Lifestyle

Omega-3s and schizophrenia: the McGorry trial and what came after

April 22, 2026 9 min read

For a few years, omega-3 fatty acids were one of the most exciting topics in early-intervention psychiatry. A 2010 randomised trial, led by Paul Amminger and Patrick McGorry in Vienna, suggested that twelve weeks of fish-oil supplementation in young people at very high risk of psychosis cut the rate of conversion to a full psychotic disorder by roughly 75% over the following year. The result, published in Archives of General Psychiatry, was extraordinary — a cheap, almost-side-effect-free supplement seeming to alter the trajectory of one of psychiatry's most serious illnesses.

What happened next is a useful case study in how science actually works.

In one sentence

Omega-3 fatty acids may have a modest role as an adjunct in schizophrenia, but the dramatic early findings on preventing psychosis have not been clearly replicated — the honest summary is "promising, unproven."

The Vienna trial (2010)

Amminger and colleagues recruited 81 young people aged 13 to 25 who met the criteria for "ultra-high risk" of psychosis — meaning they had attenuated psychotic symptoms, brief intermittent psychosis, or a strong family history plus functional decline. Half received 1.2 grams per day of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (a mix of EPA and DHA) for twelve weeks; half received a coconut-oil placebo. Then the supplements stopped.

By twelve months, only 4.9% of the omega-3 group had developed a full psychotic disorder, compared with 27.5% of the placebo group. A long-term follow-up published in 2015 in Nature Communications reported that the difference persisted for years — even though the active supplementation had only lasted three months. The full study is referenced on PubMed (PMID 20124114).

Why people got excited

Omega-3 fatty acids are integral to neuronal membranes. They influence dopamine and serotonin signalling, reduce neuroinflammation, and are easy to deliver. If a three-month supplement could shift the trajectory of psychosis in vulnerable adolescents, it would be one of the most cost-effective preventive interventions in modern psychiatry. Several centres rushed to test the result.

The NEURAPRO trial (2017)

The largest replication attempt was the international NEURAPRO trial, led by Patrick McGorry himself and published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2017. NEURAPRO enrolled 304 ultra-high-risk young people across multiple countries, randomised them to omega-3 or placebo, and added cognitive behavioural case management for both groups. Result: no significant difference in the rate of transition to psychosis.

The investigators were honest. Their interpretation was that the much higher quality of psychosocial care in NEURAPRO (relative to the original Vienna trial) likely lowered the conversion rate in both groups so much that any omega-3 effect was hard to detect. Other possible explanations: different population characteristics, dose differences, or that the original effect was smaller than the small-trial estimate suggested. The 2017 paper is on the JAMA Psychiatry website.

Where the evidence sits now

Practical considerations

If you decide to try omega-3 supplementation, a few honest notes:

Important context

Omega-3 supplementation is not a substitute for antipsychotic medication, CBTp, or psychiatric care. The trials that found any benefit used omega-3 as an add-on, never as a replacement.

Why this story is worth knowing

The omega-3 saga is a reminder of two things at once. First, science self-corrects: a striking single result is not a final answer, and the field rightly chased a replication. Second, the absence of a dramatic effect in NEURAPRO does not mean omega-3 has zero role — it means the effect, if it exists, is smaller and more conditional than the original trial suggested. The honest current position is that omega-3s are a low-risk, plausibly mildly helpful adjunct that nobody should expect miracles from.

If you want to add it to your routine

Talk to your prescriber. Many psychiatrists have no objection to a trial of 1 to 2 grams per day of a high-quality EPA-rich fish oil for three to six months, particularly for patients with high triglycerides or significant negative symptoms. If you don't notice anything after that window, it is reasonable to stop.


This article is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a qualified mental health professional. If you or someone you know is in crisis, call or text 988 in the US, or your local emergency number.

Frequently asked questions

How much omega-3 should I take?
Trials with any signal of benefit usually used 1 to 3 grams of combined EPA + DHA per day, often weighted toward EPA. Talk to your prescriber before adding any supplement, especially if you take blood thinners.
Is fish oil safe with antipsychotics?
At typical supplement doses, interactions with antipsychotics are minimal. At higher doses, the main concern is a slight increase in bleeding risk, which matters most if you take anticoagulants or have surgery scheduled.
Should adolescents at high risk of psychosis take omega-3?
Current early-intervention guidelines don't routinely recommend it for prevention because the largest trial (NEURAPRO) didn't replicate the original prevention finding. Some clinicians still use it given the low risk profile, but it shouldn't replace structured early-intervention care.
Is eating fish as good as supplements?
For general cardiovascular health, two to three servings of oily fish per week probably matches modest supplementation. For the higher doses tested in trials, it is hard to reach through diet alone.

Try Frida — your calm companion

Frida helps people living with schizophrenia track moods, manage medication, and build stability. 7-day free trial.

Get the app →