Fish Oil May Slow Schizophrenia

Omega-3 supplementation reduced progression rates among people with early-stage symptoms of schizophrenia, according to a small trial.

By | August 13, 2015

WIKIMEDIA, ODDMAN47Seven years ago, investigators enrolled 81 people aged 13 to 25 with early signs of schizophrenia in a clinical trial to test the effects of omega-3 fish oil pills. A paper published this week (August 11) in Nature Communications reported on 71 of those participants, pointing to a notable benefit of the supplements: only 10 percent of those taking fish oils ultimately developed schizophrenia, compared with 40 percent of the placebo group.

“I don’t want to sound like a cynic or a skeptic, but it’s almost too good to be true,” psychiatrist Jeffrey Lieberman of Columbia University Medical Center in New York City who was not involved in the study told ScienceNews.

Schizophrenia usually starts to manifest in the first 20 to 30 years of life, with minor delusions and paranoid thoughts often occurring in the teenage years or younger. But only about a third of people who present with such early symptoms eventually develop psychosis, New Scientist reported. After researchers found that the blood cells of schizophrenia patients have lower levels of omega-3 fatty acids than those of healthy controls, scientists in the field began to investigate the possibility that supplementing these compounds could treat the disorder. Results of early trials have been mixed, but this latest study points to the potential benefit of fatty acids if taken early enough.

“Schizophrenia is a major cause of disability, but early treatment has been linked to better outcomes,” coauthor Paul Amminger at the University of Melbourne in Australia told The Guardian. “Our study gives hope that there may be alternatives to antipsychotic medication.”

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You



Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo


Avatar of: Eric J. Murphy

Eric J. Murphy

Posts: 20

August 19, 2015

What is the clear flaw in the study?  Where is a control fatty acid that is similar to DHA in nature?  Did the authors use 22:5n-6?  So was this a PUFA effect or a specific effect of EPA/DHA?  I don't see one indicator of changes in RBC fatty acid composition nor do I see any change in n-3 status, so a time course showing patient compliance would have been helpful.

Looking at the communciation in Nature Communications, I see a placebo group, but was the placebo?  While I took just a quick look, it was not readily discernable.  So is this another demonstration of a "DHA effect" that is not really an effect of 1.2 mg of  n-3 fatty acids (EPA/DHA)?  

Was there an increase in EPA derived bioactive lipids including 3-series prostglandins?  Was there an increase in DHA derived bioactive lipids?  Lots of questions but in the end another poorly controlled study that does not truly address whether this is an effect of n-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) or of PUFA in general.

Hence, while potentially exciting, let's face reality, it was not robust despite the authors best intentions.  The lack of defining the placebo does not help the situation.  While this paper is published in Nature Communications, would it have made it in a journal focused on lipids? 



Popular Now

  1. Secret Eugenics Conference Uncovered at University College London
  2. Like Humans, Walruses and Bats Cuddle Infants on Their Left Sides
  3. How Do Infant Immune Systems Learn to Tolerate Gut Bacteria?
  4. Scientists Continue to Use Outdated Methods