Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsRandomized Controlled TrialEurope PMCOpen access

Inflammatory markers after supplementation with marine n-3 or plant n-6 PUFAs: A randomized double-blind crossover study

Grytten E., Laupsa-Borge J., Cetin K., Bohov P., Nordrehaug JE., Skorve J.

Randomized Controlled Trial with a reported sample of 16 on Chronic Inflammation, published in J Lipid Res (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsEvidence level of this study

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal
J Lipid Res (2025)
Reported sample size
16
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
40058591
PMCID
PMC11999210
DOI
10.1016/j.jlr.2025.100770
Citations
9

Abstract (original English)

Omega-3 (n-3) (e.g., EPA/DHA) and omega-6 (n-6) (e.g., linoleic acid [LA]) FAs are suggested to have opposite effects on inflammation, but results are inconsistent and direct comparisons of n-3 and n-6 are lacking. In a double-blind, randomized, and crossover study, females (n = 16) and males (n = 23) aged 30-70 years with abdominal obesity were supplemented with 3-4 g/d EPA/DHA (fish oil) or 15-20 g/d LA (safflower oil) for 7 weeks, with a 9-week washout phase. Cytokines and chemokines (multiplex assay), acute-phase proteins (MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry), endothelial function (vascular reaction index), blood pressure, FA composition (red blood cell membranes/serum/adipose tissue, GC-MS/MS), and adipose gene expression (microarrays, quantitative PCR) were measured. While significant differences between treatments in relative change scores were found for systolic blood pressure (n-3 vs. n-6: -1.81% vs. 2.61%, P = 0.003), no differences between n-3 and n-6 were found for any circulatory inflammatory markers. However, compared with baseline, n-3 was followed by reductions in circulating TNF (-24.9%, P < 0.001), regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted (-12.1%, P < 0.001), and macrophage inflammatory protein 1-beta (-12.5%, P = 0.014), and n-6 by lowered TNF (-18.8%, P < 0.001), regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted (-7.37%, P = 0.02

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

How we grade evidence
HumansInflammationFatty Acids, Omega-3Fatty Acids, Omega-6CytokinesCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodDietary SupplementsAdultAged

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research