Heart disease is often linked to high cholesterol, obesity, or lack of exercise. However, there is mounting evidence that suggests that mental health plays a crucial role in cardiovascular well-being. Stress, anxiety, and depression can silently strain the heart, increasing the risk of serious complications.

A recent study, published in Nature Human Behaviour, showed that loneliness has a significant impact on proteins present in a person's blood. For the study, researchers used data from more than 42,000 participants to explore whether the 9.3% who reported social isolation and 6.4% who reported loneliness had different levels of proteins in their blood compared with those who did not. The researchers then studied data that tracked the health of participants over an average 14-year period.

"We found around 90% of these proteins are linked to the risk of mortality," Dr Chun Shen, Fudan University in China, who is also the lead researcher said. "In addition, about 50% of the proteins were linked to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and stroke," he added.

Dr Shrey Kumar Srivastav, senior consultant at Sharda Hospital, said that subtle symptoms of heart disease, such as fatigue, shortness of breath, swelling in the lower legs, dizziness, and jaw pain, are often overlooked or attributed to stress and ageing. "Women, in particular, may experience atypical signs like extreme fatigue, indigestion, or upper abdominal pain instead of classic chest pain, leading to delayed diagnosis," he added.

Can Mental Health Issues Trigger Heart Diseases?

Chronic stress can trigger harmful cardiovascular effects, including elevated blood pressure, increased heart rate, and inflammation—key contributors to heart disease. Anxiety and depression further impact heart health by disrupting sleep patterns, raising stress hormone levels, and encouraging unhealthy habits like poor diet and inactivity.

Mental health issues like depression and anxiety have a profound impact on the heart. They don’t just affect emotions but can increase inflammation and put extra strain on the cardiovascular system, warns Dr Srivastav.

Certain risk factors, such as obesity and diabetes, disproportionately affect women, making them more vulnerable to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, due to gender-specific symptom variations, heart disease in women often goes undiagnosed for longer.

Obesity is more prevalent in women than men and is a major risk factor for heart failure. Diabetes, too, has a greater impact on women’s heart health, yet diagnosis and treatment delays are common. Addressing this gap requires increasing awareness, training healthcare providers, and promoting early diagnostic tools,” explains Dr Srivastav.

How Can You Protect Your Heart?

A simple yet effective way to support heart health is by committing to a brisk 30-minute walk daily. Walking not only helps regulate blood pressure and manage weight but also improves circulation and reduces stress.

"Regular physical activity, paired with a heart-healthy diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins, significantly lowers cardiovascular risks," advises Dr Srivastav.

Heart disease can often go undetected until a major event occurs, making routine screenings essential.

- For women: Begin screenings around age 30 and continue with regular checkups.

- For men: Start screenings at age 35.

Health screenings, including blood pressure checks, cholesterol tests, and electrocardiograms (ECGs), are critical for early detection of silent heart conditions.

Leading US medical organizations and experts have issued recommendations on COVID-19, flu and RSV vaccines ahead of the 2026–27 winter season.

Developed with the University of Minnesota’s Vaccine Integrity Project and the American Medical Association (AMA), the recommendations were published in JAMA.

The guidance aims to help doctors and patients make vaccination decisions and reduce the risk of severe respiratory illness.

What Do The 2026 Recommendations Say?

Flu Vaccine

• Children: Annual vaccination from 6 months of age.
• Adults 19–64: Annual vaccination.
• Adults 65+: Annual vaccination, with high-dose vaccine preferred.
• Pregnancy: Annual vaccination; avoid the nasal-spray vaccine.
• Immunocompromised: Annual vaccination from 6 months; avoid nasal-spray vaccine.
• Healthcare personnel: Annual vaccination.

RSV Vaccine

• Infants: All infants under 8 months who did not receive protection through vaccination during pregnancy.
• Children 8–19 months: Vaccination for those in certain risk groups.
• Adults 50–74: One-time vaccination for those at increased risk of severe RSV.
• Adults 75+: One-time vaccination.
• Pregnancy: One-time vaccination during the first eligible pregnancy, at 32–36 weeks, between September 1 and March 1.
• Immunocompromised adults 18+: Single dose; those under 18 should use shared decision-making.

COVID-19 Vaccine

• Children 6–23 months: Annual updated vaccination.
• Children 2–18: Annual vaccination for certain risk groups or if desired.
• Adults 19–64: Annual updated vaccination.
• Adults 65+: Annual updated vaccination, followed by a second dose six months later.
• Pregnancy: Annual updated vaccination.
• Immunocompromised: Annual updated vaccination from 6 months of age.
• Healthcare personnel: Annual updated vaccination.

CDC Has Not Issued New COVID, RSV Guidance

The recommendations come as the CDC has not issued new guidance for RSV or COVID-19 vaccination for the 2026–27 season.

The CDC updated its COVID-19 guidance last year, moving away from a broad recommendation and advising patients to consult a healthcare provider about vaccination.

For flu, the CDC updated its clinical guidance on Tuesday but said recommendations from the July 2025 immunisation schedule remain in effect for the 2026–27 season.

The updated flu guidance does not mention the first mRNA flu vaccine, which was approved by the FDA last month for older adults.

Respiratory Viruses Continue To Pose Risks

• Flu: During 2025–26, interim CDC estimates indicated at least 390,000 hospitalisations and 24,000 deaths.
• COVID-19: The virus is less severe than during the pandemic but continues to affect older adults, infants, pregnant women and immunocompromised people. It was associated with an estimated 4.6 million–12.9 million illnesses, 140,000–240,000 hospitalisations and 15,000–42,000 deaths.
• RSV: Infants and older adults remain at greatest risk of severe disease. RSV caused an estimated 2.8 million–5.8 million outpatient visits, 170,000–340,000 hospitalisations and up to 25,000 deaths.

What Did The Vaccine Evidence Show?

• Flu: A review of 5,800+ studies found vaccination reduced hospitalisation and mortality among high-risk groups. High-dose vaccines provided greater protection against hospitalisation in older adults. No new safety concerns were identified.
• COVID-19: Of 11,000+ studies screened, 155 met the review criteria. Updated vaccines continued to protect against hospitalisation, intensive care admission and death, particularly among older and high-risk groups. No new safety concerns were found in comparative studies.
• RSV: Of 2,000+ studies assessed, 75 were included. Vaccination reduced severe illness and hospitalisation among older adults and pregnant women, while nirsevimab reduced severe RSV illness in infants. No new safety concerns were identified.

Experts Call For Clear Vaccine Guidance

Bruce Gellin of the Vaccine Integrity Project said Americans should have access to the latest scientific evidence and recommendations from medical experts to make informed vaccination decisions.

“Whatever happens to the federal vaccine policy process, we cannot lower that scientific standard,” he said.

The potential benefits of Ivermectin and Mebendazole, two anti-parasitic drugs, for cancer treatment have sparked a debate.

A recent real-world study stated that an astonishing 84.4% clinical benefit rate was reported among cancer patients who took these two drugs together. But the number does not mean that 84% of the patients improved with the help of thesedrugs. The findings come with significant limitations.

Ivermectin-Mebendazole's Effects On Cancer Patients

Published in Anticancer Research in June 2026, the study followed 197 cancer patients who had been prescribed ivermectin and mebendazole off-label through a US telemedicine platform.

The patients received compounded capsules containing 25 mg of ivermectin and 250 mg of mebendazole. But only 122 patients, or 61.9%, completed the six-month follow-up.

Among those who completed follow-up, 48.4% of the patients had no tumour regression or no sign of the disease. Another 36.1% showed no change, while in 15.6% of the patients, the disease had progressed. This generated the study's 84.4% Clinical Benefit Ratio.

So, the number should not be interpreted as 84% of patients had their cancer tumours shrink or the disease disappeared.

The researchers also reported that 25.4% of participants faced side effects, most of which were mild and mainly gastrointestinal.

It is also important to note that patients were also receiving other treatments, including chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery, while nearly half reported using supplements. Many also made changes to their diets.

Also read: Daraxonrasib: New Drug Approved For Pancreatic Cancer Shows Promise In Lung Cancer Treatment

The Study Has Limitations

This was a prospective observational study, not a randomised controlled clinical trial. There was no comparison group receiving standard treatment or a placebo.

The cancer results were also self-reported through digital surveys rather than independently verified as part of the study.

That makes it impossible to determine whether ivermectin and mebendazole caused the reported improvements.

Patients were also receiving other cancer treatments and making changes to their diets or taking supplements. These factors could have influenced the outcomes.

PubMed currently carries an 'Expression of Concern' for the paper, dated June 9, 2026. The study's own authors describe their findings as “hypothesis-generating” and say randomized controlled trials are needed.

Also read: Blocked Ears After Flight Turned Out To Be Rare Head And Neck Cancer In 22-Year-Old

Ivermectin And Brain Cancer

Researchers are also exploring whether ivermectin can be delivered to brain tumours through the nose.

In a study in rats with glioma, ivermectin packed inside tiny nanocapsules and given through the nose reduced tumour size after 10 days.

The nano-formulation performed better than regular ivermectin, while another silica-based formulation did not have the same effect on the rats.

The idea is to use the nose as a possible route to help drugs reach the brain, where the blood-brain barrier can make drug delivery difficult.

However, this was an animal study. The results therefore show a potential research direction, not definite evidence that nasal ivermectin can treat brain cancer in humans.

Also read: Nearly 8 In 10 US Young Adults Show Signs Of Heart, Kidney Risk: Why Early Checks Matter

What Does The Evidence Say About Fenbendazole?

A 2025 case series described three people with advanced breast, prostate and melanoma cancers who self-administered fenbendazole alongside other treatments. The report described complete or near-complete remissions.

However, that paper was subsequently retracted in January 2026. PubMed now lists the retraction, making the original case series unsuitable as reliable evidence that fenbendazole treats cancer.

The study provides possible cancer treatment options that can be investigated treatment as they are not proven yet.

A 2025 review highlighted several possible anticancer mechanisms for ivermectin, including effects on YAP1, Wnt/TCF and AKT/mTOR signalling, oxidative stress and apoptosis.

But the review also noted that the human cases it examined were not designed to test ivermectin as a cancer treatment. So as of now, there is no robust clinical evidence that says ivermectin, mebendazole or fenbendazole as effective cancer treatments.

For cancer patients, these drugs should not be substituted for established treatment on the basis of these studies alone.

A cancer drug that was approved in the US just last week for pancreatic cancer is also showing promise in lung cancer treatment.

The drug, daraxonrasib (Rasonque), showed encouraging results in patients with previously treated RAS-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial led by researchers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on September 2.

Rasonque is not approved for lung cancer yet. The new findings are early-stage evidence, and a larger Phase 3 trial is now underway.

More About This Drug

Pancreatic cancer is considered one of the most RAS-driven cancers, with more than 90% of patients carrying tumours driven by RAS protein mutations.

RAS mutations are found in about 30% of non-small cell lung cancers, making them among the most common cancer-driving alterations in the disease. Yet, apart from treatments targeting the specific KRAS G12C mutation, patients with other RAS mutations have had few treatment options.

Also read: Daraxonrasib: US FDA Approves Once-Daily Pill for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

What Did The Lung Cancer Trial Find?

The most relevant results came from 38 patients with NSCLC who received doses of 160 to 220 mg. These patients had already been treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy but had not received docetaxel.

The tumours shrank in about 42% of patients. The duration of response was 11.5 months, while progression-free survival was 8.3 months and overall survival was 16 months.

For comparison, earlier studies of docetaxel in this treatment setting have reported response rates of around 9% to 14%, with progression-free survival of roughly 3 to 4.5 months.

As these results come from a small, early-stage study and are not a comparison with docetaxel, they need to be interpreted further cautiously.

Also read: Blocked Ears After Flight Turned Out To Be Rare Head And Neck Cancer In 22-Year-Old

Researchers React

David Hong, M.D., deputy chair of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at MD Anderson and the study's lead investigator, said, “Immunotherapy has improved outcomes for many patients with non-small cell lung cancer, but the majority of these cancers eventually progress.”

“At that point, the few treatment options available to these patients often have modest clinical benefit and substantial toxicities, so these early results are encouraging.”

The drug did cause side effects. At the Phase 3-selected dose, 51% of patients experienced a grade 3 or higher adverse event, while 71% required dose modifications and 10% discontinued treatment. Rash was particularly common, affecting 90% of patients, while diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting were also reported.

Hong noted that “the toxicities are largely manageable compared to the alternatives available.”

The Drug Is Already Approved For Pancreatic Cancer

The interesting development comes shortly after the US FDA approved Rasonque on August 26, 2026. It is first targeted therapy in this new class for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

In a 500-patient pancreatic cancer trial, median overall survival was 13.2 months with daraxonrasib versus 6.7 months with standard chemotherapy. Similar RAS-targeting drugs are now being developed by other companies for pancreatic, lung and colon cancers.