Replies to post #102437 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[AVII77]

One placebo-controlled study of around 300 subjects that tried a dose of 4g/d n-3 failed, and actually showed a trend towards increased MACE risk in fish oil group:

ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/1/50.long

Interesting study using 4g/d lovaza.

A similar study was reported recently. It too was in high risk patients who recently had a MI. But it used EPA only (1.8g/day).

Early initiation of eicosapentaenoic acid and statin treatment is associated with better clinical outcomes than statin alone in patients with acute coronary syndromes: 1-year outcomes of a randomized controlled study

Results were quite a bit different from the Lovaza study. RRR was 58%.

Any thought on why the Lovaza study you cited would show harm and this EPA study showed dramatic benefit? What was different between the two otherwise similar studies?

[Biobillionair]

P-
It's a good thing your body naturally regulates DHA levels using EPA as a base molecule, but converting DHA to EPA is not an efficient process for the human body. You should study the eicasnoid pathway....I like pictures when I study physiology:

https://www.google.com/search?q=eicosanoid+pathway&client=safari&channel=mac_bm&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwitwN7gktbSAhVL3IMKHSLlAz8QsAQIGQ&biw=1920&bih=1019

Let me know if you need help studying.

Best regards,

BB

[jessellivermore]

EPA vs DHA....

The link you post is another study done by nutritionists. My first run in with these guys was in 2011 when they were hyping Krill Oil. If you read the results of the effects of Krill Oil on lipid profiles you would have been forced to concede that Krill Oil was the most miraculous substance ever. Not only did it have an astonishing ability to cut trig levels, but it also seemed to out statin the statins when it came to LDL-C lowering..

Trouble is when I plugged the numbers into the Friedewald Equation ( a standard test for lipid balance) the numbers did not add up...Conclusion...The numbers were phony..the trial was fudged..That was not the last trial run by nutritionists that has had "funny" numbers...

I don't have the Il-6s on MARINE and ANCHOR but I do have HCRPs. They are no where near "Jainey's numbers.

EPA vs control: HCRP was a 36% reduction in MARINE in the EPA arm: and a 22% HCRP reduction in the EPA arm in ANCHOR....

From your post..On the Canadian nutrition trial. Between DHA and EPA, changes in CRP (-7.9% ± 5.0% reduction in DHA compared with -1.8% ± 6.5%

Trig lowering was similar in both the Canadian and Amarin studies...So why the tremendous difference between the CRPs in these studies..-1.8 +/- 6.5% in the EPA vs control arm vs 36%/22% CPR reductions in MARINE and ANCHOR..

Was she really getting real EPA to use...Or was it she was spending too much time getting her results spread out all over the internet?

If I'm going to believe one or the other ..I'm going with Amarin..Also since structurally DHA can not interact with the cellular membrane receptors or nuclear membrane receptors that are most important in regulating inflammation..Please explain by what method DHA lowers inflammation..

":>) JL