Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an overwhelming systemic inflammatory process associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Pharmacotherapies that moderate inflammation in ARDS are lacking. Several trials have evaluated the effects of pharmaconutrients, given as part of a feeding formula or as a nutritional supplement, on clinical outcomes in critical illness and ARDS. Objectives To systematically review and critically appraise available evidence on the effects of immunonutrition compared to standard non-immunonutrition formula feeding on mechanically ventilated adults (aged 18 years or older) with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Search methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, conference proceedings, and trial registries for appropriate studies up to 25 April 2018. We checked the references from published studies and reviews on this topic for potentially eligible studies. EC290 Immunonutrition for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in adults Study characteristics The evidence is current up to April 2018. We included in this review 10 studies with 1015 adult participants. These studies were conducted in intensive care units and compared standard nutrition (the usual nutrition given to patients with ARDS) versus nutrition supplemented with omega-3 fatty acids or placebo (a substance with no active effect), and compared either with or without antioxidants. Antioxidants are molecules that can inhibit or slow down oxidation-a reaction that can cause inflammation and damage cells. Key results It is unclear whether use of omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants as part of nutritional intake in patients with ARDS improves long-term survival. It is uncertain whether omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants reduce length of ICU stay and the number of days spent on a ventilator, or if they improve oxygenation. It is also unclear if this type of nutrition causes increased harm. Quality of evidence Findings of this review are limited by lack of standardization among the included studies in terms of methods, types of nutritional supplements given, and reporting of outcome measures. We rated the quality of evidence as low to very low.