Skip to main content
Download PDF

Dietary and circulating omega-6 fatty acids and their impact on cardiovascular disease, cancer risk, and mortality: a global meta-analysis of 150 cohorts and meta-regression

Journal of Translational Medicine volume 23, Article number: 314 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Despite the significant increase in omega-6 fatty acid consumption, evidence regarding their health impacts remains inconsistent. This study performs an umbrella review and updated meta-analysis to evaluate the association between dietary and circulating omega-6 levels and the risks of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), cancer, and mortality.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science until January 2024 to identify eligible meta-analyses of prospective observational studies. The Cochrane risk of bias and GRADE tools were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence, respectively.

Results

Analysis of 150 publications revealed that higher dietary intake and circulating levels of omega-6 were associated with lower risks of CVDs, cancer incidence, and all-cause mortality in the general population, particularly for coronary heart disease and stroke. While omega-6 intake was linked to lower risks of lung and prostate cancers, it was associated with higher risks of ovarian and endometrial cancers. Subgroup analyses revealed that these protective associations were more pronounced in cohort studies and absent in populations with pre-existing health conditions.

Conclusions

Higher dietary intake and circulating levels of omega-6 fatty acids were associated with lower risks of CVDs, cancers, and all-cause mortality. However, the associations vary by cancer type and are less evident in individuals with pre-existing health conditions. These findings highlight the potential benefits of omega-6 fatty acids for public health while underscoring the need for further research to address specific risks and underlying mechanisms.

Trial registration

Registration number (PROSPERO): CRD42024522842

Introduction

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and cancers are the leading global causes of morbidity and mortality [1, 2]. Shared biological pathways, such as inflammation and metabolic dysregulation, contribute to the development of both conditions [3]. Emerging evidence highlights that CVDs exacerbate cancer mortality, underscoring the importance of proactively managing shared risk factors, including dietary habits [3,4,5].

Diet plays a critical role in the development and progression of chronic diseases. Diets high in saturated and trans fats are strongly linked to increased risk [6], while polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), particularly omega-3 and omega-6, exhibit protective effects [6]. PUFAs reduce inflammation and lower low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), with potential anticancer benefits through modulation of cell signaling and tumor suppression [6]. Replacing saturated fats with PUFAs, such as those in plant oils, has lowered the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). However, the long-term health effects of specific plant oils remain contentious, warranting further research [6]. The growing imbalance between omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acid intake underscores the need for a deeper understanding of the health effects of omega-6 fatty acids [7]. Additionally, the health implications of omega-6 remain a topic of considerable debate, creating uncertainties in dietary guidelines and raising concerns that current consumption levels may pose certain health risks [8].

Meanwhile, linoleic acid (LA; ω − 6, 18:2) is the primary dietary omega-6, predominantly sourced from plant oils, chicken, eggs, meat, and nuts [9]. Since the 1960s, the average daily LA intake in Western countries has risen significantly, from 2.7 g to approximately 4.9–21.0 g daily, contributing 4–10% of total dietary calories [10, 11]. In contrast, the daily requirement of LA to prevent essential fatty acid deficiency is only 1–2% of the total energy intake [12]. This more than tenfold increase in LA consumption has prompted extensive research into its metabolic effects, particularly its influence on long-term health outcomes and mortality [13, 14].

Previous meta-analyses have reported an inverse association between higher dietary intake of omega-6 and the risk of CVDs [15, 16]. However, three meta-analyses examining serum omega-6 levels and CVDs yielded inconsistent results [16,17,18]. A single meta-analysis in 2020 linked higher dietary and serum omega-6 levels to a lower risk of all-cause mortality [19]. While most meta-analyses found an inverse association between dietary omega-6 and various cancers [20,21,22,23,24], one recent study reported a positive link between increased dietary omega-6 intake and colon cancer risk [25]. Of note, the relationship between serum omega-6 levels and cancer remains inconclusive: four meta-analyses [20, 22, 23, 25], two identified a direct association [23, 25], while two reported an inverse relationship [20, 22].

Considering the growing body of research and inconsistencies in previous findings, updated and comprehensive meta-analyses are essential. In this umbrella review, we systematically examined the associations between dietary and circulatory levels of omega-6 fatty acids with the incidence of CVDs, cancers, and mortality. To ensure the robustness of our findings, we performed influence analyses, evaluated the certainty of the evidence (CoE), and explored potential sources of heterogeneity through subgroup analyses and meta-regression.

Methods

This umbrella review adhered to the guidelines outlined in both the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement [26] and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) handbook [27]. The systematic review protocol for this study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024522842).

Systematic search

The authors (RS, MN, and MHR) systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to January 2024 to identify eligible meta-analyses of prospective observational studies (cohorts and nested case-controls (NCC)). The search utilized combined keywords of the exposure (omega-6) and outcomes (CVDs, cancer, and all-cause mortality). The complete search strategy is outlined in Supplementary Table 1. Additionally, the literature search was complemented by screening the reference lists of all relevant reviews and meta-analyses.

Selection of meta-analyses and original studies

We applied stringent eligibility criteria to identify meta-analyses suitable for our analysis. Studies meeting the following criteria were deemed eligible for inclusion in the present umbrella review:

(1) Meta-analyses of prospective observational studies conducted in populations aged 18 years or older; (2) Assessment of dietary/circulatory levels of total omega-6 or LA using a standard tool (e.g., food frequency questionnaires (FFQ), dietary history, 24-hour dietary recalls, dietary records, or gas chromatography), with reporting of dietary/circulatory total omega-6 or LA as the exposure; (3) Evaluation of the incidence of CVDs, total and site-specific cancers, all-cause, and cause-specific mortality as outcomes; and (4) Reporting of multivariable-adjusted summary risk estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each outcome.

Also, we established specific criteria to exclude unsuitable studies from our analysis: (1) Narrative reviews or systematic reviews without meta-analysis; (2) Meta-analyses of interventional studies; and (3) Meta-analyses focused on pregnant and lactating women. Additionally, we excluded primary studies meeting the following criteria from each selected meta-analysis: (1) Cross-sectional or case-control studies and (2) Studies with unadjusted risk estimates.

We selected one meta-analysis for each outcome in every population, exploring the reference lists of all previously published meta-analyses with the same outcome to identify additional eligible studies not included in the chosen meta-analyses. These studies were subsequently included in our review. In cases where multiple meta-analyses were identified for a given outcome in each population, we prioritized the meta-analysis with more primary studies [28]. To ensure the reliability of our results, original studies (cohorts and NCC studies) that were not included in the earlier meta-analyses were also added to this study.

Data extraction

Two authors (RS, MN, and MHR) independently extracted the following data from eligible meta-analyses: first author’s name, publication year, exposure, number of primary cohort or NCC studies included in the analysis, number of participants, type of comparison, meta-analysis primary results (pooled estimate, I2 and publication bias) and follow up range among included studies.

We also extracted the following data from primary studies included in each meta-analysis: first author’s name, year of publication, study region, population characteristics, number of cases/ participants, mean age, sex, dietary/biochemical assessment method, exposure, outcome, adjusted relative risks and their corresponding 95% CIs, and follow-up period. Any disagreement was resolved through consensus.

Assessment of methodological quality

Two reviewers, MHR and HA, independently assessed the quality of each meta-analysis, resolving any discrepancies through discussion and consensus. The evaluation was conducted using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2), specifically designed to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses [29].

Similarly, two independent reviewers evaluated the quality of primary studies included in each meta-analysis using the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies [30]. This assessment considered several domains, including confounding, participant selection, exposure assessment, misclassification during follow-up, missing data, outcome measurement, and selective reporting of results. Based on these criteria, each domain was assigned a judgment of low, moderate, or serious risk of bias. Any discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through discussion and consensus.

Data synthesis and analysis

We extracted maximally adjusted effect sizes and their corresponding 95% CI from the original studies in each selected meta-analysis. To ensure comprehensive analysis, we combined estimates from the same population presented in different subgroups (e.g., in men and women) or data from the same cohort reported in various studies, using a fixed-effects model, and the combined effect size was used for subsequent analyses. Subsequently, a random-effects model was applied to estimate the relative risks (RR) and their 95% CI, serving as the effect size in the present umbrella review and meta-analysis [31].

We assessed between-study heterogeneity using the I2 statistic [32]. According to guidelines from the Cochrane Handbook, I2 statistics were interpreted as follows: 0–40% (might not be important); 30–60% (may represent moderate heterogeneity); 50–90% (may represent substantial heterogeneity); and 75–100% (considerable heterogeneity) [33]. To complement I2, we also calculated tau2 (τ2), independent of population size [34]. Potential publication bias was evaluated through visual inspection of funnel plots [33] and using Egger’s test [35]. We also employed the trim-and-fill method to adjust for potential publication bias.

The subgroup analyses were performed based on various population characteristics, including the general population and individuals with health concerns (including individuals with high CVDs risk, postmenopausal women, smokers, individuals with CVDs, cancer, diabetes, renal disorders), study region (America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania), study type (cohort and NCC), sex (male, female, both), and measurement type. We also conducted an influence analysis, where each study was excluded to evaluate its impact on the overall estimate. Furthermore, random-effects meta-regression was employed to assess the influence of mean age, follow-up duration, and year of publication on the outcomes when at least ten studies were available. All statistical analyses were conducted using version 17.0 of STATA statistical software (StataCorp), with a significance level set at P < 0.05.

Grading of the evidence

The CoE was evaluated using the GRADE tool [36], categorizing evidence certainty as high, moderate, low, or very low. Observational studies, such as prospective cohort studies, are considered low-quality evidence and may be downgraded or upgraded based on predefined criteria. The criteria to downgrade evidence encompass study limitations, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. Conversely, the criteria to upgrade the quality of evidence include a substantial magnitude of association, a dose-response gradient, and attenuation by plausible confounding.

Results

Study selection

As illustrated in Fig. 1, our systematic search yielded 26,863 results. Following removing duplicate studies, 20,068 studies initially underwent screening based on title and abstract, with a subsequent full-text review if necessary. The present umbrella review encompassed eleven meta-analyses [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Furthermore, we identified 11 original studies [37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47] that had not been incorporated into previous meta-analyses. Our analysis included 150 publications (107 cohorts and 43 NCCs) comprising 230 studies and 93 distinct cohorts.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart for study selection in the umbrella review and updated meta-analysis

Full size image

As indicated in Table 1, we utilized four meta-analyses [15, 17, 19, 20] as references to select eligible studies. Regarding the association between dietary intake and circulating levels of omega-6 with the incidence of CVDs, we identified 47 studies from the included meta-analyses and 19 studies from the systematic search. Furthermore, concerning the association between dietary intake and circulating levels of omega-6 with cancer incidence, we found 104 studies from the meta-analyses and three studies from the systematic search. Finally, four studies from a systematic search and 53 studies from meta-analyses were included in the association between circulating omega-6 levels and dietary omega-6 intake with all-cause mortality.

Table 1 Basic characteristics of included meta-analysis, investigating the association between higher versus lower intake and Circulating levels of omega-6 fatty acids with the incidence of cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and related mortality
Full size table
Table 2 Meta-regression analysis for the association between dietary and circulatory levels of omega-6 with the incidence of CVDs, cancer and related mortality
Full size table

Study characteristics

Supplementary Tables 2–4 summarize the key features of the included studies. A total of 111 studies investigated the association between dietary omega-6 intake and the incidence of cancer (n = 68), CVDs (n = 16), and all-cause mortality (n = 27). Additionally, the association between circulating omega-6 levels and the incidence of cancer, CVDs, and all-cause mortality was examined in 50, 39, and 30 studies, respectively.

The majority (n = 181) of included studies were conducted on the general population, while 49 focused on individuals with health concerns. Furthermore, 96 studies were performed in America, 91 in Europe, and 43 in Asia and Oceania. One hundred four studies were conducted on both genders, with 61 and 65 explicitly focusing on men and women, respectively. Notably, dietary omega-6 intake was determined using the FFQ in 86 studies, while alternative dietary assessment techniques such as food records and 24-hour recall were employed in 25 studies. Furthermore, the amount of circulating omega-6 in total plasma/serum/whole blood, phospholipids, erythrocytes, and cholesteryl esters has been measured in 54, 40, 14, and 11 studies, and the follow-up periods of the included studies ranged from one to thirty-two years.

Meta-analysis

Association between highest vs. lowest dietary and circulatory levels of omega-6 with all-cause mortality

As depicted in Figs. 2-a and 3-a, the comparison between the highest and lowest levels of dietary omega-6 intake (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.83, 0.94; I2: 62.4) and circulating omega-6 levels (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.94; I2: 70.5) revealed a lower risk of all-cause mortality. Moreover, as shown in Supplementary Table 5, higher dietary omega-6 intake was associated with a lower risk of CVDs (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.82, 0.93; I2: 26.4) and cancer (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.85, 0.92; I2: 0.00) mortality. While higher circulating omega-6 levels were associated with lower CVD mortality risk (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.92; I2: 30.9), no significant association was observed between circulating omega-6 levels with risk of cancer mortality (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.01; I2: 39.2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forrest plots of cohorts and nested case-control studies (*) illustrating the pooled estimation for the association between highest vs. lowest dietary intake of omega-6 with (a) all-cause mortality, (b) cancer incidence, and (c) cardiovascular disease incidence

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Forrest plots of cohorts and nested case-control studies (*) illustrating the pooled estimation for the association between highest vs. lowest circulatory levels of omega-6 with (a) all-cause mortality, (b) cancer incidence, and (c) cardiovascular disease incidence

Full size image

Association between highest vs. lowest dietary and circulatory levels of omega-6 with cancer incidence

Figures 2-b and 3-b indicate the risk of cancer incidence concerning dietary intake and circulating levels of omega-6, respectively. While higher levels of omega-6 intake did not exhibit a significant association with cancer incidence (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.04; I2: 28.1), higher circulating omega-6 levels were linked to a lower risk of cancer (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80, 0.96; I2: 46.3). Furthermore, Supplementary Table 6 provides insight into the association between dietary and circulating omega-6 levels and various types of cancer. Notably, higher dietary intake and circulating omega-6 levels were associated with a lower risk of lung cancer (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.99; I2: -) and prostate cancer (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.76, 0.96; I2: 18.5), respectively. However, higher omega-6 intake was associated with a higher risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.30; I2: 0.00).

Association between highest vs. lowest dietary and circulatory levels of omega-6 with CVDs incidence

As indicated in Figs. 2-c and 3-c, while higher levels of dietary omega-6 intake were not associated with CVD incidence (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.02; I2: 53.9), higher circulating omega-6 levels were significantly linked to a lower risk of CVD incidence (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.89, 0.96; I2: 42.0). Additionally, Supplementary Table 7 presents the association between dietary and circulating omega-6 levels with various types of CVDs. Although higher levels of dietary and circulating omega-6 did not exhibit a significant relationship with the incidence of total CVDs and atrial fibrillation, higher circulating omega-6 levels were associated with a lower risk of CHD (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88, 0.98; I2: 43.5) and stroke (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.94; I2: 36.2).

Subgroup analyses

Supplementary Tables 7–9 summarize the subgroup analysis based on population characteristics, study region, study type, sex, and measurement type. Study characteristics, study region, and sex were known as a source of heterogeneity. Studies conducted on the general population indicated a lower risk of CVDs, cancer, and all-cause mortality when comparing the highest versus lowest dietary and circulating omega-6 levels. However, no significant relationship was observed in populations with health concerns. Furthermore, findings from both cohort and NCC studies indicated that higher circulating levels of omega-6 were associated with a lower incidence of CVDs and cancer, with cohort studies showing a more pronounced association.

Although cohort studies did not indicate a significant association between higher omega-6 intake and cancer incidence, the results from NCC studies suggested that higher omega-6 intake is linked to a higher risk of cancer (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.41; I2: 0.00). Additionally, in contrast to NCC studies, cohort studies revealed that higher circulating levels of omega-6 were associated with a lower risk of mortality (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.82, 0.92; I2: 70.8).

Meta-regression

As indicated in Table 3 and Supplementary Fig. 7, we conducted a meta-regression based on mean age, follow-up duration, and year of publication per 1 unit increase in mentioned factors. The year of publication was recognized as a source of heterogeneity in the relationship between the circulating levels of omega-6 and the incidence of cancer, so the pooled estimate changed by 0.015 units per year (P value = 0.035).

Table 3 The methodological quality of included meta-analyses using AMSTAR2
Full size table

Publication bias

Supplementary Figs. 1–6 represent the funnel plots investigating the potential for publication bias among included studies. Significant publication bias was observed for the association between dietary and circulating omega-6 levels with cancer incidence (Eagers p-value: 0.012) and all-cause mortality (Eagers p-value: 0.007), respectively. Consequently, we utilized the trim-and-fill method to address potential publication bias.

Regarding the association between circulating levels of omega-6 and all-cause mortality, the fill-and-trim analysis revealed no new studies, and the random-effects model trimming estimation remained consistent with the pooled estimate (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.93). However, concerning the association between dietary omega-6 intake and cancer incidence, the initial fill-and-trim analysis identified 11 additional studies beyond those included. The results of the fill-and-trim analysis indicated that although a higher compared to a lower intake of omega-6 was associated with a lower risk of developing cancer, this association did not reach statistical significance (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.01). Given this minimal difference (0.03), which does not impact the observed relationship, this level of publication bias is not considered problematic.

Influence analysis

According to influence analysis, excluding none of the studies had a significant impact on the association between dietary and circulating levels of omega-6 with cancer incidence and all-cause mortality. Additionally, excluding none of the studies had a considerable effect on the pooled estimation of the association between circulating omega-6 with CVDs incidence (range: 0.91–0.92). However, by excluding the impact of the study by Pietinen et al. [48], there was a significant association between dietary omega-6 intake with CVDs incidence (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.80, 0.99).

Methodological quality

Table 3 summarizes the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses. Of the 11 meta-analyses reviewed [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25], six [16, 17, 20,21,22, 25] were rated as having low methodological quality, while the remaining five [15, 18, 19, 23, 24] were rated as critically low. The main factors contributing to lower quality were the lack of a predefined protocol before conducting the meta-analyses and insufficient evaluation of how the risk of bias may have influenced the aggregated results.

Supplementary Table 11 presents the risk of bias assessment for the included studies using the ROBINS-I tool. Key factors contributing to a reduction in study quality from moderate to serious were biases related to confounding, exposure assessment methods, follow-up misclassification, and missing data. Serious issues in exposure assessment and follow-up misclassification resulted in a serious risk of bias in 12% of the studies (n = 18), while less severe concerns led to a moderate risk of bias in the remaining studies.

Grading the evidence

Supplementary Table 12 presents the GRADE assessment results, which range from very low to moderate certainty. The association between dietary omega-6 intake and CVD mortality showed moderate certainty of evidence. In contrast, other associations were rated as low to very low certainty, primarily due to serious concerns about the risk of bias, inconsistencies across studies, and non-significant results, particularly for cancer and CVD incidence.

For circulating omega-6 levels, the certainty of evidence was generally moderate despite some concerns about the risk of bias. However, an exception was observed for cancer-specific mortality, where the certainty was downgraded to very low due to non-significant results, indirectness, and additional limitations related to the risk of bias and consistency.

Discussion

Our findings indicate that higher omega-6 intake is associated with a lower risk of CVDs and all-cause mortality. However, while higher omega-6 intake was linked to a lower risk of lung and prostate cancers, it was associated with an increased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers. Higher circulating omega-6 levels were also associated with a lower risk of CVDs, particularly CHD and stroke, as well as lower cancer incidence and all-cause mortality. Subgroup analyses in the general population showed that both dietary and circulating omega-6 levels were inversely associated with all-cause mortality, CVDs, and cancer incidence. However, no such associations were observed in populations with pre-existing health conditions. In both cohort and NCC studies, higher circulating omega-6 levels were linked to a lower incidence of cancer and CVDs, with more potent effects observed in cohort studies. Notably, only in cohort studies was an increase in circulating omega-6 levels associated with lower all-cause mortality rates.

Consistent with our results, Wu et al. reported that elevated circulating levels of LA were linked to reduced overall and CVD-specific mortality in older adults [8]. However, concerns persist regarding potential health risks associated with omega-6 fatty acids. For example, a large prospective cohort study revealed a significant association between the omega-6/omega-3 PUFA ratio in circulation and increased mortality risk from all causes, cancer and CVDs [49].

Specifically, concerns have been raised about LA and its metabolite, arachidonic acid (AA), potentially promoting thrombosis and inflammation [50]. These concerns primarily stem from the hypothesis that omega-6 fatty acids compete with omega-3s for shared enzymatic pathways, which could reduce the production of beneficial omega-3-derived bioactive metabolites [51]. Notably, the lowest risk appears when omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids are present at high levels, highlighting the importance of maintaining a balanced intake of these essential fatty acids [8].

Similar to prior meta-analyses of prospective cohorts and earlier clinical trials that demonstrated a reduced risk of CVDs with higher omega-6 intake [52, 53], our findings also reveal a significant association between circulating omega-6 levels and CVD risk. Supporting this, Nagai et al. reported that lower circulating omega-6 levels at admission were significantly associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) [54]. However, conflicting evidence exists, such as a meta-analysis by Chowdhury et al., which found no significant association between dietary omega-6 intake and CVD mortality [55].

Guidelines on omega-6 dietary intake for CVD prevention remain inconsistent [56]. For instance, secondary analyses of clinical trials involving LA-rich corn oil have suggested a potential increase in CHD and overall mortality risk [50, 57]. Furthermore, Mazidi et al., using Mendelian randomization, found elevated AA levels to be directly associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction, CHD, and large artery stroke [58]. Despite these mixed findings, aggregated data from clinical trials and cohort studies indicate a moderate benefit of n-6 PUFA intake, particularly LA, in reducing CHD risk. This is observed regardless of whether LA replaces saturated fats or carbohydrates [53, 59, 60].

Our findings regarding the association between higher circulating omega-6 levels and a reduced risk of overall cancer align with Wallingford et al., who reported an inverse relationship between total omega-6 levels and the occurrence of basal cell carcinoma tumors [61]. Similarly, a population-based cohort study observed minor inverse relationships between plasma omega-6 levels and overall cancer incidence, as well as several site-specific cancers, though notable exceptions included prostate cancer [62]. Another study found that while omega-6 did not significantly influence prostate cancer risk, a high intake of LA reduced prostate cancer risk [63]. The UK Biobank cohort further confirmed the association between circulating omega-6 levels and cancer risk [49].

However, we found a higher risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers associated with increased omega-6 intake. High dietary intake of ω-6 PUFAs may promote tumor malignancy through histological changes linked to tumor differentiation, increased cell proliferation, angiogenesis, pro-inflammatory oxylipins, and activation of molecular aggressiveness targets such as NF-κB p65, YY1, COX-2, and TGF-β [64]. However, it is important to consider the study characteristics underlying these findings, as factors such as the source of omega-6 intake and its interaction with other dietary components may also influence these outcomes.

Yammine et al. reported that higher intakes of omega-6, primarily derived from deep-frying fats, may be associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer [42]. Similarly, Bertone et al. identified an association between increased omega-6 intake and a higher risk of ovarian cancer; however, this association appeared to extend to the majority of fats consumed, implying that overall fat intake may have a significant impact on ovarian cancer risk [65]. The studies indicated that the repeated rupture of ovarian follicles during ovulation could expose the ovarian epithelium to hormones within the surrounding fluid, with heightened estrogen levels potentially elevating the risk of tumor development [66]. Moreover, high-fat consumption may increase circulating estrogen levels, promoting cellular damage and proliferation [67].

Subgroup analyses further revealed meaningful associations between omega-6 fatty acid levels and risks of all-cause mortality, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases, predominantly evident within the general population. Conversely, no substantial associations were identified among individuals with pre-existing health conditions. These discrepancies may be attributed to variations in ethnicity and baseline health status [68].

The health effects of omega-6 fatty acid consumption appear to be a double-edged sword, with outcomes highly dependent on the balance of fatty acids consumed and the individual’s health status and underlying conditions. Omega-6 fatty acids are metabolized by various enzyme families, including cyclooxygenases (COX), lipoxygenases (LOX), and cytochrome P450 (CYP), resulting in the formation of oxylipins. Generally, oxylipins derived from omega-6 exhibit more pronounced biological effects [69]. It is essential to recognize that the oxylipin profiles present in the body vary according to the composition of fatty acids ingested [69].

LA derivatives, including hydroxy-octadecadienoic acids (HODEs) and dihydroxyoctadecenoic acid (DiHOMEs), are associated with various health conditions. For example, 9-HODE and 13-HODE play a significant role in the progression of atherosclerosis, while 13-oxo-ODE is recognized for its anti-inflammatory properties [12, 69]. Additionally, COX enzymes catalyze the conversion of AA to prostaglandin H2 (PGH2), which serves as a precursor for numerous prostaglandins and thromboxane A2 [70]. These metabolites are implicated in processes related to inflammation, obesity, and cancer [12, 69]. Moreover, AA is a precursor for the synthesis of anti-inflammatory and pro-resolving lipoxins (LXA4, LXB4) [71] and 4-series leukotrienes, such as LTC4, in addition to hepoxilins, which are involved in regulating neutrophil activity [72].

Epidemiological studies indicate that maintaining a high omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acid ratio may contribute to a reduction in cancer risk [73]. Multiomic research utilizing transgenic mouse models has highlighted the significance of the omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acid ratio across various tissues, implying its involvement in the pathogenesis of chronic conditions like cancer and inflammation [69]. This ratio may also have implications for the microbiome [69]. However, perspectives diverge regarding the role of omega-6 PUFAs in human health. Marangoni et al. (2020) advocate for an increased intake of LA, citing its cardiometabolic advantages, which include lipid-lowering properties and enhanced glucose homeostasis [74].

A meta-analysis indicates that substituting 5% of dietary energy derived from complex carbohydrates or saturated fats with an equivalent amount of omega-6 results in a reduction in plasma total cholesterol by 0.11 mmol/L and LDL-C by 0.39 mmol/L [75]. Experimental studies have demonstrated that dietary LA enhances the hepatic expression of LDL receptors [76]. Furthermore, omega-6 PUFAs were associated with decreased hepatic lipogenesis and increased lipid catabolism in vitro, likely due to the inhibition of sterol regulatory element binding protein 1c (SREBP-1c) activity [77]. Additionally, a study involving individuals with abdominal obesity found that a diet rich in omega-6 PUFAs significantly reduced plasma levels of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) compared to a diet high in saturated fats [78]. In individuals who have dyslipidemia and insulin resistance, replacing saturated fats with omega-6 PUFAs decreases the production and quantity of LDL particles by reducing the synthesis of apolipoprotein. B100 [79].

From a nutrition policy perspective, our results suggest that, in the general population, the intake of omega-6—an essential fatty acid—does not pose a health risk. Therefore, dietary guidelines should prioritize reducing the intake of harmful fats, such as trans fatty acids and saturated fatty acids, while also considering the overall composition of fatty acids consumed, the balance between different fatty acids, and other dietary factors, such as antioxidant intake, rather than limiting omega-6 consumption.

Of note, there may be a threshold of omega-6 intake beyond which risk changes, suggesting that dose-response studies are essential to clarify the shape of the relationship between omega-6 and health outcomes. Clinical trials could explore the effects of replacing other dietary components with omega-6 fatty acids, while observational studies using substitution analysis could further assess these associations on health outcomes. Additionally, inconsistencies in the evidence may stem from factors such as the lack of differentiation between fatty acid types, imprecise intake measurement, and insufficient consideration of dietary background and disease severity—factors contributing to heterogeneity and reducing the certainty of findings. Additionally, future studies could explore the effects of sources of omega-6, the impact of omega-6 within various dietary patterns, and different food matrices on health outcomes. These issues are particularly relevant for developing countries and regions such as Asia, Africa, and Oceania, where research is limited. Conducting collaborative international high-quality studies in these areas could help fill the knowledge gap and provide more comprehensive conclusions.

Our study has several notable strengths. First, it provides a comprehensive assessment of the health effects of omega-6 fatty acids, examining cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality as primary outcomes. Additionally, it uniquely considers both dietary intake and circulating levels of omega-6 fatty acids together. Second, we minimized biases and overestimations often associated with cross-sectional and case-control studies by focusing on cohort studies. Finally, we evaluated the robustness of our findings using quantitative methods, including influence analysis, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression and reported the CoE. However, the study also has limitations. A significant publication bias was observed for some outcomes. However, our study accounted for publication bias in two ways. First, the trim-and-fill analysis indicated that incorporating potential missing studies would not significantly alter the observed effect sizes. Second, in assessing the CoE, publication bias in the association between omega-6 intake and cancer incidence led to a downgrading of the evidence, reducing its certainty to ‘Very Low.’ This level of publication bias suggests that future studies may yield findings that differ from the current results. Despite efforts to reduce heterogeneity through subgroup analyses and meta-regression, high heterogeneity persisted in specific analyses. Lastly, while significant associations were observed for the studied outcomes, the CoE was weak for some findings. Future research should address these limitations, explore these associations more thoroughly, and enhance the overall CoE.

Conclusion

Based on our review, higher dietary intake and circulating levels of omega-6 fatty acids appear to have a predominantly protective role in reducing the risk of CVDs, certain cancers, and all-cause mortality in the general population. Specifically, higher omega-6 levels were associated with lower risks of CHD, stroke, and lung and prostate cancers. However, the increased risks of ovarian and endometrial cancers highlight the complexity of these relationships and the need for caution when interpreting these findings. Subgroup analyses indicate that the protective effects are more evident in cohort studies and individuals without pre-existing health conditions. These results suggest that eating omega-6 fatty acids could benefit public health as a balanced diet. However, the low CoE for some outcomes limits the generalizability of the findings. Further, well-designed studies with appropriate methodologies and targeted research questions are needed to clarify the relationship between omega-6 and health outcomes.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AA:

Arachidonic Acid

ADHF:

Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

AMSTAR-2:

Critical Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews that Include Randomized or Non-randomized Studies of Healthcare Interventions

CHD:

Coronary Heart Disease

CIs:

Confidence Intervals

CoE:

Certainty of The Evidence

CoI:

Conflicts of Interest;

COX:

Cyclooxygenases;

CVDs:

Cardiovascular Diseases;

CYP:

Cytochrome P450;

DiHOMEs:

Dihydroxyoctadecenoic acid;

FFQ:

Food Frequency Questionnaires;

GRADE:

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation;

HODEs:

Hydroxy-octadecadienoic acids;

LA:

Linoleic Acid;

LDL-C:

Low-Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol;

LDLR:

Hepatic LDL-C Receptor;

LOX:

Lipoxygenases;

NCC:

Nested Case-Control;

PCSK9:

Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9;

PGH2:

Prostaglandin H2;

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses;

PUFAs:

Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids;

RR:

Relative Risks;

SREBP-1c:

Sterol Regulatory Element Binding Protein 1c

References

  1. Vogel B, Acevedo M, Appelman Y, Merz CNB, Chieffo A, Figtree GA, et al. The lancet women and cardiovascular disease commission: reducing the global burden by 2030. Lancet. 2021;397(10292):2385–438.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Institute NC. Cancer Statistics 2024 [Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics

  3. Makram OM, Okwuosa T, Addison D, Cortes J, Dent S, Bevel M, et al. Cardiovascular diseases increase cancer mortality in adults: NHANES-continuous study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2024;13(15):e035500. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1161/jaha.124.035500

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Norouzzadeh M, Teymoori F, Farhadnejad H, Moslehi N, Rahideh ST, Mirmiran P, et al. The interaction between diet quality and cigarette smoking on the incidence of hypertension, stroke, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):12371. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1038/s41598-024-62616-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jahromi MK, Ahmadirad H, Farhadnejad H, Norouzzadeh M, Mokhtari E, Teymoori F, et al. High-protein diet scores, macronutrient substitution, and breast cancer risk: insights from substitution analysis. BMC Womens Health. 2024;24(1):121. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12905-024-02959-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Forouhi NG, Krauss RM, Taubes G, Willett W. Dietary fat and cardiometabolic health: evidence, controversies, and consensus for guidance. BMJ. 2018;361:k2139. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bmj.k2139

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Patted PG, Masareddy RS, Patil AS, Kanabargi RR, Bhat CT. Omega-3 fatty acids: a comprehensive scientific review of their sources, functions and health benefits. Future J Pharm Sci. 2024;10(1):94. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s43094-024-00667-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wu JH, Lemaitre RN, King IB, Song X, Psaty BM, Siscovick DS, et al. Circulating omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids and total and cause-specific mortality: the cardiovascular health study. Circulation. 2014;130(15):1245–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mercola J, D’Adamo CR. Linoleic acid: a narrative review of the effects of increased intake in the standard American diet and associations with chronic disease. Nutrients. 2023;15(14). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/nu15143129

  10. Blasbalg TL, Hibbeln JR, Ramsden CE, Majchrzak SF, Rawlings RR. Changes in consumption of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids in the United States during the 20th century. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;93(5):950–62. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3945/ajcn.110.006643

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Naughton SS, Mathai ML, Hryciw DH, McAinch AJ. Australia’s nutrition transition 1961–2009: a focus on fats. Br J Nutr. 2015;114(3):337–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Choque B, Catheline D, Rioux V, Legrand P. Linoleic acid: between doubts and certainties. Biochimie. 2014;96:14–21. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.biochi.2013.07.012

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hamilton JS, Klett EL. Linoleic acid and the regulation of glucose homeostasis: a review of the evidence. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fat Acids. 2021;175:102366. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.plefa.2021.102366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Nayyar D, Said JM, McCarthy H, Hryciw DH, O’Keefe L, McAinch AJ. Effect of a high linoleic acid diet on pregnant women and their offspring. Nutrients. 2024;16(17). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/nu16173019

  15. Farvid MS, Ding M, Pan A, Sun Q, Chiuve SE, Steffen LM, et al. Dietary linoleic acid and risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Circulation. 2014;130(18):1568–78. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1161/circulationaha.114.010236

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jayedi A, Soltani S, Emadi A, Ghods K, Shab-Bidar S. Dietary intake, biomarkers and supplementation of fatty acids and risk of coronary events: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective observational studies. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2023;1–20. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/10408398.2023.2251583

  17. Ren XL, Liu Y, Chu WJ, Li ZW, Zhang SS, Zhou ZL, et al. Blood levels of omega-6 fatty acids and coronary heart disease: a systematic review and metaanalysis of observational epidemiology. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2023;63(26):7983–95. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/10408398.2022.2056867

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang W, Zhou F, Huang H, Mao Y, Ye D. Biomarker of dietary linoleic acid and risk for stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrition. 2020;79–80. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.nut.2020.110953

  19. Li J, Guasch-Ferré M, Li Y, Hu FB. Dietary intake and biomarkers of linoleic acid and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020;112(1):150–67. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/ajcn/nqz349

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim Y, Kim J. N-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids and risk of cancer: accumulating evidence from prospective studies. Nutrients. 2020;12(9). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/nu12092523

  21. Liu J, Li X, Hou J, Sun J, Guo N, Wang Z. Dietary intake of N-3 and N-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids and risk of cancer: meta-analysis of data from 32 studies. Nutr Cancer. 2021;73(6):901–13. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/01635581.2020.1779321

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Yousefi M, Eshaghian N, Heidarzadeh-Esfahani N, Askari G, Rasekhi H, Sadeghi O. Dietary intake and biomarkers of linoleic acid and risk of prostate cancer in men: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2023;1–17. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/10408398.2023.2200840

  23. Zhou Y, Wang T, Zhai S, Li W, Meng Q. Linoleic acid and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(8):1457–63. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1017/s136898001500289x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zock PL, Katan MB. Linoleic acid intake and cancer risk: a review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998;68(1):142–53. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/ajcn/68.1.142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lu Y, Li D, Wang L, Zhang H, Jiang F, Zhang R, et al. Comprehensive investigation on associations between dietary intake and blood levels of fatty acids and colorectal cancer risk. Nutrients. 2023;15(3). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/nu15030730

  26. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bmj.b2535

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. H S. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. 2008 [Available from: https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html

  28. Neuenschwander M, Ballon A, Weber KS, Norat T, Aune D, Schwingshackl L et al. Role of diet in type 2 diabetes incidence: umbrella review of meta-analyses of prospective observational studies. BMJ. 2019;366:l2368 https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bmj.l2368

  29. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bmj.j4008

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bmj.i4919

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley; 2019.

  34. Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ. 2011;342:d549. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bmj.d549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Marklund M, Wu JHY, Imamura F, Del Gobbo LC, Fretts A, de Goede J, et al. Biomarkers of dietary omega-6 fatty acids and incident cardiovascular disease and mortality. Circulation. 2019;139(21):2422–36. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1161/circulationaha.118.038908

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Garg PK, Guan W, Nomura S, Weir NL, Tintle N, Virtanen JK, et al. n-6 fatty acid biomarkers and incident atrial fibrillation: an individual participant-level pooled analysis of 11 international prospective studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2023;118(5):921–9. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.09.008

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Tajik B, Tuomainen TP, Isanejad M, Salonen JT, Virtanen JK. Serum n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids and risk of atrial fibrillation: the Kuopio ischaemic heart disease risk factor study. Eur J Nutr. 2022;61(4):1981–9. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s00394-021-02780-0

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Ivey KL, Nguyen XT, Li R, Furtado J, Cho K, Gaziano JM, et al. Association of dietary fatty acids with the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a prospective cohort of United States veterans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2023;118(4):763–72. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.07.014

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhuang P, Liu X, Li Y, Wu Y, Li H, Wan X, et al. Circulating fatty acids, genetic risk, and incident coronary artery disease: a prospective, longitudinal cohort study. Sci Adv. 2023;9(38):eadf9037. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1126/sciadv.adf9037

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Yammine S, Huybrechts I, Biessy C, Dossus L, Aglago EK, Naudin S, et al. Dietary and circulating fatty acids and ovarian cancer risk in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020;29(9):1739–49. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1158/1055-9965.Epi-19-1477

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Ghamarzad Shishavan N, Mohamadkhani A, Ghajarieh Sepanlou S, Masoudi S, Sharafkhah M, Poustchi H, et al. Circulating plasma fatty acids and risk of pancreatic cancer: results from the Golestan cohort study. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(4):1897–904. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.clnu.2020.09.002

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Taha HM, Rozek LS, Chen X, Li Z, Zarins KR, Slade AN, et al. Risk of disease recurrence and mortality varies by type of fat consumed before cancer treatment in a longitudinal cohort of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients. J Nutr. 2022;152(5):1298–305. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/jn/nxac032

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Yang T, Yi J, He Y, Zhang J, Li X, Ke S, et al. Associations of dietary fats with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease mortality among patients with cardiometabolic disease. Nutrients. 2022;14(17). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/nu14173608

  46. Jiao J, Liu G, Shin HJ, Hu FB, Rimm EB, Rexrode KM, et al. Dietary fats and mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes: analysis in two population based cohort studies. BMJ. 2019;366:l4009. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bmj.l4009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang Y, Jing L, Xu X, Ma T, Dong J. Dietary fatty acids intake and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients on peritoneal dialysis. Clin Nutr. 2023;42(11):2188–97. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.clnu.2023.09.002

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Pietinen P, Ascherio A, Korhonen P, Hartman AM, Willett WC, Albanes D, et al. Intake of fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease in a cohort of Finnish men. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer prevention study. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145(10):876–87. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009047

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhang Y, Sun Y, Yu Q, Song S, Brenna JT, Shen Y, et al. Higher ratio of plasma omega-6/omega-3 fatty acids is associated with greater risk of all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality: a population-based cohort study in UK biobank. Elife. 2024;12:RP90132.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Ramsden CE, Zamora D, Leelarthaepin B, Majchrzak-Hong SF, Faurot KR, Suchindran CM, et al. Use of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney diet heart study and updated meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:e8707.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Djuricic I, Calder PC. Beneficial outcomes of omega-6 and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids on human health: an update for 2021. Nutrients. 2021;13(7):2421.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Jakobsen MU, O’Reilly EJ, Heitmann BL, Pereira MA, Bälter K, Fraser GE, et al. Major types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a pooled analysis of 11 cohort studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89(5):1425–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Mozaffarian D, Micha R, Wallace S. Effects on coronary heart disease of increasing polyunsaturated fat in place of saturated fat: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000252.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Nagai T, Honda Y, Sugano Y, Nishimura K, Nakai M, Honda S, et al. Circulating omega-6, but not omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, are associated with clinical outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0165841.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Chowdhury R, Warnakula S, Kunutsor S, Crowe F, Ward HA, Johnson L, et al. Association of dietary, circulating, and supplement fatty acids with coronary risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(6):398–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Harris WS, Mozaffarian D, Rimm E, Kris-Etherton P, Rudel LL, Appel LJ, et al. Omega-6 fatty acids and risk for cardiovascular disease: a science advisory from the American heart association nutrition subcommittee of the Council on nutrition, physical activity, and metabolism; Council on cardiovascular nursing; and Council on epidemiology and prevention. Circulation. 2009;119(6):902–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ramsden CE, Zamora D, Majchrzak-Hong S, Faurot KR, Broste SK, Frantz RP et al. Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota coronary experiment (1968-73). BMJ. 2016;353.

  58. Mazidi M, Shekoohi N, Katsiki N, Banach M. Omega-6 fatty acids and the risk of cardiovascular disease: insights from a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and a Mendelian randomization study. Archives Med Science: AMS. 2022;18(2):466.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Farvid MS, Ding M, Pan A, Sun Q, Chiuve SE, Steffen LM, et al. Dietary linoleic acid and risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Circulation. 2014;130(18):1568–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Sacks FM, Lichtenstein AH, Wu JH, Appel LJ, Creager MA, Kris-Etherton PM, et al. Dietary fats and cardiovascular disease: a presidential advisory from the American heart association. Circulation. 2017;136(3):e1–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Wallingford SC, Hughes MC, Green AC, Van Der Pols JC. Plasma omega-3 and omega-6 concentrations and risk of cutaneous basal and squamous cell carcinomas in Australian adults. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(10):1900–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Zhang Y, Sun Y, Song S, Khankari NK, Brenna JT, Shen Y et al. Associations of plasma omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids with overall and 19 site-specific cancers: a population-based cohort study in UK Biobank. medRxiv. 2024.

  63. Chua ME, Sio MCD, Sorongon MC, Dy JS. Relationship of dietary intake of omega-3 and omega‐6 fatty acids with risk of prostate cancer development: a meta‐analysis of prospective studies and review of literature. Prostate cancer. 2012;2012(1):826254.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Montecillo-Aguado M, Tirado-Rodriguez B, Antonio-Andres G, Morales-Martinez M, Tong Z, Yang J, et al. Omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids enhance tumor aggressiveness in experimental lung cancer model: important role of oxylipins. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(11). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/ijms23116179

  65. Bertone ER, Rosner BA, Hunter DJ, Stampfer MJ, Speizer FE, Colditz GA, et al. Dietary fat intake and ovarian cancer in a cohort of US women. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156(1):22–31. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/aje/kwf008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Cramer DW, Welch WR. Determinants of ovarian cancer risk. II. Inferences regarding pathogenesis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1983;71(4):717–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Hill MJ, Goddard P, Williams RE. Gut bacteria and aetiology of cancer of the breast. Lancet. 1971;2(7722):472–3. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/s0140-6736(71)92634-1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Khandelwal S, Kelly L, Malik R, Prabhakaran D, Reddy S. Impact of omega-6 fatty acids on cardiovascular outcomes: a review. J Prev Cardiol. 2013;2(3):325.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Gabbs M, Leng S, Devassy JG, Monirujjaman M, Aukema HM. Advances in our understanding of oxylipins derived from dietary PUFAs. Adv Nutr. 2015;6(5):513–40. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3945/an.114.007732

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Shen L, Yang Y, Ou T, Key CC, Tong SH, Sequeira RC, et al. Dietary PUFAs attenuate NLRP3 inflammasome activation via enhancing macrophage autophagy. J Lipid Res. 2017;58(9):1808–21. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1194/jlr.M075879

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Serhan CN, Petasis NA. Resolvins and protectins in inflammation resolution. Chem Rev. 2011;111(10):5922–43. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1021/cr100396c

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. An JU, Song YS, Kim KR, Ko YJ, Yoon DY, Oh DK. Biotransformation of polyunsaturated fatty acids to bioactive hepoxilins and trioxilins by microbial enzymes. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):128. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1038/s41467-017-02543-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. De Lorgeril M, Salen P. New insights into the health effects of dietary saturated and omega-6 and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. BMC Med. 2012;10:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Marangoni F, Agostoni C, Borghi C, Catapano AL, Cena H, Ghiselli A, et al. Dietary linoleic acid and human health: focus on cardiovascular and cardiometabolic effects. Atherosclerosis. 2020;292:90–8. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2019.11.018

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Clarke R, Frost C, Collins R, Appleby P, Peto R. Dietary lipids and blood cholesterol: quantitative meta-analysis of metabolic ward studies. BMJ. 1997;314(7074):112–7. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bmj.314.7074.112

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Cicero AF, D’Addato S, Fiorito A, Poli A, Gaddi AV. Plasma lipid effects of corn oil and extra-virgin olive oil in hypercholesterolaemic subjects: a randomised, controlled trial. Mediterranean J Nutr Metabolism. 2009;1(3):187–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Yoshikawa T, Shimano H, Yahagi N, Ide T, Amemiya-Kudo M, Matsuzaka T, et al. Polyunsaturated fatty acids suppress sterol regulatory element-binding protein 1c promoter activity by inhibition of liver X receptor (LXR) binding to LXR response elements. J Biol Chem. 2002;277(3):1705–11. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1074/jbc.M105711200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Bjermo H, Iggman D, Kullberg J, Dahlman I, Johansson L, Persson L, et al. Effects of n-6 PUFAs compared with SFAs on liver fat, lipoproteins, and inflammation in abdominal obesity: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;95(5):1003–12. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3945/ajcn.111.030114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Drouin-Chartier JP, Tremblay AJ, Lépine MC, Lemelin V, Lamarche B, Couture P. Substitution of dietary ω-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids for saturated fatty acids decreases LDL apolipoprotein B-100 production rate in men with dyslipidemia associated with insulin resistance: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018;107(1):26–34. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/ajcn/nqx013

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

None.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Reza Sadeghi and Mostafa Norouzzadeh contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nutritional Sciences Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Reza Sadeghi, Mostafa Norouzzadeh, Minoo HasanRashedi, Mohammadreza Vafa & Farshad Teymoori

  2. Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, 1449614535, Iran

    Reza Sadeghi, Mostafa Norouzzadeh, Minoo HasanRashedi, Mohammadreza Vafa & Farshad Teymoori

  3. Student Research Committee, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Reza Sadeghi, Mostafa Norouzzadeh & Minoo HasanRashedi

  4. Imam Ali Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Kazerun, Iran

    Sanaz Jamshidi

  5. Nutritional Sciences Department, School of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

    Hamid Ahmadirad

  6. Student Research Committee, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

    Hamid Ahmadirad

  7. Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Mahdi Alemrajabi

Authors
  1. Reza Sadeghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mostafa Norouzzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Minoo HasanRashedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sanaz Jamshidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hamid Ahmadirad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mahdi Alemrajabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mohammadreza Vafa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Farshad Teymoori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing - Review & Editing. MN: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing - Review & Editing. MHR: Data Curation, Methodology, Writing - Review & Editing. SJ: Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing. HA: Methodology, Writing - Original Draft. MA: Writing - Review & Editing. FT: Formal analysis, Validation, Writing - Review & Editing. MV: Supervision. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Mohammadreza Vafa or Farshad Teymoori.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sadeghi, R., Norouzzadeh, M., HasanRashedi, M. et al. Dietary and circulating omega-6 fatty acids and their impact on cardiovascular disease, cancer risk, and mortality: a global meta-analysis of 150 cohorts and meta-regression. J Transl Med 23, 314 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12967-025-06336-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12967-025-06336-2

Keywords

Journal of Translational Medicine

ISSN: 1479-5876

Contact us