There being no good research showing benefits from common fish oil (& surrogates like krill oil etc.) compare with Vascepa
And the reason is there is no economic incentive for AMRN to stage a CT with a 9000 mg/d fish oil control dose to compare to Vascepa. Neither can there be found a CT sponsored by a fish oil supplement company. No economic incentive. There was a research paper that gathered up the ad hoc studies for fish oil. Highest dose which was inconclusive - 5000 mg/d. So what does it mean if a Dr prescribes 1000-2000 mg/d, and it doesn't have any effect? Then the patient is prescribed Vascepa, and an effect is seen? Does it mean fish oil is ineffective, or does it mean the fish oil dose was too low? Even AMRN admits it would take 9000 mg of fish oil to equal the EPA dose in their Vascepa. It wouldn't have looked good if a control arm of 9000 mg of fish oil had given the same results as Vascepa. So, AMRN avoided that potential result by avoiding a fish oil control arm. How about AMRN repeating the CT with the Vascepa dose being 1/9 or 2/9 the current dose. So as to correspond to EPA in a 1000-2000 fish oil dose, that Drs have historically prescribed? That won't happen either.
Regardless DHA raising LDL my LDLc/HDL = 0.9. It's the ratio of HDL to LDL which is the most important, along with the Triglycerides. There are other drugs in the pipeline that will supersede EPA for those who need to get things under control fast. The play Vascepa will get is from those Drs who want a CT tested drug so as to provide more legal protection for themselves.
BTW - note AMRN gives props to their drug by saying it doesn't cause the burps that fish oil does. Which sounds to me like it's a bad case of GERD. Not the fault of fish oil.
P.S. Whether it be Vascepa or the high dose of 9000 mg fish oil, you will bruise more easily, with it taking longer for your blood to clot. The Omega-3s interfere with clotting.