Depression treatment
Wine, alcohol, and depression
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
In PREDIMED adults, low-to-moderate alcohol—especially wine—associated with lower incident depression risk versus abstaining, while heavy drinking looked riskier.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cohort — Observational analysis within PREDIMED participants
- N
- N=5505 · Older Mediterranean adults; 443 incident depression cases
- Population
- Older adults in the PREDIMED Mediterranean cohort
- Outcome
- Incident depression by baseline alcohol/wine intake (Cox HRs)
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Low-to-moderate intake (>5–15 g/day) had HR 0.72 (95% CI 0.53–0.98); wine dominated alcohol intake (82% of variability); heavy drinkers appeared at higher risk.
Methodology
Among 5,505 older Mediterranean adults, investigators related baseline alcohol/wine intake to 443 incident depression cases over follow-up using Cox models.
Limitations
Observational design cannot prove alcohol prevents depression; confounding and residual healthy-user effects remain.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Multiple studies in this library examine depression treatment with empirical patient or population outcomes rather than opinion alone.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Low-to-moderate intake (>5–15 g/day) had HR 0.72 (95% CI 0.53–0.98); wine dominated alcohol intake (82% of variability); heavy drinkers appeared at higher risk.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Effect sizes and settings differ across depression treatment studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Diet and alcohol papers in this set report HRs for incident depression or CVD that are threshold-like or beverage-specific rather than strictly linear. Low-to-moderate alcohol (>5–15 g/day) had HR 0.72 for incident depression among 5,505 older Mediterranean adults; each extra 10 g/day olive oil in PREDIMED participants had HR 0.87 for major CVD events; higher diet-quality quintiles had depression HRs around 0.74–0.78.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Null and protective HRs are not interchangeable with 'safe' or 'preventive.' The anaesthetic trial's HR near 1 is limited by rare mortality and differing opioid co-analgesia; the alcohol paper's HR 0.72 cannot prove drinking prevents depression; the antidepressant-adverse-event cohort links several drugs to more falls versus non-use, which may still be confounding by indication.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Effect sizes and settings differ across depression treatment studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
Null and protective HRs are not interchangeable with 'safe' or 'preventive.' The anaesthetic trial's HR near 1 is limited by rare mortality and differing opioid co-analgesia; the alcohol paper's HR 0.72 cannot prove drinking prevents depression; the antidepressant-adverse-event cohort links several drugs to more falls versus non-use, which may still be confounding by indication.
- Supports · Propofol vs sevoflurane and breast cancer survival
- Supports · Antidepressant adverse events cohort
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.