Omega-3 Supplements During Isotretinoin: Early Evidence and Remaining Questions

By Michael Wiederkehr, M.D.

People taking isotretinoin often ask whether fish oil can make treatment easier. The question may arise because of dry lips, uncomfortable skin, a triglyceride result, or an online claim that omega-3 supplements improve acne. Those are different goals, and the evidence should be matched to the goal rather than bundled into one promise.

The evidence includes supplementary materials from a 2026 systematic review, a recent randomized trial of fish oil with low-dose isotretinoin, and an earlier trial of mucocutaneous symptoms. These documents provide more than a general statement that omega-3 is "anti-inflammatory." They show which patients were studied, what was measured, and where information remains limited.

The evidence is encouraging for some short-term outcomes, but it does not make fish oil an automatic requirement for everyone taking isotretinoin. It does not remove the need for laboratory monitoring, establish a treatment for serious adverse effects, or authorize lowering a prescription dose independently.

This article explains the studies, product terminology, trial limitations, and practical questions to discuss with a prescriber. The examples are illustrative rather than individual supplement recommendations.

Start with the reason for considering a supplement

A useful discussion begins with a specific target. "I want to reduce persistent lip discomfort" is a different question from "My triglycerides increased" or "I want fewer acne lesions." A study measuring one outcome does not necessarily answer the others.

The table prevents a common marketing move: borrowing the strongest result from one category to promote benefits in every category. A supplement can be promising for one endpoint while remaining unproven for another.

Patients should also identify the burden they are trying to reduce. Is the symptom occasional, persistent, or severe enough to affect eating, sleep, work, or adherence? The answer may indicate a need to improve supportive care, review the medicine, investigate another problem, or discuss a supplement. The supplement should not become the default answer before the problem is understood.

"Fish oil" and "omega-3" are not precise dose descriptions

Omega-3 is a family of fatty acids. NIH information distinguishes alpha-linolenic acid, EPA, and DHA. Fish oil products can contain different amounts of EPA and DHA, and the weight of the oil is not necessarily the weight of those components. Cod liver oil can also contain vitamins A and D. ^[1]

This distinction matters when a trial describes a particular preparation. A bottle labeled "1,000 mg fish oil" does not automatically deliver 1,000 mg of EPA plus DHA. Two products with the same large number on the front may provide different exposures.

The appropriate comparison is the supplement facts panel and actual serving size. If a serving contains two capsules, the per-serving quantity should not be mistaken for the amount in one capsule. The same applies when a liquid uses milliliters rather than capsule counts.

An invented example illustrates the arithmetic. Product A contains 1,000 mg oil per capsule, including 180 mg EPA and 120 mg DHA. Product B contains 1,000 mg oil but 400 mg EPA and 300 mg DHA. The oil weights match, while the combined EPA-DHA amounts are 300 mg and 700 mg. These are illustrative products, not recommendations.

A clinician or pharmacist can help determine whether a proposed product resembles the studied formulation. Without that comparison, saying "I am taking the same dose as the trial" may be inaccurate even when the front-label number looks identical.

The 2026 randomized noninferiority trial

A 2026 trial enrolled 80 adults aged 18 to 25 with moderate-to-severe acne. Participants received low-dose isotretinoin with fish oil or placebo for three months. The report found noninferiority for total acne lesion outcomes and favorable findings for some hydration and triglyceride measures. ^[2]

This is a direct comparison, and the placebo control strengthens interpretation relative to an uncontrolled before-and-after observation. However, the age range, short duration, and particular low-dose regimen limit generalization.

Noninferiority is a specific trial question. It asks whether the tested approach is not worse than the comparator by more than a predefined acceptable margin for the selected endpoint. It does not mean the supplement is superior for acne clearance, identical in every respect, or necessary for all patients.

The trial also does not establish long-term relapse prevention. Three months of treatment cannot directly answer what happens a year after an entire course ends. A claim about durable remission needs follow-up designed to measure that outcome.

The practical interpretation is therefore focused: under the studied conditions, adding fish oil did not produce an unacceptable loss of the selected acne efficacy outcome and showed benefits in some secondary measures. That is a useful reason for further study and individualized discussion, not a universal supplement prescription.

Why noninferiority is not the same as superiority

A superiority trial asks whether one approach performs better. A noninferiority trial asks whether an approach stays within an agreed boundary of acceptable difference. The design, margin, analysis population, and confidence interval all matter.

Consider a fictional acne trial with an agreed margin of five lesions. If the result and its uncertainty remain within the accepted boundary, the study may meet its noninferiority criterion. That does not automatically demonstrate that the intervention clears more lesions. The numerical margin in this example is invented and is not the margin from the fish-oil trial.

This distinction becomes important when a headline says the supplement "boosts effectiveness." If the primary result was noninferiority, the headline needs separate evidence for superiority. A favorable hydration result cannot be substituted for a superior lesion-count result.

The table applies to reading the study, not choosing a dose. It helps readers preserve the actual finding rather than translate every positive-looking result into a stronger claim.

The earlier symptom trial

The 2018 randomized study included 104 patients receiving isotretinoin, with one group also receiving omega-3. It assessed mucocutaneous symptoms over 16 weeks and reported less frequent dryness-related effects at several, but not all, assessed time points. ^[3]

The time-point distinction matters. A result at week four does not automatically describe week 16, and improvement in one symptom does not establish identical benefit for every mucosal surface. An accurate summary retains which outcomes and periods supported the claim.

The study provides direct clinical symptom information that complements laboratory or instrument measurements. It helps answer whether patients experienced particular effects, rather than only whether a device detected a change in skin hydration.

However, symptom measurement can be influenced by reporting methods and expectations, especially when blinding is incomplete or the comparison does not use a matching placebo. The design should be considered before treating the result as definitive.

The trial is best understood as evidence supporting possible tolerability benefits that need to be matched to the actual complaint. It is not evidence that serious eye symptoms, substantial bleeding, or major laboratory abnormalities can be treated with omega-3 instead of medical assessment.

That limitation is clinically important. A patient looking for relief may naturally prefer an accessible supplement, but the first task is to determine whether the problem belongs in a supportive-care discussion or requires a different response.

What the 2026 review supplement adds

The review supplement lists five randomized trials with different sample sizes, regimens, durations, and outcomes. It includes older lipid research, symptom studies, and newer trials. Some symptom outcome cells are marked not reported, while other rows give changes in laboratory or instrument measures. ^[4]

These tables are valuable because they reveal heterogeneity that a simple pooled headline can conceal. A two-month lipid study and a six-month acne study do not answer identical questions even if both involve omega-3 and isotretinoin.

The supplement also includes search strategies and a risk-of-bias framework. Those details make the review process more inspectable. They do not mean every included study has the same methodological strength or that every outcome can be combined meaningfully.

This article does not recalculate a new pooled effect from the supplementary table. Missing outcome cells, repeated rows for different time points, and different measurement scales make a casual reanalysis inappropriate. A table of extracted characteristics is not automatically a ready-to-pool dataset.

The distinction is useful for readers working from research repositories. A deposited supplement may support understanding the methods and included studies without supplying everything needed to reproduce the full analysis. Claims should match what was actually inspected and verified.

A newer metabolic trial broadens the questions

A separate 2026 randomized trial examined isotretinoin with omega-3 and measured acne severity and metabolic outcomes. ^[5] Its inclusion in the review supplement broadens the evidence beyond dryness alone, but it does not make all lipid or metabolic outcomes equivalent.

Triglycerides, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, glucose, insulin, and insulin-resistance measures describe different things. A favorable change in one should not be summarized as universal "metabolic protection." The direction and clinical relevance of each endpoint need interpretation.

Similarly, a percentage change is not the same as an absolute difference. A modest percentage increase from a low baseline can have a different meaning from a smaller percentage increase from a substantially higher baseline. The actual values and comparison matter.

An invented example shows the issue. A 20% increase from 100 units reaches 120; a 10% increase from 300 reaches 330. The larger percentage occurs in the group with the lower final value. Percentages alone therefore do not describe the entire clinical situation.

The trial adds a relevant line of investigation. It should not be used to claim that omega-3 prevents every treatment-related metabolic problem or that a patient can avoid monitoring by using a similar supplement. The relationship between a measured improvement and a meaningful clinical outcome must remain explicit.

Skin hydration is not the same outcome as comfortable skin

Instrument measurements can help researchers examine hydration, water loss, oil production, or related properties. These are useful objective outcomes, but a patient experiences discomfort, cracking, tightness, irritation, and the effect on daily activities.

A favorable instrument reading may or may not correspond to a noticeable benefit. Conversely, a person may feel better because a supportive routine changed even when a selected measurement changes little. The endpoints should be interpreted together rather than ranked automatically as more or less real.

The review supplement lists corneometer readings, transepidermal water loss, sebum measurements, and other outcomes. ^[4] It would be inaccurate to relabel each as the percentage of patients whose dryness disappeared.

A clinically useful trial ideally connects measurement to patient experience. Patients do not take supplements to improve an unexplained device number; they want a meaningful benefit with acceptable burden and risk.

Triglyceride findings need a clinical frame

Isotretinoin product information requires lipid assessment and monitoring, with specific precautions for uncontrolled hypertriglyceridemia and pancreatitis. ^[6] A supplement study does not replace those instructions.

A person with an abnormal result needs interpretation of the marker, magnitude, trend, baseline, sample conditions, and relevant health factors. Adding fish oil without discussing the result may delay a necessary change to the treatment plan.

It is also important to distinguish prevention of a rise in a study population from treatment of an established significant abnormality. Those are different clinical questions. Evidence that a group had a smaller average increase does not establish the appropriate response to one person's current result.

An illustrative comparison helps. If a study reports a smaller mean triglyceride increase with supplementation, it describes an average between groups. It does not guarantee that every supplemented participant remained within an acceptable range or that nobody needed additional assessment.

The useful consultation questions are specific: "Does this result require repeat testing or another action?" "Would omega-3 have a role in my plan?" "Which product and exposure would be appropriate?" "How will we know whether it helped?"

The outcome should be a coordinated plan. A supplement should not become a way to avoid discussing a result because the patient fears interruption of an otherwise effective course.

Dietary supplements and prescription omega-3 medicines are different

FDA explains that dietary supplements are regulated differently from drugs and are not approved for safety and effectiveness before marketing in the same way as prescription medicines. ^[7] This does not mean every supplement is poor quality; it means the regulatory category should be described accurately.

Prescription omega-3 products used for specific medical indications should not be treated as interchangeable with an arbitrary fish-oil supplement. Formulation, dose, indication, and oversight differ. Evidence for one product category cannot automatically validate another.

A label saying "pharmaceutical grade" or "clinical strength" may sound authoritative, but the meaningful questions remain the actual ingredients, amount, product identity, and evidence for the intended use. Advertising language is not a substitute for those facts.

Patients should bring the label or product information to the discussion. A clinician cannot assess a vague category as precisely as an actual formulation.

Vitamin A is a particularly important label check

Some products containing marine oils also contain vitamin A. NIH identifies cod liver oil as a source of vitamins A and D in addition to omega-3 fatty acids. ^[1] Current isotretinoin labeling advises avoiding concomitant vitamin A because of additive adverse effects. ^[6]

This is why the supplement category cannot be chosen by name alone. "Fish oil" and "cod liver oil" should not be assumed equivalent. A product promoted for skin or immunity may add several ingredients that are irrelevant or unsuitable for the patient's medication plan.

The check should include the whole routine. A multivitamin, skin supplement, and oil product can duplicate ingredients. The person may report only the newest product and overlook exposures already present.

A practical list records the exact product, serving size, actual number of capsules or spoonfuls taken, and other active ingredients. A photograph of the label can be useful if the packaging is difficult to bring.

This section does not recommend calculating a personal safe vitamin A allowance from several products. The appropriate response is to disclose the products and obtain advice. The aim is to avoid an unrecognized combination, not encourage complicated self-management around a medicine with established precautions.

The same reasoning applies to any supplement offered as a way to reduce isotretinoin adverse effects: all ingredients need review, not only the one highlighted in the advertising.

Side effects, interactions, and individual suitability

NIH information describes possible omega-3 supplement adverse effects and medication interactions, including considerations for people using medicines that affect clotting. ^[1] A supplement is an exposure worth reporting, even when it is available without prescription.

The relevant history includes allergies, other medicines, previous supplement reactions, and the reason the person wants to take it. If a patient already has troublesome gastrointestinal symptoms, adding a product that can itself cause digestive discomfort may complicate interpretation.

The answer is not to assume that every interaction is clinically important at every dose. It is to have the actual product and medication list reviewed rather than infer safety from the word "natural."

Patients should also avoid interpreting a general high-dose safety discussion as a recommended isotretinoin adjunct dose. An upper amount discussed in another context is not the dose shown to be useful for acne treatment. Safety limits, nutritional requirements, and trial regimens answer different questions.

A good consultation separates those questions explicitly. "Can I take this?" concerns suitability. "Is it likely to help this symptom?" concerns efficacy. "How much should I take?" concerns a product-specific plan. A favorable answer to one does not automatically settle the other two.

If a new symptom appears after the supplement begins, report the timing and the product. Do not assume that isotretinoin must be responsible for every subsequent change while the new exposure is ignored.

Why food advice cannot be translated directly into capsule dosing

A balanced dietary pattern and a trial of a defined supplement are different interventions. A person can reasonably discuss food choices without assuming that a serving of fish reproduces a study capsule or that a capsule reproduces the overall benefits of a dietary pattern.

The amount and composition of omega-3 in foods vary. The intervention also includes everything else that changes when a food is added or substituted. A supplement trial attempts a more defined exposure, although product formulation and actual use still matter.

The practical question is what decision is being made. If the concern is general nutrition, dietary assessment may be relevant. If the concern is a treatment-related triglyceride result, that requires medical interpretation. If the concern is lip discomfort, a food substitution should not delay appropriate supportive care.

Patients should be cautious with online claims that identify one nutrient as the explanation for every symptom. Acne treatment and tolerability are influenced by more than a single dietary variable. A mechanistic story can sound complete while providing little evidence about meaningful outcomes.

This does not make nutrition irrelevant. It means nutrition should be discussed at the appropriate level, with realistic goals and attention to the person's circumstances. The evidence for a particular supplement during isotretinoin is best evaluated as that specific question rather than inflated into a comprehensive diet theory.

What a systematic review cannot repair automatically

Pooling studies can increase information, but it does not make different interventions identical. If studies use different omega-3 formulations, isotretinoin regimens, durations, and endpoints, the combined result needs careful interpretation.

A review also inherits limitations of the included studies. Incomplete blinding, small samples, missing outcome information, and short follow-up do not disappear because a forest plot is produced. The review can assess those limitations, but it cannot retrospectively collect data that were never measured.

The systematic review supplement is particularly helpful here. It shows repeated outcome rows for the same study and time points. ^[4] Counting every row as an independent trial would exaggerate the evidence. The participant, study, endpoint, and time point need to remain linked.

An invented example illustrates the counting problem. One 40-person trial reporting ten outcomes is still one 40-person trial, not ten independent trials involving 400 people. The number of measurements is not the number of independent participants.

Similarly, a review's publication date does not mean every included study is recent. The supplement spans several decades. Older studies can contribute useful information, but product formulations, treatment patterns, and reporting standards may differ.

A careful article should describe what the review adds while resisting the idea that a modern publication date automatically creates a modern, uniform, definitive evidence base.

Statistical benefit and meaningful benefit

A statistically significant difference can be too small to matter to a patient, while an imprecise result can leave a potentially meaningful benefit uncertain. The estimate, uncertainty, and clinical importance should be considered together.

For a symptom outcome, meaningful benefit might involve less pain, fewer interruptions to normal activity, or better ability to follow the prescribed course. For a laboratory outcome, the relevance depends on actual values and the treatment decision. These are different standards of usefulness.

A patient can ask: "What improvement would I be likely to notice?" If the answer refers only to an instrument measure, ask whether the study also measured symptoms. If the answer refers to a percentage change, ask for the underlying scale or values.

An illustrative example makes the point. A one-point change on an unfamiliar scale is difficult to interpret without knowing its range and what patients consider important. The number becomes meaningful when connected to function or an established clinical interpretation.

The same standard should apply to cost. Even an inexpensive supplement has a burden: purchase, capsule use, possible side effects, and additional uncertainty in the medication list. A modest expected benefit may still be worthwhile to some people, but the choice should be informed rather than automatic.

The aim is not to demand a dramatic effect before considering an adjunct. It is to make sure that the benefit being discussed is relevant to the reason the person is considering it.

A supervised trial should have a defined endpoint

If a clinician agrees that a supplement is reasonable, the plan should identify the product, purpose, amount, duration, and review. It should also state which monitoring and supportive treatments continue unchanged unless the clinician advises otherwise.

Without a defined endpoint, a supplement can continue indefinitely because nobody asks whether it helped. A person may attribute natural fluctuation to the product, or dismiss a useful effect because other aspects of the routine changed simultaneously.

A simple record can include the target symptom, start date, actual use, other changes, and the review result. It should not become a personal randomized experiment or a reason to delay care for important symptoms.

The table describes the structure of a plan, not a recommendation to start supplementation. It makes the decision reviewable and prevents an optional adjunct from silently replacing essential treatment or monitoring.

Four scenarios that need different answers

Dry lips with otherwise tolerable treatment

A hypothetical patient asks whether omega-3 might help persistent lip discomfort. The discussion should review the actual symptom, supportive care, product suitability, and the relevant trial evidence. The outcome should be comfort and function, not an unsupported promise of protection from every side effect.

A new abnormal triglyceride result

Another patient wants to take fish oil instead of contacting the clinic. This is the wrong order. The laboratory finding needs interpretation first. A supplement may or may not become part of the plan, but it does not establish whether continued treatment is appropriate.

A product that contains added vitamin A

A third patient chooses cod liver oil because it sounds similar to fish oil. The ingredient difference matters during isotretinoin. The product should be reviewed before use rather than assuming the trial applies to any marine oil.

A patient seeking faster acne clearance

A fourth person reads about noninferiority and believes the supplement proved superior acne treatment. The clinician should clarify the actual endpoint. A possible tolerability benefit and preservation of efficacy are different claims from faster or greater clearance.

These scenarios show why the answer to "Should I take omega-3?" depends on the purpose and context. The same supplement label can sit behind several very different clinical questions.

Frequently asked questions

How to recognize an exaggerated claim

A claim is likely overstated when it moves between outcomes without saying so. Examples include using a smaller triglyceride rise to promise prevention of every serious adverse effect, using hydration measurements to promise complete comfort, or using noninferiority to promise superior acne clearance.

Another warning sign is a dose statement without composition. "Take the trial dose" is incomplete if the product's EPA, DHA, serving size, and added ingredients are unknown. A promotional page may display the oil weight because it is the largest number, even though that number does not define the active fatty-acid exposure.

A third problem is omission of time. A short trial becomes a claim about an entire prolonged course or permanent remission. The reader should ask how long the participants were actually observed and whether the proposed outcome was measured after treatment ended.

A fourth is selective counting. Several outcomes from one small trial are presented as several independent confirmations. The same participants remain the same participants, no matter how many tables or figures describe them.

The corrected claim is usually narrower but still useful: "A specific trial found a benefit on a defined short-term measure with a particular regimen." That statement gives the patient and clinician something to evaluate. A promise that fish oil "protects the body during Accutane" is too broad to guide a meaningful decision.

What a useful next conversation looks like

The patient should leave the discussion knowing whether supplementation is appropriate, what it is intended to achieve, and how the result will be reviewed. If the answer is no, the clinician should address the original problem rather than leave the patient with untreated discomfort or an unexplained laboratory result.

If the answer is yes, the plan should remain proportionate. An optional adjunct does not need to become an elaborate routine with several overlapping supplements. The medication list should remain accurate, and the essential monitoring should remain in place.

The evidence is developing, with newer trials adding information about comfort and metabolic measures. Development is not the same as certainty. A good article can describe promising findings without turning them into a sales claim or a mandatory checklist for every patient.

The practical standard is simple: identify the problem, match it to the relevant evidence, check the actual product, consider individual suitability, and review a meaningful outcome. That approach gives omega-3 its appropriate place in the conversation while preserving attention to the treatment decisions that matter most.

A worked example of a supplement decision

Consider a fictional patient whose main concern is persistent skin tightness. Their acne is improving, scheduled laboratory results have been reviewed, and they are considering a product advertised as "1,000 mg omega support." The first step is not to compare prices. It is to identify what the label actually contains and whether the concern has been assessed appropriately.

The patient brings the bottle to the appointment. The front describes the total oil weight, while the supplement panel gives a smaller amount of EPA and DHA per two-capsule serving. The product also contains added vitamins. This changes the discussion immediately: the front-label number did not define the actual exposure, and the added ingredients need review during isotretinoin treatment.

Next, the clinician asks what outcome would count as worthwhile. The patient says they want to finish a workday without persistent tightness, rather than improve an instrument measurement or alter acne clearance. That identifies the relevant evidence and separates it from studies of lipids or lesion counts.

The current supportive routine is then reviewed. If several irritating products were added recently, addressing those exposures may be more directly relevant than introducing another capsule. This does not prove the supplement cannot help. It establishes that the problem should be understood before an adjunct becomes the answer.

If supplementation is considered appropriate, the clinician can specify the actual formulation and review plan. The patient should know that the prescribed isotretinoin instructions and scheduled testing continue. They should also know what symptoms warrant contact rather than waiting for the supplement review.

At follow-up, the discussion should consider actual use, comfort, adverse effects, and other changes. If the patient used the product inconsistently because of digestive discomfort, that is relevant. If the skin improved while several treatments changed, the benefit cannot be attributed confidently to one component. If there was no meaningful improvement, continuing indefinitely has no automatic justification.

This example contains no personal dose recommendation. It demonstrates how a vague product question becomes a reviewable clinical decision. The same sequence works when the goal is a laboratory trend, although the relevant measurements and medical response differ.

What better future trials should report

Future research would be more useful if it reported the exact EPA and DHA exposure, full formulation, actual adherence, background skin care, and clinically meaningful symptom outcomes. A product name or oil weight alone makes replication and application harder. These reporting priorities follow from the differences visible in the current evidence, rather than from a claim that one formulation is already established as best.

Longer follow-up could distinguish a short-term comfort benefit from an effect that persists through an entire course. It could also examine whether improved tolerability changes interruptions or completion, rather than assuming that a symptom measurement necessarily changes treatment behavior.

Trials should separate acne efficacy, mucocutaneous symptoms, laboratory changes, and adverse events. Each outcome needs its own denominator and time point. Reporting only favorable findings can obscure whether the intervention helped the problem that mattered most to patients.

Patient experience deserves particular attention. A change in hydration may be scientifically interesting, but a patient may care more about eating comfortably, sleeping, wearing necessary protective equipment at work, or avoiding repeated treatment interruptions. Combining instrument and patient-reported measures would make the findings easier to apply.

Finally, studies should describe who was not included. Evidence from a narrow age range and selected health profile cannot automatically answer questions about older adults, significant comorbidities, or people taking interacting medicines. Clear exclusion criteria help clinicians recognize where judgment is needed.

These improvements would not eliminate every uncertainty, but they would make the next supplement conversation more specific. Until then, the strongest practical approach remains an individualized purpose, a checked product, and an agreed review of an outcome that matters.

Keep the product identity with the decision

If a supplement is included in the plan, record the exact formulation rather than only the brand family. Manufacturers may sell several products with similar packaging, and a later purchase may not reproduce the original composition. The label is therefore part of the medication record, not a disposable detail once the bottle has been opened.

At review, distinguish the prescribed or agreed serving from actual use. A patient who took one capsule instead of a two-capsule serving has used a different exposure from the one intended. That information should be reported plainly, without trying to compensate with larger later servings.

If the product is changed, ask whether the original advice still applies. A similar front-label number is not enough to establish equivalence. Keeping this information accurate makes the assessment of benefit and tolerance more useful and reduces avoidable confusion during an already complex course of treatment.

References

1. NIH Office of Dietary Supplements. Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Health Professional Fact Sheet. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-HealthProfessional/
2. Sungkhasunya P, et al. Efficacy and safety of fish oil supplementation combined with low-dose isotretinoin for moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41791524/
3. Mirnezami M, Rahimi H. Is Oral Omega-3 Effective in Reducing Mucocutaneous Side Effects of Isotretinoin in Patients with Acne Vulgaris? 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30002675/
4. Supplemental Materials: Effects of oral omega-3 fatty acids on isotretinoin tolerability in acne vulgaris: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2026. https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/fnrkns3zy4/1
5. Du P, et al. Effect of isotretinoin and omega-3 fatty acid combination on lipid metabolism in patients with acne vulgaris: a randomized controlled trial. Lipids in Health and Disease. 2026;25:91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-026-02902-9
6. Isotretinoin capsules prescribing information, revised August 2026. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=1cf11710-f966-4529-8e08-02175f588bca
7. FDA. Questions and Answers on Dietary Supplements. https://www.fda.gov/food/information-consumers-using-dietary-supplements/questions-and-answers-dietary-supplements