Alcohol consumption is a modifiable exposure associated with mental health outcomes. The population-level impact of reducing alcohol use on anxiety and depression symptoms remains uncertain because prior studies face challenges such as health-related selection into abstinence, time-varying confounding, and reverse causation. This study estimated the effect of a hypothetical intervention that reduces drinking to low-risk levels on the prevalence of moderate-to-severe anxiety and depression in a US nationwide longitudinal cohort.
The analysis used data from 2,813 participants without documented underlying health conditions enrolled in a US national longitudinal cohort between September 2021 and December 2023. The investigators implemented a target trial emulation and applied the parametric g-formula to estimate the effect of a hypothetical population-level intervention.
The intervention set participants identified as moderate- and high-risk drinkers to low-risk drinking at each follow-up, while leaving those who were abstinent or already in the low-risk category unchanged. Primary outcomes were moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms, defined as PHQ-8 ≥10, and moderate-to-severe anxiety symptoms, defined as GAD-7 ≥10.
Models adjusted for baseline and time-varying covariates (specific covariates were included in models as described in the source). Uncertainty around estimates was assessed using bootstrap resampling. The parametric g-formula within the target trial framework was chosen to address time-varying confounding and potential reverse causation that can bias conventional longitudinal analyses.
Under the natural course (no hypothetical intervention), the estimated prevalence of moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms was 12.67% (95% CI: 12.17, 13.23). Under the hypothetical intervention that reduced moderate- and high-risk drinking to low-risk, the estimated prevalence of moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms was 12.77% (95% CI: 12.26, 13.29). The risk difference comparing the intervention to the natural course was 0.10 percentage points (95% CI: -0.22, 0.50).
For anxiety symptoms, estimated prevalence under the natural course was 10.40% (95% CI: 8.89, 11.89). Under the intervention, estimated prevalence was 10.25% (95% CI: 8.76, 11.98). The risk difference was -0.15 percentage points (95% CI: -0.68, 0.35).
Confidence intervals around the risk differences included the null in both outcomes, and the absolute differences in estimated prevalence were small.
In this target-trial emulation using the parametric g-formula applied to a US national cohort, a hypothetical population-wide intervention that reduced moderate- and high-risk alcohol consumption to low-risk drinking produced near-null changes in the prevalence of moderate-to-severe depression and anxiety symptoms. The authors conclude that reducing alcohol use alone may be insufficient to meaningfully shift the population-level burden of these common mental health disorders.
These results suggest that additional or complementary interventions beyond alcohol reduction may be required to produce measurable population-wide improvements in anxiety and depressive symptom prevalence.
Strengths of the analysis include the use of a longitudinal national cohort, explicit emulation of a target trial framework, and application of the parametric g-formula to address time-varying confounding and reverse causation. The study adjusted for baseline and time-varying covariates and used bootstrap resampling to quantify uncertainty.
Limitations reported or implied by the methods include reliance on self-reported alcohol use categories and symptom screening thresholds (PHQ-8 and GAD-7), the hypothetical nature of the intervention (i.e., assumptions required to emulate a population-wide change in drinking behavior), and that some data elements are restricted by funder requirements. As the source is a preprint, findings have not been peer reviewed and should not be used to guide clinical practice.
The Institutional Review Board at the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health provided ethical approval for the work. Regarding competing interests, one author (DN) reported consulting fees from AbbVie and Gilead and that his institution received a research grant from Pfizer; the other authors declared no conflicts. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or the decision to publish according to the source.
The datasets generated and/or analyzed are available in a Zenodo repository (DOI reported in the source). Some data elements are not publicly available due to funder requirements but may be obtainable from the authors on reasonable request and subject to approval and resources.
Funding sources reported include the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Pfizer (United States), the CUNY Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health, CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and the CUNY COVID-19 Grant Program.