Details

Published: 01 June 2026

Hits: 64

Most people know that heavy drinking harms the body. But a new study published in May 2026 shows just how deeply alcohol addiction and the brain are connected, and how some of those changes may never fully reverse, no matter how long someone stays sober.

Scientists at the University of Manchester and the University of Huddersfield examined how alcohol dependence alters the brain’s reward learning systems. Their findings make a powerful case for why preventing alcohol dependency from taking hold is far better than dealing with it later.

Alcohol Addiction and the Brain: What the Study Found

Forty-six participants took part in the study. Twenty had a history of alcohol dependence and were abstinent, while 26 were healthy volunteers. All of them completed a reward-learning game while wearing EEG headsets that tracked their brain activity in real time.

On the surface, both groups performed equally well. But when researchers examined the brain signals behind those decisions, the picture told a very different story.

How Alcohol Dependence Suppresses a Key Brain Signal

The most striking finding centred on a brain response called feedback-related negativity, or FRN. This signal shows how the brain reacts to negative outcomes. Think of it as the neurological register of something going wrong.

In people with a history of alcohol dependence, this signal was noticeably blunted. It stayed suppressed after both positive and negative outcomes. It did not recover with time away from alcohol. Months or years of sobriety made no measurable difference.

The finding is significant. It suggests alcohol addiction and the brain’s ability to process reward and consequences change in ways that persist long into abstinence. Researchers believe an underlying difference in reward processing may even predate the addiction itself, making certain people more vulnerable from the start.

Some Changes Do Improve With Abstinence, But Slowly

The study was not without hope. A second brain signal, the feedback-P3, showed a different pattern. This signal reflects how strongly the mind registers important feedback and begins updating what it has learnt.

Those in recovery from alcohol dependence showed the strongest feedback-P3 activity in the earliest stages of abstinence. Over many years without alcohol, this signal gradually moved closer to the pattern seen in healthy volunteers.

Researchers say this points to a genuine brain change tied to sustained abstinence. But the key word is sustained. The process is slow, incomplete, and far from guaranteed for everyone.

What Machine Learning Revealed About Alcohol Dependence and Brain Activity

To dig deeper, the research team used a machine learning technique called tensor decomposition. This method finds hidden patterns in large datasets that traditional analysis would likely miss.

In people with alcohol dependence, it uncovered unusually early and intense activity in centro-frontal brain regions, near the top and front of the head. This surge was strongest in those at the earlier stages of recovery. Researchers suggest the brain works harder than usual simply to maintain normal performance.

Healthy volunteers showed a different pattern entirely. Their brain activity appeared later and concentrated in the parietal lobe, a region that processes sensory information before assessing reward value. The contrast highlights just how significantly alcohol addiction reshapes the brain.

Why Alcohol Addiction and the Brain Make Prevention So Critical

Around 600,000 people in England are dependent on alcohol, according to NHS figures. Fewer than 1 in 5 receive any form of treatment in a given year. That gap matters, but so does what this research tells us about the consequences of dependency.

Some brain changes linked to alcohol addiction appear to be stable traits. They stay present regardless of how long someone has been sober. That makes prevention far more powerful than treatment after the fact.

Lead author Dr Mica Komarnyckyj from the University of Manchester said the findings give fresh insight into how alcohol dependence shapes the brain systems involved in learning and reward. Larger, longer-term studies are now needed to establish whether these EEG markers could one day help identify people at greater risk before dependency develops.

That early identification is exactly the point. Alcohol dependence damages the brain well before most people realise there is a problem. The window to act is far earlier than most expect.

This research is not just a scientific milestone. It is a clear reminder that when it comes to alcohol addiction and the brain, the best outcome is always the one where dependency never takes hold at all.

The research was funded by the UKRI Future Leaders Fund, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. It appears in the journal Clinical Neurophysiology.

(Source: WRD NEWS)

Details

Published: 29 May 2026

Hits: 153

Cannabis edibles have become a familiar part of daily life in many parts of the world. For plenty of people, pairing them with alcohol at social occasions feels completely normal. But new research published in JAMA Network Open (May 2026) tells a more sobering story. It challenges what most people assume about what “a little of both” actually does to their ability to drive safely.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine found that combining cannabis edibles with alcohol produced significantly greater driving impairment than either substance alone. More strikingly, participants who consumed cannabis alongside a modest amount of alcohol showed impairment that matched or exceeded the legal drink drive limit in most of the United States (0.08% breath alcohol concentration, or BrAC).

That is not a small finding. It carries real consequences for public safety.

What the Research on Cannabis Edibles and Alcohol Actually Found

This was a carefully controlled crossover trial. Twenty five healthy adults each completed seven separate laboratory sessions. They tried different combinations of THC doses (0 mg, 10 mg, and 25 mg via cannabis brownies) and alcohol levels (placebo, 0.05% BrAC, and 0.08% BrAC). Each participant then completed simulated driving tasks, field sobriety tests, and cognitive assessments.

The headline findings were clear. When participants took 25 mg of THC with enough alcohol to reach 0.05% BrAC (roughly two to three standard drinks), they drove worse than participants who drank alcohol alone to the legal limit of 0.08% BrAC. Even the lower 10 mg THC dose combined with 0.05% BrAC alcohol produced impairment comparable to the legal alcohol limit on its own.

Participants also reported feeling significantly more intoxicated when co-using cannabis and alcohol. They had lower confidence in their driving ability and stronger feelings of being “high” compared to using either substance separately.

Why Edibles Make Cannabis and Alcohol Co-Use So Deceptive

Unlike smoked or vaped cannabis, edibles behave very differently in the body. Their effects take one to two hours to fully develop. But they also last considerably longer than inhaled cannabis. Blood THC concentrations after eating an edible are typically much lower than after inhalation. This creates a misleading picture of how impaired a person actually is.

In this study, participants who consumed a 25 mg THC brownie had a mean peak blood THC concentration of just 3.21 ng/mL. That figure falls below the per se limits used in some jurisdictions to infer cannabis intoxication. A blood test could return a result below the legal threshold even when someone was genuinely impaired.

Standard detection tools struggle with this. Cannabis affects drivers differently from alcohol. Current roadside tests were never designed to catch the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol co-use.

The Limits of Field Sobriety Tests for Cannabis and Alcohol Co-Use

Field sobriety tests (SFSTs) are the physical assessments police use to identify impaired drivers at the roadside. These tests include the walk and turn, the one leg stand, and horizontal gaze nystagmus. Investigators originally developed and validated them specifically for detecting alcohol intoxication at 0.08% BrAC or above.

Several drug conditions in this study produced clear, measurable driving impairment. Yet they did not produce a significant increase in SFST clues compared to the placebo group. Cannabis alone, and cannabis edibles combined with alcohol at 0.05% BrAC, did not reliably trigger a failed sobriety test. At the same time, those participants were demonstrably worse drivers on the simulator.

This is not a theoretical problem. A driver impaired by cannabis edibles and alcohol could pass a roadside test and still pose a serious risk to everyone on the road.

Cannabis and Alcohol Co-Use Is Becoming More Common

Co-use of cannabis and alcohol is growing, particularly in places where cannabis has now been legalised. Research consistently shows that people who use both substances simultaneously face a higher risk of motor vehicle accidents than those who use either substance on its own.

Eating a cannabis edible and then drinking alcohol is a pattern many people do not associate with serious impairment. Edibles feel manageable. A couple of drinks feels far removed from being dangerously drunk. But when people co-use cannabis and alcohol, those perceptions do not match reality.

Participants in this study who co-used cannabis and alcohol also reported a wider window of feeling intoxicated. The alcohol brought effects on earlier. The edible extended them longer. Together, the two substances created a longer period of impairment than either produced alone.

What the Evidence Tells Us

Combining cannabis edibles with alcohol, even at quantities that individually feel manageable, produces a level of impairment that keeps people off the road. The delayed onset of edibles means someone may not feel the full effect until they are already driving. Alcohol then amplifies that impairment in ways current tests cannot reliably detect.

As cannabis products become more widely available, public understanding of the risks around cannabis and alcohol co-use becomes more urgent. Clear, honest information matters. Knowing the evidence is the first step towards making decisions that protect not just the individual but everyone else sharing the road.

(Source: WRD News)

Details

Published: 26 May 2026

Hits: 59

More than 2.2 million Australian men engage in risky drinking in midlife, a landmark national study has confirmed. Researchers found that men aged 30 to 59 routinely exceed safe limits, yet public health campaigns continue to overlook them almost entirely.

Flinders University led the research in partnership with the Alcohol and Drug Foundation (ADF). It is the first national study of its kind. The team drew on data from the 2019 and 2022/23 National Drug Strategy Household Survey. The findings reveal an alcohol culture deeply embedded in work, stress, and everyday social life.

Risky Drinking in Midlife Men: Nearly Half Exceed Safe Limits

The study found that 43% of men aged 30 to 59 drink beyond Australia’s national alcohol guidelines. Those guidelines advise no more than 10 standard drinks per week and no more than four on any single day. The journal Drug and Alcohol Review published the research.

Lead author Stefano Zaccagnini is a PhD candidate at Flinders University. He completed his industry doctorate co-supervised by the ADF. He says the scale of the problem is hard to ignore.

“Men drink alcohol for many reasons and across different social and cultural settings,” he said. “They drink at consistently higher rates than women. Midlife is also a period when drinking can shift from occasional to routine. That shift heightens the risk of accidents, injuries, assaults, and chronic illnesses including dependence, liver disease, and cancer.”

Who Is Most at Risk of Hazardous Alcohol Use?

Several factors link closely to risky drinking in this age group. Men who smoke, use illicit drugs, experience high psychological distress, live in regional areas, or earn higher household incomes are all more likely to exceed safe limits. Men in managerial, trade, and technical occupations also show higher rates.

There is a clear difference between younger and older midlife men. Among those aged 30 to 44, high psychological distress strongly predicts risky drinking. In the older group, aged 45 to 59, that connection weakens considerably.

“Stress and mental health may influence drinking differently at various stages of midlife,” Zaccagnini noted.

Regional Communities Face Greater Challenges

Men outside major cities show a noticeably higher rate of hazardous alcohol use. Drinking sits at the centre of social life in many regional, rural, and remote communities. Yet support services remain thin on the ground.

“Help and support options can be limited in regional areas,” Zaccagnini said. “That makes early intervention far more challenging.”

Risky Drinking in Midlife Men Is Not Just a Young Person’s Problem

Professor Jacqueline Bowden directs Flinders University’s National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA). She says the findings challenge a stubborn misconception.

“There is a perception that risky drinking mainly affects younger people,” she said. “This research shows it remains very common among men in midlife. Progress has been slower in this age group. Prevention efforts tend to focus on younger people, and middle-aged men get left behind. For many of them, alcohol ties directly to work culture, social life, and managing stress.”

Overall rates of risky drinking among Australian men have fallen over recent decades. But the decline has stalled among men in midlife. This group still accounts for more than 2.2 million people drinking above safe levels every week.

Targeted Action Is Needed

Dr Erin Lalor AM, Chief Executive Officer of the Alcohol and Drug Foundation, says the research shows a broad-brush response will not work.

“A one size fits all approach does not address the complex drivers of risky drinking,” she said. “Governments need to invest in targeted, evidence-based campaigns and programmes.”

Cutting back on alcohol brings real benefits at any age. Dr Lalor points to lower risks of accidents, injuries, liver disease, and cancer. People who drink less also report better sleep, more energy, improved mental health, stronger relationships, and more money in their pockets.

A Call for Systemic Change

Researchers want the findings to drive policy reform. They push for targeted health campaigns and workplace programmes that reflect how men actually live in midlife. More than one in five Australian adults already drink at levels that harm their health. Middle-aged men make up a disproportionate share of that figure.

“Risky drinking is not just an individual issue,” Zaccagnini said. “Societal norms, work pressures, stress, and social expectations all shape it. We need to understand those factors if we want to reduce alcohol-related harm among Australian men.”

The habits men build in midlife often carry the heaviest long-term consequences. Researchers say prevention efforts must reach this group before those habits become too hard to break.

(Source: WRD News)

Details

Published: 14 May 2026

Hits: 68

Liver Disease in Europe Has Reached a Tipping Point

Every day, nearly 780 people across Europe die from cirrhosis or liver cancer. A major new report from the EASL–Lancet Commission, published in April 2026, makes the scale of the problem impossible to ignore. Cirrhosis and liver cancer together claim around 284,000 lives across the WHO European Region each year. Most of those deaths were preventable.

Furthermore, this liver health crisis runs against the grain of wider progress. Europe has made genuine headway against heart disease and many cancers over recent decades. Yet liver disease remains one of the very few major non-communicable diseases (NCDs) still moving in the wrong direction.

The Numbers Driving the Liver Health Crisis

The scale of liver disease in Europe deserves to be stated plainly.

Liver cancer mortality has surged by more than 50% since 2000. Deaths rose from around 43,000 per year to approximately 69,000 in 2023. Moreover, the economic toll is enormous. Without liver disease, EU economies and associated European states would be around €55 billion larger each year. In addition, liver disease reduces GDP by roughly 0.3% across the region. That figure reflects premature death, lost productivity, and prolonged workforce absence.

Dr Hans Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe, was direct: “Cirrhosis and liver cancer cause nearly 780 deaths every day in the WHO European Region, around 3% of all deaths. Tackling the shared risk factors, including alcohol, unhealthy diets, and viral hepatitis, must be part of the broader NCD response.”

What Is Driving This Crisis?

The report, titled From Evidence to Impact: Implementing Sustainable Liver Health in Europe, shows that liver disease in Europe does not arise in a vacuum. Alcohol consumption, obesity, and viral hepatitis are the principal causes. Together, they account for the vast majority of liver-related deaths in the region.

The rise of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is particularly concerning. Unhealthy diets and excess weight are fuelling its spread. Furthermore, the Commission points squarely at commercial forces as key contributors to this liver health crisis. The marketing, pricing, and ready availability of alcohol and ultra-processed foods are all part of the picture.

Consequently, the report’s modelling carries real weight. Eliminating behavioural risk factors alone could almost halve the burden of liver disease. It would also reduce cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain cancers at the same time.

Prof. Tom H. Karlsen, Commission Co-Chair, put it clearly: “Europe has the knowledge and tools to prevent much of this burden. The real challenge now is implementation.”

Liver Disease in Europe Is Still Caught Too Late

One of the most urgent findings concerns timing. Doctors still diagnose liver disease in Europe overwhelmingly at an advanced stage. By that point, treatment options narrow and outcomes worsen sharply. Earlier detection would change that picture significantly.

The Commission therefore calls for better integrated care pathways. It wants stronger links between primary care, specialist services, and community settings. This matters especially because many people with liver disease also manage multiple other health conditions.

Marko Korenjak, President of the European Liver Patients Association (ELPA), was frank: “Too many people across Europe are still being diagnosed too late. The Commission’s recommendations reflect what patients and their families have been asking for. We urge policymakers to move from words to action.”

What Governments Must Now Do

Addressing liver disease in Europe will require action on several fronts. First, governments should introduce health warning labels on alcohol products and restrict digital marketing, particularly aimed at young people. Second, stronger regulation of alcohol and ultra-processed food marketing and taxation is essential. Third, viral hepatitis testing must expand, especially for migrants and underserved communities.

Beyond that, the Commission calls for better integrated care models across health services, and for liver health to be embedded in national NCD strategies. It also wants EU Member States to pursue joint procurement of affordable medicines. Additionally, liver health metrics should be included in existing NCD monitoring frameworks.

Prevention, as the Commission makes clear, also makes strong economic sense. Better screening, earlier treatment, and structural policy changes would together deliver significant returns, both in lives saved and in economic output protected.

A Window of Opportunity Europe Cannot Afford to Miss

Prof. Debbie Shawcross, EASL Secretary General, summed up the moment clearly: “Liver disease is a growing public health failure that we have the tools to prevent. What is missing is not evidence, but action.”

The Commission sets out three priorities. To begin with, governments must make liver disease a genuine top health priority and include it in national and European health plans. Next, they must detect and treat the disease earlier, with joined-up care for those managing multiple conditions. Finally, they must tackle the root causes, including alcohol, unhealthy food, and the commercial interests that make harmful products so accessible.

The liver health crisis gripping Europe is not inevitable. The evidence is there. The policy tools exist. Therefore, what Europe now needs is the political will to use them.

The EASL–Lancet Commission on Liver Health in Europe brings together leading experts in hepatology, public health, economics, patient advocacy, and health policy. Its second report was published in April 2026.

(Source: WRD News)