REDUCE-IT Trial: A Plain-English Overview of What It Established

By
Published Updated Last reviewed
Clinical medical image for trials reduce it: REDUCE-IT Trial: A Plain-English Overview of What It Established

REDUCE-IT Trial: A Plain-English Overview of What It Established

At a glance

| Field | Detail | |---|---| | Trial Name | REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl, Intervention Trial) | | N | 8,179 randomized | | Intervention | Icosapent ethyl 4 g/day (2 g twice daily) | | Comparator | Mineral oil placebo 4 g/day | | Duration | Median 4.9 years | | Primary Endpoint | 5-point MACE: CV death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, unstable angina hospitalization | | Key Result | 25% relative risk reduction in primary endpoint (HR 0.75 to 95% CI 0.68, 0.83, p < 0.001) | | NNT | 21 over 4.9 years to prevent one primary endpoint event | | Journal / Year | New England Journal of Medicine, 2019 |

The Question the Trial Was Built to Answer

By the early 2010s, statins had become the standard of care for cardiovascular prevention, and their benefit was well-documented. What remained was the problem of residual risk: patients already on statins who continued to have heart attacks and strokes at rates that were clinically unacceptable. Elevated fasting triglycerides, commonly in the 150 to 500 mg/dL range, were associated with that residual risk, though whether treating them would actually reduce events was unproven.

REDUCE-IT was designed to answer that specific question. Its primary publication in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019 reported whether adding 4 g/day of icosapent ethyl to statin therapy would reduce cardiovascular events in people who had elevated triglycerides despite already being on a statin.

The mechanistic rationale behind icosapent ethyl deserves a brief note here. Unlike standard fish-oil supplements, which contain a mixture of EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), icosapent ethyl is purified prescription-grade EPA only. The reason that distinction matters is that DHA raises LDL-C in some patients, a property EPA does not share, and there were mechanistic reasons to think pure EPA might have favorable effects on plaque stabilization and membrane lipid composition beyond simple triglyceride lowering. Whether triglyceride lowering itself drives the benefit, or whether these pleiotropic EPA effects do, remains actively debated, and that debate shapes how clinicians interpret the trial today.

Who Was Enrolled: The Eligibility Criteria in Detail

Understanding who got into REDUCE-IT matters enormously for applying its results. The trial required all of the following at screening:

Lipid criteria. Patients needed a fasting triglyceride level of 135 to 499 mg/dL and an LDL-C of 41 to 100 mg/dL, both measured while already on a stable statin dose for at least four weeks. The triglyceride threshold of 135 mg/dL is notably lower than the conventional cutoff of 150 mg/dL used to define hypertriglyceridemia, meaning even patients with only mildly elevated levels qualified.

Cardiovascular risk criteria. The trial enrolled two groups: patients with established cardiovascular disease (secondary prevention, about 71% of the cohort) and patients with diabetes plus at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor but no prior CV event (primary prevention with high risk, about 29%). This is not a general healthy-adult population. Nearly three-quarters of participants had already had a heart attack, stroke, or revascularization procedure.

Statin stability. All patients had to be on a stable statin regimen. About 93% were on a moderate- or high-intensity statin at baseline. The median LDL-C at enrollment was approximately 75 mg/dL, meaning lipid control at the LDL level was already good. The residual risk came from the triglyceride and cardiovascular-history side of the equation.

Patients were excluded if their triglycerides exceeded 499 mg/dL (which would have pushed toward pancreatitis risk) or if they were already on fibrates, omega-3 products, or niacin at doses that could affect lipids. Severe hepatic disease and known hypersensitivity to fish or shellfish were also exclusion criteria, consistent with the FDA label for icosapent ethyl.

The enrolled population was predominantly male (71%) and White (83%), with a mean age of 64 years. These demographic features are worth noting when applying the results to patients who differ substantially from the trial population.

What They Were Given and How the Trial Was Run

Participants were randomized 1:1 to icosapent ethyl 4 g/day or placebo. The active drug was supplied as 1-gram soft-gel capsules taken two capsules twice daily with food. The placebo was mineral oil, also in 1-gram soft-gel capsules taken on the same schedule.

The choice of mineral oil as placebo became one of the most contested aspects of the trial. Unlike an inert placebo, mineral oil appears to adversely affect lipid absorption and inflammatory markers. LDL-C, non-HDL-C, hsCRP, and apolipoprotein B all rose in the placebo group over the trial period in ways that would not be expected from a truly inert comparator. Critics, including several who authored formal analyses in peer-reviewed journals, argued this made the treatment arm look better relative to a comparator that was actively making things worse. Proponents of the trial countered that even if mineral oil had some adverse lipid effects, the magnitude of those effects was too small to fully account for the 25% MACE reduction observed, and that the relative difference in events between arms is what clinically matters.

The REDUCE-IT investigators addressed this criticism directly in a supplementary analysis, noting that baseline-adjusted event rates in the icosapent ethyl arm were well below what any plausible mineral oil effect could explain. Readers should be aware that this debate is unresolved and is one reason some guideline bodies were more cautious in their recommendations than others.

All participants continued their background statin therapy throughout the trial. Adherence was monitored by pill count and plasma EPA levels. At 12 months, median plasma EPA rose from approximately 26 mcg/mL at baseline to 144 mcg/mL in the treatment group, while remaining essentially unchanged in the placebo group, confirming drug exposure.

The Results: Primary and Secondary Endpoints

The primary endpoint was a 5-component composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina.

Primary Endpoint Results

| Endpoint | Icosapent Ethyl (%) | Placebo (%) | HR (95% CI) | p value | |---|---|---|---|---| | 5-point MACE (primary) | 17.2 | 22.0 | 0.75 (0.68, 0.83) | <0.001 | | 3-point MACE (CV death, MI, stroke) | 11.2 | 14.8 | 0.74 (0.65, 0.83) | <0.001 | | CV death | 4.3 | 5.2 | 0.80 (0.66, 0.98) | 0.03 | | Fatal or nonfatal MI | 6.1 | 8.7 | 0.69 (0.58, 0.81) | <0.001 | | Fatal or nonfatal stroke | 2.7 | 3.7 | 0.72 (0.55, 0.93) | 0.01 | | Coronary revascularization | 9.2 | 12.9 | 0.65 (0.55, 0.78) | <0.001 |

Every prespecified secondary endpoint moved in the same direction. The absolute risk reduction for the primary endpoint was 4.8 percentage points over the trial period, yielding a number needed to treat of 21 over approximately 5 years, which compares favorably with most established preventive therapies. For context, high-intensity statins in secondary prevention produce NNTs in the 20, 40 range over similar timeframes depending on baseline risk.

Triglyceride Reduction

Median triglycerides fell by 18.3% in the icosapent ethyl group from a baseline of approximately 216 mg/dL. The placebo group had a smaller reduction. Triglyceride lowering alone, however, could not account for the benefit in the trial investigators' analyses, partly because the degree of MACE reduction was larger than what triglyceride-lowering trials with fibrates had achieved at comparable levels of triglyceride reduction, and partly because the benefit was seen even in subgroups with lower baseline triglycerides.

Subgroup Consistency

The benefit was consistent across the major prespecified subgroups, including secondary vs. primary prevention, diabetic vs. non-diabetic patients, and across different baseline triglyceride levels within the enrolled range. That consistency made it harder to argue the result was driven by one particular high-risk subgroup, though the trial was not powered to demonstrate statistical significance within each individual subgroup.

Safety: What the Trial Found

The primary REDUCE-IT paper reported that atrial fibrillation or flutter was more common in the icosapent ethyl group (5.3% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.003). This signal had been seen in prior omega-3 trials and was considered biologically plausible given EPA's effects on cardiac ion channels. Patients with a prior history of atrial fibrillation were at higher absolute risk. The FDA label update for Vascepa added atrial fibrillation and flutter as a warning following this trial.

Serious bleeding events were also numerically higher in the treatment arm (2.7% vs. 2.1%), though adjudicated fatal bleeding did not differ significantly. Patients on anticoagulants warrant closer monitoring.

Gastrointestinal side effects, peripheral edema, and arthralgia were each slightly more common in the treatment arm but at low absolute rates.

Regulatory and Guideline Response

The FDA approved icosapent ethyl for cardiovascular risk reduction in December 2019, specifically for adults with established cardiovascular disease or diabetes with two or more additional risk factors, on a statin, with triglycerides at or above 150 mg/dL. The FDA approval announcement was the first time any omega-3 product received a CV outcomes indication in the United States.

The 2018 AHA/ACC Cholesterol Guidelines had anticipated the anticipated REDUCE-IT results and mentioned icosapent ethyl as a potential nonstatin add-on for high-risk patients with elevated triglycerides. Following the full publication, the 2021 AHA/ACC cardiovascular risk reduction guidelines gave icosapent ethyl a Class IIa recommendation for patients meeting the REDUCE-IT eligibility criteria, meaning it is reasonable to add it to statin therapy in that population.

Not all guidelines went equally far. The European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society took a more cautious stance, citing the mineral oil controversy and uncertainty about whether the benefit was driven by active harm in the comparator arm rather than active benefit in the treatment arm. Clinicians working across different health systems may therefore see different default recommendations for the same patient profile.

What the Trial Does Not Establish

Several questions remained unanswered after REDUCE-IT and are worth naming plainly.

The trial does not prove that triglyceride lowering per se is the mechanism. It tested one drug in one dose with one comparator. The STRENGTH trial, which tested a mixed EPA/DHA omega-3 product at a similar dose versus corn oil placebo, found no significant MACE reduction, which either supports the EPA-specific mechanism hypothesis or raises questions about the comparator effect in REDUCE-IT, or both.

The trial does not apply to patients with triglycerides above 500 mg/dL, who were excluded, or to patients not on statins, or to patients without elevated triglycerides.

The trial does not resolve whether icosapent ethyl adds benefit on top of newer agents like PCSK9 inhibitors, since essentially none of the REDUCE-IT participants were on those drugs, which were just being introduced during the enrollment period.

Limitations Acknowledged by the Authors

The REDUCE-IT investigators acknowledged the mineral oil comparator issue in the original paper, noting it as a limitation while defending their analysis. They also acknowledged the predominantly male, predominantly White trial population as a constraint on generalizability. The open-label extension and post-hoc analyses that followed were not preregistered and therefore carry the usual interpretive caution applied to any post-hoc work. The REDUCE-IT investigators published updated cardiovascular outcome analyses addressing some of these concerns but could not fully resolve them without a mineral-oil-free replicate trial.

Frequently asked questions

›Who exactly qualifies for icosapent ethyl based on REDUCE-IT?
›Why did REDUCE-IT use mineral oil as the placebo, and why does it matter?
›Was the 25% reduction in MACE a relative or absolute reduction?
›Does this trial apply to patients who are not on a statin?
›What is the difference between prescription icosapent ethyl and over-the-counter fish oil?
›What happened to atrial fibrillation rates in the trial?
›Why did the STRENGTH trial get a different result?
›What do current US guidelines say about prescribing icosapent ethyl?
›Is icosapent ethyl a triglyceride-lowering drug or a cardiovascular drug?
›What is the cost and access situation for patients today?

References

  1. Bhatt DL, Steg PG, Miller M, et al. Cardiovascular Risk Reduction with Icosapent Ethyl for Hypertriglyceridemia. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(1):11-22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30415628/

  2. Nicholls SJ, Lincoff AM, Garcia M, et al. Effect of High-Dose Omega-3 Fatty Acids vs Corn Oil on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk: The STRENGTH Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020;324(22):2268-2280. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33190147/

  3. US Food and Drug Administration. Vascepa (icosapent ethyl) Prescribing Information. 2019. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/202057s013lbl.pdf

  4. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(24):e285-e350. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30586774/

  5. Arnett DK, Blumenthal RS, Albert MA, et al. 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. Circulation. 2019;140(11):e596-e646. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30879355/

  6. Budoff M, Bhatt DL, Kinninger A, et al. Effect of icosapent ethyl on progression of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with elevated triglycerides on statin therapy: the EVAPORATE trial. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(40):3925-3932. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32778873/

  7. Skulas-Ray AC, Wilson PWF, Harris WS, et al. Omega-3 Fatty Acids for the Management of Hypertriglyceridemia: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019;140(12):e673-e691. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31422671/

  8. Ballantyne CM, Bays HE, Kastelein JJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester (AMR101) therapy in statin-treated patients with persistent high triglycerides. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(11):984-992. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22727249/