Division of Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, 3584CG Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Division of Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, 3584CG Utrecht, The Netherlands; Global Centre of Excellence Immunology, Nutricia Danone Research, 3584CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Addict Behav. 2023 Oct;145:107776. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107776. Epub 2023 Jun 12.
Survey research found poorer baseline immune fitness for self-reported hangover-sensitive drinkers compared to hangover-resistant drinkers. However, up to now a limited number of clinical studies revealed mixed results regarding the relationship between the concentrations of biomarkers of systemic inflammation in blood or saliva with hangover severity, and could not differentiate between hangover-sensitive drinkers and hangover-resistant drinkers. The aim of this study was to assess immune fitness and saliva biomarkers of systemic inflammation at multiple timepoints following an alcohol day and alcohol-free control day.
The study had a semi-naturalistic design. In the evening before the test days, participants were not supervised. They could drink ad libitum drinking on the alcohol test day and refrained from drinking alcohol on the control day. Activities and behaviors on the alcohol and control day were reported the follow morning. On both test days, from 09:30 to 15:30, hourly assessments of immune fitness (single-item scale) and overall hangover severity (single-item scale) were made and saliva samples were collected for biomarker assessments.
N = 14 hangover-resistant drinkers and n = 15 hangover-sensitive drinkers participated in the study. The amount of alcohol consumed on the alcohol day did not significantly differ between the hangover-resistant group (mean (SD) of 13.5 (7.9) alcoholic drinks) and the hangover-sensitive group (mean (SD) of 12.4 (4.4) alcoholic drinks). All hangover-sensitive drinkers reported having a hangover following the alcohol day (overall hangover severity score 6.1 (on a 0-10 scale) at 09:30, gradually decreasing to 3.3 at 15:30), whereas the hangover-resistant drinkers reported no hangover. On the control day, immune fitness of the hangover-sensitive group was significantly poorer than the hangover-resistant group. On the alcohol day, both groups showed a significant reduction in immune fitness. The effect was evident throughout the day, but significantly more pronounced in the hangover-sensitive group than the hangover-resistant group. No significant differences between the groups were found at any time point on the two test days for saliva concentrations of Interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α.
Whereas hangover-sensitive drinkers reported a hangover following an alcohol day and hangover-resistant drinkers did not, both groups reported significantly reduced immune fitness throughout the day. However, the reduction in immune fitness among hangover-sensitive drinkers was significantly more pronounced in comparison to the hangover-resistant group.
调查研究发现，与不易宿醉的饮酒者相比，自述易宿醉的饮酒者在基线免疫功能方面较差。然而，到目前为止，少数临床研究显示，血液或唾液中全身炎症生物标志物的浓度与宿醉严重程度之间的关系存在差异，并且无法区分易宿醉的饮酒者和不易宿醉的饮酒者。本研究旨在评估在酒精日和无酒精对照日后的多个时间点的免疫功能和唾液全身炎症的生物标志物。
该研究采用半自然设计。在测试日前的晚上，参与者不受监督。他们可以在酒精测试日自由饮酒，在对照日不饮酒。第二天早上报告酒精日和对照日的活动和行为。在这两天的测试中，从 09:30 到 15:30，每小时评估一次免疫功能（单项量表）和整体宿醉严重程度（单项量表），并采集唾液样本进行生物标志物评估。
共有 14 名不易宿醉的饮酒者和 15 名易宿醉的饮酒者参加了这项研究。易宿醉组（平均（SD）13.5（7.9）份含酒精饮料）和易宿醉组（平均（SD）12.4（4.4）份含酒精饮料）在酒精日的饮酒量无显著差异。所有易宿醉的饮酒者在饮酒后均报告宿醉（09:30 的整体宿醉严重程度评分 6.1（0-10 级），逐渐降至 15:30 的 3.3），而不易宿醉的饮酒者则无宿醉报告。在对照日，易宿醉组的免疫功能明显差于不易宿醉组。在酒精日，两组的免疫功能均明显下降。这种影响全天都很明显，但在易宿醉组比不易宿醉组更为明显。在两天的测试日的任何时间点，两组的唾液白细胞介素（IL）-1β、IL-6、IL-8 和肿瘤坏死因子（TNF）-α浓度均无显著差异。
虽然易宿醉的饮酒者在饮酒后报告宿醉，而不易宿醉的饮酒者则没有，但两组在全天的免疫功能均明显下降。然而，易宿醉饮酒者的免疫功能下降幅度明显大于不易宿醉的饮酒者。
