Cited by 552Alcohol Consumption and Health EffectsBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

The effect of a reduction in alcohol consumption on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Roerecke, Michael, Kaczorowski, Janusz, Tobe, Sheldon W, Gmel, Gerrit, Hasan, Omer S M, Rehm, Jürgen·2017·The Lancet Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although it is well established that heavy alcohol consumption increases the risk of hypertension, little is known about the effect of a reduction of alcohol intake on blood pressure. We aimed to assess the effect of a reduction in alcohol consumption on change in blood pressure stratified by initial amount of alcohol consumption and sex in adults. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MedLine, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception up to July 13, 2016, for trials investigating the effect of a change of alcohol consumption on blood pressure in adults using keywords and MeSH terms related to alcohol consumption, blood pressure, and clinical trials, with no language restrictions. We also searched reference lists of identified articles and published meta-analyses and reviews. We included full-text articles with original human trial data for the effect of a change of alcohol consumption on blood pressure in adults, which reported a quantifiable change in average alcohol consumption that lasted at least 7 days and a corresponding change in blood pressure. We extracted data from published reports. We did random-effects meta-analyses stratified by amount of alcohol intake at baseline. All meta-analyses were done with Stata (version 14.1). For the UK, we modelled the effect of a reduction of alcohol consumption for 50% of the population drinking more than two standard drinks per day (ie, 12 g pure alcohol per drink). FINDINGS: 36 trials with 2865 participants (2464 men and 401 women) were included. In people who drank two or fewer drinks per day, a reduction in alcohol was not associated with a significant reduction in blood pressure; however, in people who drank more than two drinks per day, a reduction in alcohol intake was associated with increased blood pressure reduction. Reduction in systolic blood pressure (mean difference -5·50 mm Hg, 95% CI -6·70 to -4·30) and diastolic blood pressure (-3·97, -4·70 to -3·25) was strongest in participants who drank six or more drinks per day if they reduced their intake by about 50%. For the UK, the results would translate into more than 7000 inpatient hospitalisations and 678 cardiovascular deaths prevented every year. INTERPRETATION: Reducing alcohol intake lowers blood pressure in a dose-dependent manner with an apparent threshold effect. Implementation of effective alcohol interventions in people who drink more than two drinks per day would reduce the disease burden from both alcohol consumption and hypertension, and should be prioritised in countries with substantial alcohol-attributable risk. FUNDING: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2468-2667(17)30003-8

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 12 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    After accounting for baseline alcohol intake, little heterogeneity remained in the diastolic blood pressure analysis (I2=15.4%).

    “and there was little heterogeneity left to explain (I2=15·4%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    For people consuming three drinks daily, reducing to near abstinence produced a significant systolic blood pressure change (MD −1.18 mm Hg, 95% CI −2.32 to −0.04).

    “A reduction of alcohol consumption to near abstinence for people who drank three drinks per day resulted in a significant change in systolic blood pressure (MD −1·18, 95% CI −2·32 to −0·04) and diastolic blood pressure (−1·09, −1·61 to −0·57).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The review included 36 trials with 2865 participants, comprising 2464 men and 401 women.

    “36 trials with 2865 participants (2464 men and 401 women) were included.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Excluding each trial one at a time produced no meaningful differences in effects.

    “Leaving each trial out of the analysis one at a time showed no meaningful differences in effects (appendix pp 8–11).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Baseline alcohol intake strongly influenced the size of systolic blood pressure reduction (β = −0.91 mm Hg per additional drink per day; p<0.0001).

    “the amount of alcohol intake from which consumption was reduced (mean alcohol at baseline) showed a strong effect on the magnitude of the blood pressure reduction (β = −0·91 mm Hg; p<0·0001 for systolic blood pressure; β = −0·75 mm Hg; p<0·0001 for diastolic blood pressure, per one drink per day).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 12
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 10
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Among 27 trials reporting weight change during alcohol reduction, only ten found a significant change (between −0.3 and −1.7 kg); the rest found no significant or no change.

    “Of 27 trials that reported on weight change during alcohol reduction, only ten reported a significant change (between −0·3 and −1·7 kg), the other trials reported no significant or no change in weight.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The blood pressure effect of reducing alcohol was similar in men and women, though data for women were sparse.

    “Results were similar for men and women; however, data for women were sparse.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The weighted mean reduction in alcohol consumption was −15, −30, −40, and −32 g per day for participants consuming two or fewer, three, four to five, and six or more drinks per day, respectively.

    “The weighted mean reduction in alcohol consumption from baseline was −15, −30, −40, and −32 g per day in participants consuming two or fewer, three, four to five, and six or more drinks per day at baseline, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The weighted mean baseline alcohol consumption was 15, 30, 49, and 76 g per day for participants consuming two or fewer, three, four to five, and six or more drinks per day, respectively.

    “The weighted mean alcohol consumption at baseline was 15, 30, 49, and 76 g per day in participants consuming two or fewer, three, four to five, and six or more drinks per day at baseline.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The dose-response association was present in healthy participants and in those with hypertension or other cardiovascular risk factors.

    “The dose-response association was evident in healthy participants and people with hypertension or other CVD risk factors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For people drinking five or fewer drinks per day, baseline alcohol was mostly compared with abstinence or near abstinence; for those drinking six or more, the mean reduction was about 50%.

    “Thus, alcohol at baseline was mostly compared with abstinence or near abstinence for people who drank five or fewer drinks per day at baseline, and about 50% mean reduction in alcohol intake for people who drank six or more drinks per day at baseline.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The corresponding author had full access to all data and final responsibility for submission.

    “The corresponding author had full access to all of the data and the final responsibility to submit for publication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Price increases and availability restrictions are effective and cost-effective population-level interventions to reduce harmful alcohol consumption.

    “In terms of alcohol policy, price increase and availability restrictions have been shown to be effective and cost-effective interventions to reduce harmful alcohol consumption on a population level.67”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [67] Babor, 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Effective alcohol interventions for people drinking more than two drinks per day would substantially reduce the disease burden from alcohol and hypertension.

    “Implementation of effective alcohol interventions in people who drink more than two drinks per day would reduce the disease burden from both alcohol consumption and hypertension, and should be prioritised in countries with substantial alcohol-attributable risk.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: In the UK population modelling, lower alcohol consumption persists for at least one year.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There is no lag time between reduced alcohol consumption and effects on cardiovascular disease outcomes.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The modelled intervention to reduce alcohol consumption covers 50% of the population drinking more than two standard drinks per day.
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment indicated potential high risk from masking and allocation concealment, with low or unclear risk in most other domains.

    “The Cochrane Risk of Bias method showed potential high risk of bias from masking and allocation concealment, and low or unclear risk in most other domains (appendix p 12).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Awareness and treatment of hypertension are not optimal and may be especially important in heavy drinkers.

    “Similarly, awareness and treatment for hypertension are not optimal,65 and might be especially important in heavy drinkers.66”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [65] Joffres, 2013, Hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment and control in national surveys from England, the USA and Canada, and correlation with stroke and ischaemic heart disease mortality: a cross-sectional study, BMJ Open source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [66] Org, 2011, HYPEST study: profile of hypertensive patients in Estonia, BMC Cardiovasc Disord source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The funder had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing the report.

    “The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Masking and allocation concealment are almost impossible in trials of lifestyle changes such as alcohol consumption.

    “With regard to risk of bias, masking and allocation concealment are almost impossible to achieve in trials investigating lifestyle changes such as alcohol consumption.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Reducing alcohol consumption lowers blood pressure in a dose-dependent way, with an apparent threshold at two drinks per day.

    “A reduction in alcohol consumption reduced blood pressure in a dose-dependent manner with an apparent threshold effect at two drinks per day.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The study followed PRISMA guidelines.

    “following the PRISMA guidelines,8”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] Moher, 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, Ann Intern Med source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study used random-effects meta-analyses stratified by baseline alcohol intake.

    “We did random-effects meta-analyses stratified by amount of alcohol intake at baseline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The search covered MedLine, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to July 13, 2016, with no language restrictions.

    “we systematically searched MedLine, Embase, the Cochrane library (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception to July 13, 2016”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study performed three complementary quality and risk-of-bias analyses.

    “Recognising that quality score use in meta-analyses remains controversial,12,13 we did three complementary quality and risk of bias analyses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [12] Greenland, 2001, On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions, Biostatistics source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [13] Herbison, 2006, Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned, J Clin Epidemiol source

      Not checked in the free run.

18 of 18
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the UK population modelling, lower alcohol consumption persists for at least one year.

    “assuming persistence of lower alcohol consumption within 1 year, and no lag time of effects on CVD outcomes.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    There is no lag time between reduced alcohol consumption and effects on cardiovascular disease outcomes.

    “assuming persistence of lower alcohol consumption within 1 year, and no lag time of effects on CVD outcomes.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The modelled intervention to reduce alcohol consumption covers 50% of the population drinking more than two standard drinks per day.

    “assuming a coverage rate of 50% (ie, an intervention to reduce alcohol consumption for 50% of the population drinking more than two standard drinks per day)”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A positive linear association exists between alcohol consumption, blood pressure, the prevalence of hypertension, and CVD risk.

    “Positive linear association exists between alcohol consumption, blood pressure, the prevalence of hypertension, and CVD risk. 51”

    From 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines (2020) · cites this paper as [51]

    The Discussion reports a dose-dependent relationship between alcohol reduction and blood pressure, but describes an apparent threshold at two drinks per day—not a positive linear association across all consumption levels. The Results also model reductions in the proportion of people with high systolic blood pressure and in CVD deaths after reduced drinking; they do not establish a linear relationship for hypertension prevalence or CVD risk. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roerecke, M., Kaczorowski, J., Tobe, S. W., Gmel, G., Hasan, O. S. M., & Rehm, J.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Roerecke, Michael
Venue
The Lancet Public Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
e108-e120
ISSN
2468-2667 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2586294530
Cited by
552
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 96 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 12 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R21AA023521)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
alcohol consumption reduction, alcohol consumption, blood pressure, hypertension, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, dose-response relationship, threshold effects, heavy drinking, sex differences, alcohol interventions, cardiovascular disease prevention, hospitalization prevention, cardiovascular mortality, alcohol-related disease burden, adults, randomized controlled trials
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking, Blood Pressure, Humans, Hypertension, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-04.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-04.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review