Is Fish Oil Good or Bad for Heart Disease? Two Trials with Apparently Conflicting Results

Two successive randomized trials examined the effect of an increased intake of fatty fish, or the use of fish oil supplements, in reducing mortality in men with heart disease. The Diet and Reinfarction Trial (DART) was conducted in 2033 men who were recovering from acute myocardial infarction (MI). Those who were advised to eat fatty fish (or who opted to take fish oil capsules instead) had a 29% reduction in all-cause mortality over the following two years compared with those not so advised. The effect appeared in the first few months of the trial. The Diet and Angina Randomized Trial (DART 2) involved 3114 men with stable angina. Advice to eat fatty fish did not reduce mortality, and taking fish oil capsules was associated with a higher risk of cardiac and sudden death. The adverse effects of fish or fish oil were restricted to men not taking β-blockers or dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, and were greater in those taking digoxin. Evidence from other sources strongly suggests an anti-arrhythmic action of fish oil, particularly after MI or in the presence of acute ischemia. The apparently conflicting results of the two trials may reflect different actions of n-3 fatty acids in acute and chronic conditions, together with different effects of eating fish and taking fish oil capsules. A mechanism is proposed that could account for these findings

Down's syndrome screening: a controversial test, with more controversy to come!

By 1998, most health authorities offered antenatal screening for Down's syndrome, usually by biochemical methods. To date, the development of this form of screening has not been coordinated by a national body and, consequently, there are wide variations in practice between localities. Fortunately, many of these variations have not led to any noticeable inequality of health provision, but the wide variation in risk cut offs used by different centres does. Other variations merely lead to potentially unnecessary expenditure; whereas it is believed that adding extra tests to the screening procedure is beneficial (such as double test to triple test), statistical evaluation of the confidence intervals for the detection rates quoted indicates that there is no evidence that the extra test provides an increase in detection. The cervical screening programme has progressively improved, partly through the auspices of a national framework. A similar national approach would benefit Down's screening and is only now being considered: the national screening committee (NSC) is currently drafting recommendations. To ensure optimum screening performance, the NSC should specify the risk thresholds applied, the screening protocols to be used—that is, an opt-in programme with a minimum (possibly even a maximum) of two biochemical analytes or a nuchal fold evaluation—and perhaps should even recommend national population parameters to be used for risk calculation. It might even be advisable for statistical work to be carried out to determine whether local derivation of medians is truly necessary. Furthermore, defined options for older women could be specified—for example, should all older patients have the option to proceed directly to amniocentesis if they wish or should National Health Service amniocentesis only be available for those with a "high risk" screening result. The difficulties that will face the NSC in deciding which screening policy to adopt are also considered; specifically, the lack of evidence to suggest that triple testing is superior to double testing, and the lack of evidence to prove the superiority of one analyte over another. This inadequacy of evidence is not from want of trying, but is caused by the problems of collecting enough data to provide statistical significance. Finally, there is one important difference between cervical and Down's syndrome screening that has a major impact on the advice given by any "expert"; namely, patents. Many aspects of Down's screening are subject to patents and, therefore, there is more potential for apparently uncontroversial decisions to rebound with future retrospective patent infringement claims. Thus, it would be sensible to insist that any member of a national body deciding upon Down's screening policy must fully disclose all potential conflicts of interest, both personal and family, before they are allowed to sit on the committee. Furthermore, if a national policy is decided upon, worldwide patent searches should be carried out to determine whether there are any possible unforeseen legal consequences of any recommendation. Key Words: trisomy 21 • screening • nuchal fol

A novel Alzheimer disease locus located near the gene encoding tau protein

APOE ε4, the most significant genetic risk factor for Alzheimer disease (AD), may mask effects of other loci. We re-analyzed genome-wide association study (GWAS) data from the International Genomics of Alzheimer's Project (IGAP) Consortium in APOE ε4+ (10 352 cases and 9207 controls) and APOE ε4- (7184 cases and 26 968 controls) subgroups as well as in the total sample testing for interaction between a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and APOE ε4 status. Suggestive associations (P<1 × 10-4) in stage 1 were evaluated in an independent sample (stage 2) containing 4203 subjects (APOE ε4+: 1250 cases and 536 controls; APOE ε4-: 718 cases and 1699 controls). Among APOE ε4- subjects, novel genome-wide significant (GWS) association was observed with 17 SNPs (all between KANSL1 and LRRC37A on chromosome 17 near MAPT) in a meta-analysis of the stage 1 and stage 2 data sets (best SNP, rs2732703, P=5·8 × 10-9). Conditional analysis revealed that rs2732703 accounted for association signals in the entire 100-kilobase region that includes MAPT. Except for previously identified AD loci showing stronger association in APOE ε4+ subjects (CR1 and CLU) or APOE ε4- subjects (MS4A6A/MS4A4A/MS4A6E), no other SNPs were significantly associated with AD in a specific APOE genotype subgroup. In addition, the finding in the stage 1 sample that AD risk is significantly influenced by the interaction of APOE with rs1595014 in TMEM106B (P=1·6 × 10-7) is noteworthy, because TMEM106B variants have previously been associated with risk of frontotemporal dementia. Expression quantitative trait locus analysis revealed that rs113986870, one of the GWS SNPs near rs2732703, is significantly associated with four KANSL1 probes that target transcription of the first translated exon and an untranslated exon in hippocampus (P≤1.3 × 10-8), frontal cortex (P≤1.3 × 10-9) and temporal cortex (P≤1.2 × 10-11). Rs113986870 is also strongly associated with a MAPT probe that targets transcription of alternatively spliced exon 3 in frontal cortex (P=9.2 × 10-6) and temporal cortex (P=2.6 × 10-6). Our APOE-stratified GWAS is the first to show GWS association for AD with SNPs in the chromosome 17q21.31 region. Replication of this finding in independent samples is needed to verify that SNPs in this region have significantly stronger effects on AD risk in persons lacking APOE ε4 compared with persons carrying this allele, and if this is found to hold, further examination of this region and studies aimed at deciphering the mechanism(s) are warranted