 and 6 (p = 0.016, 0.02 respectively) but not at week 2 (p = 0.113). Response rates (≥50% decrease in baseline HDRS) were 50%, 56% and 81% in the fluoxetine, EPA and combination groups, respectively.

Within-group analysis

Repeated measure analysis of variance was done to test for significant differences in depressive scores over time within each group. There was a significant effect of time within each group and also when all groups were combined, with a noticeable effect starting at week 2 (in all cases p < 0.05).

Adverse events

Sixteen adverse events were reported during the trial (Table 4). Fish aftertaste was reported by two patients in the EPA group and two patients in the combined group. In the EPA group it was limited to the first few days. Anxiety was reported by nine patients in the fluoxetine group, one patient in the EPA group and three patients in the combined group. It was limited to the first weeks for all subjects who reported it. Decreased appetite was reported by six patients in the fluoxetine group. Fisher's exact test showed that the frequency of anxiety and decreased appetite were different among groups (p = 0.009 and 0.002 respectively).

Table 4.

Reported adverse events during the trial

Adverse event	Fluoxetine (n = 16)	EPA (n = 16)	Fluoxetine + EPA (n = 16)
Acne	0	0	2
Anxiety	9	1	3
Constipation	1	0	0
Diarrhoea	0	1	0
Drowsiness	2	1	0
Dyspepsia	0	0	3
Decreased appetite	6	0	0
Fatigue	0	0	2
Fish aftertaste	0	2	2
Insomnia	1	0	2
Nausea	3	0	0
Nightmare	1	0	1
Reflux	2	0	1
Sexual disturbances	2	0	2
Skin rash	0	0	1
Tremor	1	0	1

EPA, eicosapentaenoic acid; HDRS, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

Discussion

EPA + fluoxetine combination versus fluoxetine

The combination of fluoxetine and EPA was more effective than either of them alone from the fourth week of treatment. It has been reported that EPA or mixture of EPA and DHA at doses ranging from 1 to 9.6 g day^–1 were more effective than placebo in three out of four trials assessing therapeutic effects of ω−3FAs as adjunctive therapy for unipolar major depressive episode [11–13], [15]. In contrast, 8 g DHA-enriched fish oil (600 mg EPA), which Silvers et al. used in their study, was not more effective than placebo [15]. In the other studies EPA was provided at a dose of ≥1 g day^–1.

Puri et al. reported a case of 21-year old man with a 7 year history of unremitting depressive syndrome. Administration of EPA at a dose of 4 g day^–1 as adjunctive treatment led to rapid improvement within 1 month. After 9 months all of the symptoms disappeared [20].

EPA was effective as adjunctive treatment in bipolar depression [21], [22], but 6 g ethyl-EPA was not effective as adjunctive treatment in bipolar and rapid-cycling bipolar disorder [23].

EPA versus fluoxetine

Although EPA alone was as effective as fluoxetine in controlling depressive symptoms, it is possible that neither EPA nor fluoxetine was more effective than placebo. Because their combination was more effective than either alone, the possibility of placebo effect is slight. A few studies have reported the effectiveness of ω−3FA as add-on therapy in childhood, post-partum period, pregnancy and bipolar depression. A randomized controlled trial suggested that ω−3FA (400 mg EPA and 200 mg DHA) monotherapy may have therapeutic benefits in childhood depression [24]. An open-label trial and one dose-ranging (without placebo) study of ω−3FAs suggested that ω−3FA monotherapy may be of therapeutic benefit in the post-partum period and in depression during pregnancy [25], [26]. But the sample size was too small in these studies. In another small open-label trial, ω−3FA monotherapy in bipolar depression had positive results [27]. Chiu et al. reported on a pregnant woman with recurrent depressive episode at 24 weeks of pregnancy who had improvement after ω−3FA monotherapy (4 g EPA and 2 g DHA per day) [28]. ω−3FA supplementation in healthy subjects was associated with improvement of mood status in a randomized controlled trial [29].

In contrast to the aforementioned studies, DHA monotherapy was not more effective than placebo at a dose of 2 g day^–1 in unipolar major depressive episode [14]. A small open-label study failed to show any effects of ω−3FAs in preventing post-partum depression [30].

Possible mechanism of action of EPA

The impact of ω−3FAs in depression have been explained by several mechanisms [18]. Verlengia et al. observed marked differences between the effects of EPA and DHA on Jurkat cells. There were opposite effects in some aspects. This indicates that it is not correct to generalize the effects of n-3 fatty acids [31]. EPA and DHA had significant differences in the production of interferon-γ (IFN-γ). EPA caused a higher decrease in the production of IFN-γ [31]. Excessive secretion of cytokines has been proposed as the cause of depression [32], [33]. Cytokines, including IFN-γ, can potentially reduce serotonin levels by lowering the availability of its precursor (tryptophan) through activation of tryptophan-metabolizing enzyme. Increased activity of this enzyme may also contribute to monoaminergic disorders that are observed in depression in an indirect way [34].

Complex reciprocal interactions are observed between the serotonin system and arachidonic acid metabolism. Altered brain arachidonic acid metabolism has been implicated in unipolar disorder [35]. A study showed that EPA had a more pronounced effect on arachidonic acid-dependent processes compared to DHA [36].

In contrast to EPA, DHA is the main ω−3FA in the brain. It is involved in a variety of processes in neural cells [37]. Considering the differential and sometimes potentially opposite effects of EPA and DHA, the discrepancies among the studies assessing ω−3FAs can be explained by the absolute, as well as relative, amounts of EPA and DHA in supplements.

Conclusion

Although this study had some limitation including small sample size and lack of placebo group, the findings suggest that EPA is safe and effective as monotherapy as well as adjunctive treatment for unipolar major depressive episode. Because EPA is a dietary supplement it may be more acceptable to patients than antidepressants.

Considering the health benefits of ω−3FAs especially on cardiovascular disease and the fact that major depression is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease [38], EPA can be prescribed for patients with major depressive disorder both to control depressive symptoms and protect them from cardiovascular disease. Inflammatory cytokines that have an important role in atherogenesis [39] have been reported to increase in major depressive disorder [40] and potentially could be decreased by EPA [41].

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Vice-Chancellor for Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Thanks are extended to Minami Nutrition, Belgium for supplying the EPA soft gels. We would also like to acknowledge the cooperation and help of Dr. V. Sharifi, Dr. E. Izadian, Dr. M. Arbabi and Mrs. M. Chamari.

References

1. World Health Organization . The world health report-mental health: new understanding, new hope. WHO, Geneva 2001; 2001.

2. Arroll

Macgillivray

Ogston

. Efficacy and tolerability of tricyclic antidepressants and SSRIs compared with placebo for treatment of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis. Ann Fam Med 2005; 3: 449–456.

3. Fava

Davidson

. Definition and epidemiology of treatment-resistant depression. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1996; 19: 179–200.

4. Kessler

Davis

Foster

. Long-term trends in the use of complementary and alternative medical therapies in the United States. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 262–268.

5. Silvers

Woolley

Hedderley

. Dietary supplement use in people being treated for depression. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2006; 15: 30–34.

6. Mamalakis

Kalogeropoulos

Andrikopoulos

. Depression and long chain n-3 fatty acids in adipose tissue in adults from Crete. Eur J Clin Nutr 2006; 60: 882–888.

7. Mamalakis

Jansen

Cremers

Kiriakakis

Tsibinos

Kafatos

. Depression and adipose and serum cholesteryl ester polyunsaturated fatty acids in the survivors of the seven countries study population of Crete. Eur J Clin Nutr 2006; 60: 1016–1023.

8. Mamalakis

Kiriakakis

Tsibinos

. Depression and serum adiponectin and adipose omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids in adolescents. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2006; 85: 474–479.

9. Hibbeln

. Fish consumption and major depression. Lancet 1998; 351: 1213.

10.

10. Edwards

Peet

Shay

Horrobin

. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid levels in the diet and in red blood cell membranes of depressed patients. J Affect Disord 1998; 48: 149–155.

11.

11. Peet

Horrobin

. A dose-ranging study of the effects of ethyl-eicosapentaenoate in patients with ongoing depression despite apparently adequate treatment with standard drugs. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002; 59: 913–919.

12.

12. Su

Huang

Chiu

Shen

. Omega-3 fatty acids in major depressive disorder. A preliminary double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2003; 13: 267–271.

13.

13. Nemets

Stahl

Belmaker

. Addition of omega-3 fatty acid to maintenance medication treatment for recurrent unipolar depressive disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2002; 159: 477–479.

14.

14. Marangell

Martinez

Zboyan

Kertz

Kim

Puryear

. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the omega-3 fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid in the treatment of major depression. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160: 996–998.

15.

15. Silvers

Woolley

Hamilton

Watts

Watson

. Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of fish oil in the treatment of depression. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 2005; 72: 211–218.

16.

16. Sublette

Hibbeln

Galfalvy

Oquendo

Mann

. Omega-3 polyunsaturated essential fatty acid status as a predictor of future suicide risk. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 1100–1102.

17.

17. Appleton

Hayward

Gunnell

. Effects of n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids on depressed mood: systematic review of published trials. Am J Clin Nutr 2006; 84: 1308–1316.

18.

18. Freeman

Hibbeln

Wisner

. Omega-3 fatty acids: evidence basis for treatment and future research in psychiatry. J Clin Psychiatry 2006; 67: 1954–1967.

19.

19. Parker

Gibson

Brotchie

Heruc

Rees

Hadzi-Pavlovic

. Omega-3 fatty acids and mood disorders. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 969–978.

20.

20. Puri

Counsell

Richardson

Horrobin

. Eicosapentaenoic acid in treatment-resistant depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002; 59: 91–92.

21.

21. Stoll

Severus

Freeman

. Omega 3 fatty acids in bipolar disorder: a preliminary double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999; 56: 407–412.

22.

22. Frangou

Lewis

McCrone

. Efficacy of ethyl-eicosapentaenoic acid in bipolar depression: randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study. Br J Psychiatry 2006; 188: 46–50.

23.

23. Keck

Jr Mintz

McElroy

. Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of ethyl-eicosapentanoate in the treatment of bipolar depression and rapid cycling bipolar disorder. Biol Psychiatry 2006; 60: 1020–1022.

24.

24. Nemets

Nemets

Apter

Bracha

Belmaker

. Omega-3 treatment of childhood depression: a controlled, double-blind pilot study. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 1098–1100.

25.

25. Freeman

Hibbeln

Wisner

Watchman

Gelenberg

. An open trial of omega-3 fatty acids for depression in pregnancy. Acta Neuropsychiatr 2006; 18: 21–24.

26.

26. Freeman

Hibbeln

Wisner

Brumbach

Watchman

Gelenberg

. Randomized dose-ranging pilot trial of omega-3 fatty acids for postpartum depression. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2006; 113: 31–35.

27.

27. Osher

Bersudsky

Belmaker

. Omega-3 eicosapentaenoic acid in bipolar depression: report of a small open-label study. J Clin Psychiatry 2005; 66: 726–729.

28.

28. Chiu

Huang

Shen

. Omega-3 fatty acids for depression in pregnancy. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160: 385.

29.

29. Fontani

Corradeschi

Felici

Alfatti

Migliorini

Lodi

. Cognitive and physiological effects of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in healthy subjects. Eur J Clin Invest 2005; 35: 691–699.

30.

30. Marangell

Martinez

Zboyan

Chong

Puryear

. Omega-3 fatty acids for the prevention of postpartum depression: negative data from a preliminary, open-label pilot study. Depress Anxiety 2004; 19: 20–23.

31.

31. Verlengia

Gorjao

Kanunfre

. Comparative effects of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid on proliferation, cytokine production, and pleiotropic gene expression in Jurkat cells. J Nutr Biochem 2004; 15: 657–665.

32.

32. Smith

. The macrophage theory of depression. Med Hypotheses 1991; 35:298–306, [Erratum: Med Hypotheses 1991; 36:178].

33.

33. Leonard

. The immune system, depression and the action of antidepressants. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2001; 25: 767–780.

34.

34. Schiepers

Wichers

Maes

. Cytokines and major depression. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2005; 29: 201–217.

35.

35. Sublette

Russ

Smith

. Evidence for a role of the arachidonic acid cascade in affective disorders: a review. Bipolar Disord 2004; 6: 95–105.

36.

36. Obajimi

Black

MacDonald

Boyle

Glen

Ross

. Differential effects of eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acids upon oxidant-stimulated release and uptake of arachidonic acid in human lymphoma U937 cells. Pharmacol Res 2005; 52: 183–191.

37.

37. Sinclair

Begg

Mathai

Weisinger

. Omega 3 fatty acids and the brain: review of studies in depression. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2007; 16(Suppl 1)391–397.

38.

38. Massart

Triffaux

. Depression and coronary artery disease]. Rev Med Liege 2005; 60: 931–938.

39.

39. Aukrust

Yndestad

Smith

Ueland

Gullestad

Damas

. Chemokines in cardiovascular risk prediction. Thromb Haemost 2007; 97: 748–754.

40.

40. Pavon

Sandoval-Lopez

Eugenia Hernandez

. Th2 cytokine response in major depressive disorder patients before treatment. J Neuroimmunol 2006; 172: 156–165.

41.

41. Calder

. n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, inflammation, and inflammatory diseases. Am J Clin Nutr 2006; 83: 1505S–1519S.

Comparison of Therapeutic Effects of Omega-3 Fatty Acid Eicosapentaenoic Acid and Fluoxetine,Separately and in Combination,in Major Depressive Disorder

Abstract

Keywords

Methods

Patients

Test drugs

Trial design

Statistical analysis

Results

Patients characteristics

Between-group analysis

Within-group analysis

Adverse events

Discussion

EPA + fluoxetine combination versus fluoxetine

EPA versus fluoxetine

Possible mechanism of action of EPA

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

References