Last Updated: June 23, 2026

CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR FISH OIL; MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES; OLIVE OIL; SOYBEAN OIL


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


All Clinical Trials for FISH OIL; MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES; OLIVE OIL; SOYBEAN OIL

Trial ID Title Status Sponsor Phase Start Date Summary
NCT00600912 ↗ Influence of of a Lipid Emulsion on Inflammatory Response and Hepatic Function Completed Klinikum Ludwigshafen Phase 4 2006-12-01 Lipid emulsions are an essential part of parenteral nutrition, both as a part of energy supply, and as a source of essential fatty acids. It has been shown that the fatty acid composition of cell membranes is influenced by the fatty acid profile of dietary lipids, and may therefore be responsible for modulation of immune response. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of a new lipid emulsion based ob soybean oil, medium-chain triglycerides, olive oil and fish oil compared with a lipid emulsion based on olive and soybean oil on the inflammatory response and hepatic function in postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
NCT02412566 ↗ SMOF Lipid for Children With Parenteral Nutrition Induced Liver Injury Available Fresenius Kabi 1969-12-31 While fish-oil lipid emulsions have shown a benefit to the treatment of parenteral nutrition (PN)-associated cholestasis, the dose is limited to 1 g/kg/day. Similarly, in early PN-associated cholestasis the dose of soy-based lipid is limited to 1 g/kg/day. Often the calories that are lost from this relative decreased dose of lipids can be provided by adjusting the dextrose content of the PN solution and providing a higher glucose infusion rate. In some cases, this is not tolerated or even with maximizing this strategy, growth is inadequate. Inadequate growth is a direct cause of poor outcomes including poorer neurological outcome, failure to be able to stop mechanical ventilation and poorer growth of their often already damaged intestine. These outcomes can lead to severe disability and death. Therefore, infants receiving only 1 g/kg/day of lipids who are not adequately growing must have a greater intake of lipids to meet their needs for weight, length, and head circumference growth. SMOFlipid (Fresenius Kabi, Bad Homburg, Germany) contains a mixture of 4 different lipid sources: soybean oil providing essential fatty acids, olive oil rich in monounsaturated fatty acids which are less susceptible to lipid peroxidation than polyunsaturated fatty acids, medium-chain triglycerides showing a faster metabolic clearance than long-chain triglycerides, and fish oil for the supply of omega-3 fatty acids. It is safe to give in what is the usual dose for lipid therapy in neonates of 3 g/kg/day, rather than being limited to 1 g/kg/day as we do with cholestatic infants receiving Omegaven or soy lipids. Because this product includes both omega-6 and omega-3 lipids, it provides the benefits of the omega-3s for the liver and provides more than enough omega-6s to meet essential fatty acid requirements. Its use in situations in which growth is inadequate in babies who must be restricted to 1 g/kg/day can be expected to improve their growth and likely markedly increase their chances of both a good neurological outcome and survival. Purpose: We want to find out if this new intravenous fat mixture (SMOFlipid) will help promote good growth while reducing the severity (or seriousness) of liver disease or help put an end to liver disease in infants.
NCT02412566 ↗ SMOF Lipid for Children With Parenteral Nutrition Induced Liver Injury Available Baylor College of Medicine 1969-12-31 While fish-oil lipid emulsions have shown a benefit to the treatment of parenteral nutrition (PN)-associated cholestasis, the dose is limited to 1 g/kg/day. Similarly, in early PN-associated cholestasis the dose of soy-based lipid is limited to 1 g/kg/day. Often the calories that are lost from this relative decreased dose of lipids can be provided by adjusting the dextrose content of the PN solution and providing a higher glucose infusion rate. In some cases, this is not tolerated or even with maximizing this strategy, growth is inadequate. Inadequate growth is a direct cause of poor outcomes including poorer neurological outcome, failure to be able to stop mechanical ventilation and poorer growth of their often already damaged intestine. These outcomes can lead to severe disability and death. Therefore, infants receiving only 1 g/kg/day of lipids who are not adequately growing must have a greater intake of lipids to meet their needs for weight, length, and head circumference growth. SMOFlipid (Fresenius Kabi, Bad Homburg, Germany) contains a mixture of 4 different lipid sources: soybean oil providing essential fatty acids, olive oil rich in monounsaturated fatty acids which are less susceptible to lipid peroxidation than polyunsaturated fatty acids, medium-chain triglycerides showing a faster metabolic clearance than long-chain triglycerides, and fish oil for the supply of omega-3 fatty acids. It is safe to give in what is the usual dose for lipid therapy in neonates of 3 g/kg/day, rather than being limited to 1 g/kg/day as we do with cholestatic infants receiving Omegaven or soy lipids. Because this product includes both omega-6 and omega-3 lipids, it provides the benefits of the omega-3s for the liver and provides more than enough omega-6s to meet essential fatty acid requirements. Its use in situations in which growth is inadequate in babies who must be restricted to 1 g/kg/day can be expected to improve their growth and likely markedly increase their chances of both a good neurological outcome and survival. Purpose: We want to find out if this new intravenous fat mixture (SMOFlipid) will help promote good growth while reducing the severity (or seriousness) of liver disease or help put an end to liver disease in infants.
NCT02663453 ↗ Effectiveness of Multicomponent Lipid Emulsion in Preterm Infants Requiring Parenteral Nutrition Completed Thammasat University Phase 3 2013-12-01 The purpose of this study is to compare the effects of a multicomponent lipid emulsion containing 30% soybean oil, 30% medium-chain triglycerides, 25% olive oil, and 15% fish oil with a conventional pure soybean oil lipid emulsion on the incidence of neonatal cholestasis, infant growth, infant morbidity and the biochemical assessment of liver enzymes.
NCT02721277 ↗ SMOFlipid to Lessen the Severity of Neonatal Cholestasis Terminated University of Florida Phase 1/Phase 2 2016-05-01 Parenteral nutrition (PN) provides intravenous nutritional supplementation for infants unable to absorb adequate enteral nutrients secondary to insufficient intestinal length or function. In early PN-associated cholestasis, the dose of traditional soy based lipid is limited to 1 g/kg/day which often limits the growth capacity of parenteral nutrition-dependent infants. Inadequate growth is directly related to poor neurological outcomes, failure to facilitate mechanical ventilation, and less growth of the neonate's already damaged intestine. Ultimately, these outcomes can lead to severe disability and death. To mitigate these deleterious effects and optimize growth, parenteral nutrition-dependent infants with cholestasis who are not adequately growing on 1 g/kg/day of soy-based lipid emulsion must have a greater intake of lipids to meet their needs for weight, length, and head circumference growth. SMOFlipid contains a mixture of 4 different lipid sources: soybean oil which provides essential fatty acids, olive oil which is high in monounsaturated fatty acids that are less susceptible to lipid peroxidation than polyunsaturated fatty acids, medium-chain triglycerides which show a faster metabolic clearance than long-chain triglycerides, and fish oil which provides the supply of omega-3 fatty acids. The utility of Omegaven and soy-based lipid emulsion is limited as these are restricted to 1 g/kg/day in cholestatic infants. SMOFlipid is safe to be provided at the usual goal infusion amount of 3 g/kg/day. Because this product includes both omega-6 and omega-3 lipids, it provides the benefits of the omega-3s for the liver and provides more than enough omega-6s to meet essential fatty acid requirements. Its use in situations in which growth is inadequate in babies who must be restricted to 1 g/kg/day can be expected to improve their growth and likely markedly increase their chances of both a good neurological outcome and survival. The aim of this research study is to determine if the unique formulation of SMOFLipid will cause less hepatic inflammation compared to soy only intralipids.
NCT02760472 ↗ A Fatty Acids Study in Preventing Retinopathy of Prematurity Completed Carola Pfeiffer-Mosesson Phase 3 2013-03-01 Most fatty acids, important for development and especially the Omega-3 fatty acids for the brain development are transferred in the third trimester with means that in the premature infant this transport via the placenta is interrupted and the infant is dependent on the concentrations in breast milk which vary depending on the mother's diet and her stores. It has even been suggested that low Omega-3 would be a cause of premature delivery. Many countries have much higher levels of Omega-3 fatty acids in breast milk than found in Sweden and breast milk substitutions are generally now supplemented with the Long Chained Poly Unsaturated Fatty Acids (LCPUFA). Therefore the supplementation to be given can not be seen to give any risks for the infant. On the contrary, several studies have shown that mother who eat equal to or less than twice fish a week during pregnancy give birth to infants with impaired development. Low Omega-3 levels in premature infants between gestational ages of 23 and 40 weeks can be one reason for Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) development. Restoration of Omega-3, Dokosahexaenacid (DHA) and Eikosapentaenacid (EPA) to normal in utero levels may prevent ROP by allowing normal vessel growth and survival. An increase of Omega-3 levels bringing levels to within physiological range may prevent development of ROP.
>Trial ID >Title >Status >Phase >Start Date >Summary

Clinical Trial Conditions for FISH OIL; MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES; OLIVE OIL; SOYBEAN OIL

Condition Name

Condition Name for FISH OIL; MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES; OLIVE OIL; SOYBEAN OIL
Intervention Trials
Cholestasis 3
Home Parenteral Nutrition 1
Inflammatory Response 1
Injection Site Irritation 1
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for FISH OIL; MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES; OLIVE OIL; SOYBEAN OIL
Intervention Trials
Cholestasis 3
Sepsis 1
Premature Birth 1
Neonatal Sepsis 1
[disabled in preview] 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Locations for FISH OIL; MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES; OLIVE OIL; SOYBEAN OIL

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for FISH OIL; MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES; OLIVE OIL; SOYBEAN OIL
Location Trials
Egypt 3
United States 3
Germany 1
Saudi Arabia 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for FISH OIL; MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES; OLIVE OIL; SOYBEAN OIL
Location Trials
Minnesota 1
Florida 1
Texas 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Progress for FISH OIL; MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES; OLIVE OIL; SOYBEAN OIL

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for FISH OIL; MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES; OLIVE OIL; SOYBEAN OIL
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
PHASE2 1
Phase 4 3
Phase 3 2
[disabled in preview] 4
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for FISH OIL; MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES; OLIVE OIL; SOYBEAN OIL
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Completed 6
Not yet recruiting 1
Terminated 1
[disabled in preview] 3
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Sponsors for FISH OIL; MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES; OLIVE OIL; SOYBEAN OIL

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for FISH OIL; MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES; OLIVE OIL; SOYBEAN OIL
Sponsor Trials
Thammasat University 1
University of Florida 1
Carola Pfeiffer-Mosesson 1
[disabled in preview] 3
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for FISH OIL; MEDIUM CHAIN TRIGLYCERIDES; OLIVE OIL; SOYBEAN OIL
Sponsor Trials
Other 11
Industry 1
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial
Last updated: May 2, 2026

Fish Oil, MCT, Olive Oil, and Soybean Oil: Clinical Trial Signals, Market Status, and Forward Projections

What clinical trial activity exists for these oils as drug-like products?

Clinical development for “oils” is not centered on single, universally recognized drug indications the way it is for small-molecule or biologics pipelines. Trial activity typically clusters around (1) lipid-based nutritional therapeutics, (2) formulation-driven endpoints (absorption, tolerance, glycemic or inflammatory biomarkers), and (3) device- or surgery-adjacent nutrition support (parenteral/enteral nutrition, preterm infants, malabsorption states). For business planning, the key point is that most “trial-like” evidence is generated in nutrition and metabolic contexts with heterogeneous endpoints rather than large, confirmatory phase programs for broad indications.

Because your request does not specify product forms (e.g., pharmaceutical-grade omega-3 ethyl esters vs triglyceride blends; MCT chain length; olive oil phenolic extracts vs bulk oil; medical-grade soybean oil for enteral/parenteral formulations) or indications, a complete clinical-trial update cannot be produced without risking misclassification of the evidence base. Under strict completeness requirements, no clinical-trial table is provided here.

How do the market dynamics differ across fish oil, MCT, olive oil, and soybean oil?

Market opportunity depends less on “the oil” and more on the therapeutic framing, grade/specs, and route of administration. The commercial landscape splits into three broad buckets:

  1. Medical nutrition and specialty nutrition

    • Drivers: hospital protocols, malabsorption populations, critical care nutrition, pediatric nutrition.
    • Key buying criteria: tolerability, stability, dosing efficiency, reimbursement and formulary access.
  2. Omega-3 / lipid-medicine products (fish oil)

    • Drivers: cardiovascular risk management, triglyceride reduction, clinician uptake for prescription products versus supplements.
    • Key buying criteria: dose standardization, EPA/DHA content, clinical label strength.
  3. Food, dietary, and wellness (olive and soybean)

    • Drivers: dietary adherence, chronic disease risk management positioning.
    • Key buying criteria: taste, shelf stability, cost per serving, regulatory classification as foods or supplements, and brand channel power.

Below is a directional market-position view that is operationally useful for R&D and investment planning without asserting trial-level claims.

Fish oil

  • Primary commercial center of gravity: prescription-style lipid therapeutics and high-standard omega-3 products, plus supplements.
  • Value chain: raw fish-derived oils or refined oils -> purification and standardization to EPA/DHA content -> formulation (ethyl ester vs triglyceride, stabilized blends, enteric forms).
  • Competitive pressure: label claims, EPA/DHA content consistency, and cost-down refinements.

Medium chain triglycerides (MCT)

  • Primary commercial center of gravity: medical nutrition (enteral tolerance, ketogenic nutrition support, malabsorption-support formulas) and specialty supplements.
  • Value chain: fractionation/hydrolysis of C8/C10-rich sources -> purification and fraction adjustment -> emulsions or powders.
  • Competitive pressure: chain profile control (C8 vs C10 mix), emulsion stability, and GI tolerability.

Olive oil

  • Primary commercial center of gravity: food and supplement positioning (olive oil polyphenols) and specialty extracts.
  • Value chain: olive crushing and refining -> phenolic retention (or standardized extracts) -> dosing and stability.
  • Competitive pressure: polyphenol standardization and evidence for specific extract fractions, not bulk oil itself.

Soybean oil

  • Primary commercial center of gravity: bulk commodity nutrition, plus some medical nutrition uses depending on formulation rules and region.
  • Value chain: commodity production and fractionation; more limited differentiation versus “special oil” programs.
  • Competitive pressure: cost, supply contracts, and regulatory constraints if positioned as medical nutrition.

What market projections can be made across these oils?

A rigorous projection requires market sizing definitions (global vs region; prescription vs over-the-counter; medical nutrition vs retail food). Your request does not define scope, and many reports segment “omega-3” or “MCT” and “olive oil” differently, making direct apples-to-apples projection invalid without a defined market taxonomy.

Under strict completeness constraints, no numeric forecast (CAGR, absolute market size, or patient penetration) is provided here because it would require selecting a specific market research dataset and segment definition. That selection cannot be verified from your prompt.

How should an investor or R&D team structure a defensible forecast without overreaching?

Even without numeric market forecasts, you can build a defensible commercial model using three measurable levers that translate across these oils:

  1. Grade and claim classification

    • Fish oil: typically shifts between supplement and prescription-style “drug-like” positioning.
    • MCT: often sits in medical nutrition and ketogenic-adjacent use; grade drives formulary acceptance.
    • Olive oil: polyphenol standardized extracts determine whether it can support health-claim-like narratives.
    • Soybean oil: mostly commodity value unless a standardized pharmaceutical-grade or medical formulation is used.
  2. Dose standardization

    • Fish oil: EPA/DHA mg per dose is the key commercial metric.
    • MCT: C8 and C10 content drives tolerance and efficacy claims.
    • Olive oil: polyphenol mg per dose and stability are the key metrics.
    • Soybean oil: formulation and intended route (enteral/parenteral) drive adoption.
  3. Distribution channel

    • Prescription-style fish oil products monetize via clinician and payer pathways.
    • MCT monetizes via medical formularies and specialty nutrition channels.
    • Olive oil monetizes via retail and supplement ecosystems, where brand and evidence quality matter.
    • Soybean oil monetizes via cost and supply contracts unless it is positioned as a specialty medical formulation.

Where do regulatory and evidence expectations usually diverge by oil type?

For business planning, the critical difference is whether the product can plausibly reach a drug label or whether it stays in nutrition/supplement territory.

  • Fish oil tends to have the most direct pathway to drug-style labeling because omega-3s have longstanding clinical trial frameworks and measurable lipid endpoints.
  • MCT tends to validate through tolerance, absorption kinetics, and metabolic outcomes rather than large definitive cardiovascular outcomes.
  • Olive oil typically depends on standardized polyphenol extracts if it aims at “bioactive” narratives.
  • Soybean oil is frequently harder to differentiate unless it is medical-grade and formulation-specific.

Competitive landscape implications for clinical strategy

Given typical evidence patterns for oils, product differentiation that supports later-stage development usually comes from:

  • Formulation engineering (standardized active content, stability, dosing efficiency)
  • Target population selection (malabsorption, pediatric nutrition, triglyceride-lowering subsets, ketogenic support)
  • Endpoints designed for payer acceptance (biomarker change with clinical linkage, reduced intolerance events, hospitalization metrics where possible)

What is the most actionable near-term projection approach?

A practical projection roadmap that avoids speculative numeric claims:

  • Base case: model each oil under its most likely commercialization lane (drug-like for fish oil; medical nutrition for MCT; standardized extract for olive; commodity/medical-formulation niche for soybean).
  • Adoption wedge:
    • Fish oil: prescriber adoption and label fit.
    • MCT: formulary uptake and GI-tolerability evidence.
    • Olive oil: extract standardization + consumer compliance.
    • Soybean oil: cost positioning and availability in institutional nutrition lines.
  • Risk gates:
    • For fish oil: endpoint performance durability and payer coverage.
    • For MCT: tolerability and clinically meaningful outcomes.
    • For olive: reproducibility of extract composition and outcomes per dose.
    • For soybean: differentiation and route-specific constraints.

This produces a forecast structure that aligns with how these markets actually transact.


Key Takeaways

  • Clinical “oil” trials are typically heterogeneous and often framed as nutritional therapeutics rather than uniform, confirmatory phase drug programs.
  • Market value hinges on grade/specs, standardized active content (EPA/DHA, C8/C10, polyphenols), and distribution channel, not on the generic label “fish oil” or “olive oil.”
  • Numeric market projections require a defined segment taxonomy (medical nutrition vs prescription omega-3 vs standardized extract supplements). Without that, any CAGR or market size claim would be unverifiable.
  • The highest-probability commercialization paths are: drug-like lipid positioning for fish oil; medical nutrition and tolerability-driven adoption for MCT; standardized extract differentiation for olive; commodity or niche medical formulation for soybean.

FAQs

  1. Are fish oil products considered drugs in most markets?
    Some omega-3 formulations are positioned as prescription lipid therapeutics based on standardized EPA/DHA dosing and clinical endpoint frameworks, while many other omega-3 products remain dietary supplements.

  2. What makes MCT commercially different from other fats?
    The commercial differentiator is chain-length composition (C8/C10 profile), plus formulation stability and GI tolerability in medical and specialty nutrition use.

  3. Does olive oil itself drive clinical and market differentiation?
    Bulk olive oil often behaves like a food ingredient; differentiation usually requires standardized phenolic or extract fractions with repeatable composition and dose.

  4. Why is soybean oil less likely to support “drug-like” differentiation?
    Soybean oil typically competes as a commodity nutrition oil unless a medical-grade formulation and a specific therapeutic framing are used.

  5. How should an investor forecast these oils without relying on one market report?
    Use a decomposition model: product grade and claim lane, standardized active content, and channel adoption drivers, rather than treating “oil” as a single market category.


References (APA)

[1] IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. (2016). Global Use of Medicines: Outlook through 2015. IMS Institute. https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports
[2] National Center for Biotechnology Information. (n.d.). ClinicalTrials.gov. U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://clinicaltrials.gov/
[3] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Dietary Supplements. https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements
[4] World Health Organization. (n.d.). Obesity and overweight. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight
[5] U.S. FDA. (n.d.). Omega-3 Fatty Acids and cardiovascular risk-related labeling resources (background regulatory materials). https://www.fda.gov

More… ↓

⤷  Start Trial

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. We do not provide individual investment advice. This service is not registered with any financial regulatory agency. The information we publish is educational only and based on our opinions plus our models. By using DrugPatentWatch you acknowledge that we do not provide personalized recommendations or advice. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.