EPIC‐1 2008.

Methods	EPANOVA in Crohn's disease, study 1 (EPIC‐1) RCT, parallel, 2‐arm (omega 3 vs MCT), 52 weeks Summary risk of bias: moderate or high
Participants	Adults with quiescent Crohn's disease (CDAI) score < 150 N:  188 intervention, 186 control Level of risk for CVD: low Men: 48.1% intervention, 41.1% control Mean age in years (SD): 40.5 (15.2) intervention, 38.2 (13.1) control Age range: 18‐70 years Smokers: 30.6% intervention, 34.4% control                                        Hypertension: unclear Medications taken by at least 50% of those in the control group: oral 5‐ASA therapy, Systemic corticosteroids – prednisolone, budesonide Medications taken by 20%‐49% of those in the control group: not reported Medications taken by some, but less than 20% of the control group: antibiotic therapy, topical rectal therapy, immune‐modifying agents, immune modifiers/biologics Location: Canada, Europe, Israel, USA Ethnicity: not reported
Interventions	Type: supplement (capsule) Comparison: EPA + DHA vs SFA (medium chain triglycerides of short SFAs) Intervention: 2 × 2 1 g gelatin capsules omega‐3 free fatty acids (Epanova‐ 2.2 g EPA, 0.8 g DHA). Dose: 3 g/d EPA + DHA     Control: 4 x1 g capsules medium chain triglycerides Compliance: pill counts, 79.2% adhered intervention, 75.6% adhered control Length of intervention: mean 52 weeks
Outcomes	Main study outcome: Crohns relapse‐free time Dropouts: 80 intervention, 91 control Available outcomes: total deaths, non‐fatal arrhythmias, cancer diagnoses, cancer deaths, adverse events Response to contact: yes (data provided)
Notes	Study funding: Tillotts Pharma, authors had extensive financial disclosures
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation by number generator. Used a centralised randomisation procedure via interactive voice recognition system.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Centralised randomisation (see above)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Double blinding stated, identical capsule (slow‐release capsules). Neither investigator nor participant knew the allocation.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Study states double‐blind but does not state that outcome assessors were blinded or provide a mechanism for this
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Number of dropouts and reasons provided. 171 of 187 in intervention group and 174 of 184 in control group provided data for primary outcome, (7% dropout), though 80 in the intervention group and 91 in the control group terminated early.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Trials registration (NCT00613197) first received in 2008, but study started in 2003 and was published in 2008
Attention	Low risk	As investigators were blinded attention bias was not possible.
Compliance	Unclear risk	Pill counts, 79.2% adhered intervention, 75.6% adhered control
Other bias	Low risk	No further bias noted