Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique

#194 Needed for Eye and Brain Development? Omega-3s in infant formula

Does adding omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids to infant formula improve brain and eye development in healthy, full-term infants?

Adding omega-3 to infant formula has no consistently meaningful effects on neurocognitive development. One group using one measure of visual acuity consistently found benefits (about 1-line difference on Snellen chart) at 12 months that others do not and long-term data is lacking. 

CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session

  • Neuro-cognition: 
    • Five of seven highest quality Systematic Reviews (SR) found no consistent benefit.1-5  
    • Remaining two SR that found benefit: 6,7   
      • SR of four Randomized Controlled Trials [RCTs (376 patients)].6 Compared to no omega-3, omega-3 statistically improved: 
        • Mental and Psychomotor Development Indices, by standard mean differences of 0.27-0.33, which is difficult to interpret clinically (but suggest small). 
        • Limitations: Inconsistent data reporting, results mainly driven by one industry-funded trial.8  
      • SR of studies between 2008-2013.7    
        • Two meta-analyses found no effect on cognition.  
        • Seven RCTs not included in the meta-analyses provide inconsistent results. 
        • Limitations: Conclusions not based on the totality of the evidence. 
  • Vision: 
    • Within omega-3 Cochrane SR, eight RCTs examined visual acuity.2   
      • Four RCTs (495 participants) found no effect.   
      • Three RCTs (244 participants) pooled found omega-3 better on sweep visual evoked potentials (VEP), equivalent to approximately 1-line on Snellen chart.    
      • Another RCT (32 participants) found benefit at different time-points with different tests. 
      • Limitations: High drop-outs (follow-up 70-86% complete), most benefit seen by one research group.  
    • SR of nine RCTs (1,131 participants):9  
      • Omega-3 improved acuity using VEP at 2, 4, and 12 months (approximately 1-line better on Snellen chart, inconsistent results), but no difference using other methods. 
    • Other reviews found similar, inconsistent effects.1,10 
  • Limitations:  
    • Clinical relevance unknown.  
    • Multiple outcomes reported likely leading to ‘chance findings’. 
      • Example: One study found better vision in right eye with omega-3 at four years, but not left eye.10,11   
  • There is no optimal neurocognitive assessment measure for infants.  
  • The minimum clinically important differences in the most commonly used neurocognitive scales are unknown.4,8,12 
  • Formula containing omega-3 costs more than formula without omega-3. 

Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#369 Remind me, do medications that target brain amyloid improve my dementia?

Are amyloid-targeting monoclonal antibodies safe and effective for mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s dementia?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#368 Sodium Restriction in Heart Failure: Beneficial or pouring salt in the wound?

Does sodium restriction improve outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#367 Oral Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Antagonists: A painfully long name for the acute treatment of migraines

What are the risks and benefits of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of episodic migraines?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session

  • Adrienne J Lindblad BSP ACPR PharmD
  • Christina Korownyk MD CCFP

1. Lewin GA, Schachter HM, Yuen D, et al. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2005 Aug; (118):1-11.

2. Jasani B, Simmer K, Patole SK, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 10; 3:CD000376.

3. Qawasmi A, Landeros-Weisenberger A, Leckman JF, et al. Pediatrics. 2012; 129(6):1141-9.

4. Sun H, Como PG, Downey LC, et al. J Perinatol. 2015; 35(10):867-74.

5. Beyerlein A, Hadders-Algra M, Kennedy K, et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2010; 50(1):79-84.

6. Jiao J, Li Q, Chu J, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014; 100:1422-36.

7. Koletzko B, Boey CC, Campoy C, et al. Ann Nutr Metab. 2014; 65:49-80.

8. Drover JR, Hoffman DR, Castañeda YS, et al. Early Hum Dev. 2011; 87:223-30.

9. Qawasmi A, Landeros-Weisenberger A, Bloch MH. Pediatrics. 2013; 131:e262-72.

10. Campoy C, Escolano-Margarit MV, Anjos T, et al. Br J Nutr. 2012; 107:S85-S106.

11. Birch EE, Garfield S, Castañeda Y, et al. Early Hum Dev. 2007; 83:279-84.

12. Hess CR, Papas MA, Black MM. J Pediatr Psych. 2004; 29(5):321-30.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.