Heart attacks and strokes are among the leading causes of death globally, with millions suffering from cardiovascular diseases (CVD) every year. There are more than seven million people in the UK alone, with about 100,000 patients experiencing heart attacks annually. However, a group of researchers at University College London (UCL) estimate that one 'polypill' taken daily day could eliminate a majority of these cases dramatically lowering death tolls.

The proposed polypill, a combination of a statin and three blood pressure-lowering drugs, has been under study for over two decades. Experts argue that introducing this pill universally for individuals aged 50 and above could be more effective than the current NHS Health Check, which assesses risk factors every five years for those aged between 40 and 74.

Studies have repeatedly proven the effectiveness of the polypill in preventing CVD. A groundbreaking 2019 study in The Lancet found that five years' use of the polypill cut the risk of heart attack and stroke by a third. In addition, previous modelling analyses have estimated that if given universally to people over 55, the polypill might be able to prevent 80% of heart attacks and strokes.

Today, the NHS Health Check follows a risk-based model in which patients are tested for CVD risk factors and treated with drugs accordingly. Yet, as per UCL's study, this system has serious flaws:

Low Uptake: Just 40% of those eligible for the NHS Health Check choose to have it, leaving a considerable number of at-risk patients undiagnosed and untreated.

Ineffective Prediction of Risk: The majority of heart attacks and strokes happen to people at average risk levels, thus making it challenging to identify the need for intervention effectively.

Limited Effectiveness: Even at maximum take-up, the NHS Health Check programme is predicted to have fewer health impacts compared to a polypill initiative applied to the whole population.

Simplicity and Affordability of the Polypill Strategy

One of the big benefits of the polypill is that it is so easy. In contrast to the existing screening-based model, the polypill scheme would not involve complicated medical tests or lengthy risk assessments. Instead, people reaching 50 would just have to fill out a few questions to determine possible side effects before they were prescribed.

Professor Aroon Hingorani of the UCL Institute of Cardiovascular Science, one of the strongest proponents of this scheme, says:

"Finally, the time is now to do much better on prevention. A population approach would prevent a lot more heart attacks and strokes than is done today with a strategy of trying to target a smaller group only."

Aside from the possible health implications, the polypill is also an economic solution. The drugs used are off-patent, thus cheap to produce and distribute. With the vast economic cost of managing CVD-related illnesses, a preventive model could result in substantial cost-saving for the NHS in the future.

The polypill has been proven to be effective by numerous international trials. In 2019, a randomised trial in rural Iran discovered that participants who took the polypill for five years had a 34% reduced risk of having a heart attack or stroke compared to non-participants.

Likewise, modelling research has indicated that even if only 8% of people aged over 50 took up the polypill regimen, it would still be more beneficial to their health than the NHS Health Check programme.

Is This a Case of Over-Medicalisation?

One of the main objections to the polypill strategy is the suggestion that it might result in the unnecessary medicalisation of a significant proportion of the population. But, it is argued, it should be considered as a preventative measure, not as mass medication.

Professor Sir Nicholas Wald of UCL's Institute of Health Informatics explains:

"Instead of being a 'medicalisation' of a significant proportion of the population, a polypill programme is a prevention measure to prevent an individual from becoming a patient."

He compares it with public health measures like water fluoridation or compulsory seatbelts—interventions that have been shown to have a significant impact in reducing public health danger at low individual cost.

With the evidence in favour of the polypill's effectiveness and viability overwhelming, experts are calling on the NHS to act now. It is their belief that substituting the NHS Health Check with a polypill-based prevention program could be the UK government's flagship policy under its pledge to put disease prevention ahead of cure.

As Professor Hingorani points out, "The status quo is not a justifiable option." With CVD still a major cause of death globally, taking a population-wide polypill approach could be a turning point for preventative medicine, potentially saving thousands of lives annually. The question now is whether the NHS will take up this call and establish a policy with the potential to transform the prevention of cardiovascular disease on a national level.

The US and European Union are closely monitoring a suspected case of pneumonic plague in Russia’s Siberian region of Irkutsk after the death of a 28-year-old laboratory worker at an anti-plague research institute.

Nearly 200 people who may have had contact with the woman have reportedly been placed under medical observation. However, Russian authorities have not confirmed plague.

The woman, identified in reports as Darya Shipilova, worked at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute. Reports said she may have accidentally broken a test tube containing Yersinia pestis while collecting samples on September 25.

Russia’s consumer safety watchdog, Rospotrebnadzor, said her diagnosis was “pneumonia of unknown etiology.” Expanded testing did not identify microorganisms associated with her professional activities.

Rospotrebnadzor said the sanitary and epidemiological situation in Irkutsk and Shelekhov remained stable and that special measures had been implemented following her death.

Also read: Russia Plague Outbreak: Lab Worker Dies Of 'Unknown Infection' After Suspected Exposure

What Did the EU Say?

The European Commission said it was “monitoring very closely” reports of the laboratory incident.

“We are aware of the reports concerning the laboratory incident in Russia, seemingly involving a pathogen causing plague,” European Commission spokesperson Eva Hrncirova said.

She said the Commission was in contact with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and stressed that timely and transparent reporting and access to reliable epidemiological and laboratory findings are essential.

The EU also said it has strengthened its preparedness for health emergencies since the Covid-19 pandemic.

What Did the US Say?

The US State Department said it was monitoring the reports in coordination with the CDC and other agencies.

CDC officials said many details of the incident remain unconfirmed and urged Russian authorities to share accurate information promptly and transparently. They noted that plague is a known and treatable disease, with common antibiotics particularly effective when treatment begins early, and that cases occur naturally in several parts of the world.

US officials also urged Russia to “share accurate information quickly and openly.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the situation was “not cause for alarm” but was a reason for focus and continued monitoring.

What Does WHO Say?

Read More: Russia Plague Scare: Could It Trigger A New Pandemic? Experts Explain

WHO said it was aware of the reports and was working to verify the details with Russian health authorities, including laboratory results, contact tracing and the health status of contacts.

Based on unofficial information available, WHO said the public-health risk to the general population appeared low, while noting that the assessment could change as more information becomes available, POLITICO reported.

Can Pneumonic Plague Spread Between People?

READ: ‘American Covid’ Strain Drives 50% Surge in UK Hospital Admissions: XFG Symptoms to Know

Pneumonic plague is caused by Yersinia pestis and can spread directly between people through respiratory droplets.

However, a suspected case does not mean an outbreak or pandemic is underway. Rapid diagnosis, isolation, contact tracing and prompt antibiotic treatment would be critical if plague is confirmed.

“Transparency, rapid diagnosis and effective contact tracing would be the most important factors in managing an outbreak,” said Dr Richard Hirschson, a specialist general physician at Sydney Adventist Hospital.

In a post on social media platform X, the expert said that a local laboratory exposure would not necessarily translate into global spread. He added isolation and preventive antibiotic treatment for exposed contacts could help limit transmission if pneumonic plague were confirmed.

What Is Pneumonic Plague?

Plague is caused by Yersinia pestis, a bacterium generally found in small mammals and their fleas.

Pneumonic plague occurs when the infection affects the lungs and is the form most capable of spreading directly between people.

It can become rapidly life-threatening without treatment, but plague is treatable with antibiotics when diagnosed and treated promptly.

More than two hours of daily screen time could be associated with around 2.8 million healthy years of life lost to depression and 240,000 healthy years lost to obesity worldwide each year, according to a new three-paper series published in The Lancet.

However, the authors stressed that these are illustrative estimates, not precise measurements of the global health burden, because the certainty of the underlying evidence is low.

"Our global projections of how many healthy years could be lost to depression and obesity linked to excessive screen time are intended to be illustrative of the possible scale of harm," said Dr. Falk Müller-Riemenschneider of the National University of Singapore. "They should not be taken as an accurate measurement of harm."

The series, authored by 13 global experts, argues that simply limiting screen time may not be enough to protect children and young people from digital harms.

Why Screen-Time Rules May Not Be Enough

Also read: US Surgeon General Issues Advisory To Limit Children's Screen Time

The experts analyzed 121 reviews covering around 9 million people under 25.

They found consistent associations between problematic digital media use — defined as addiction-like patterns rather than simply time spent online — and:

• Common mental health problems
• Sleep problems
• Reduced physical activity

The review also found some potential benefits. Moderate digital media use was associated with higher well-being, while active video game use was associated with higher well-being and healthier lifestyles.

The authors therefore argue that what young people do online, how platforms are designed and how they are governed may matter as much as how long they spend online.

What is Driving Digital Health Risks

Read More: Can 'Eye Strain' Lead To Brain Cancer? Experts Explain

Features such as infinite scroll, autoplay and personalized recommendation feeds are designed to capture attention and collect data, the authors said.

"Most digital platforms are designed by companies to capture attention and collect data, not to protect health," said Dr. Jay Shaw of the University of Toronto.

He added that more research is needed into how specific platform features influence digital media use rather than focusing only on time spent online.

Series chair Professor Ilona Kickbusch said governments must make children's health and online safety a global policy priority.

"Governments have let technology companies write their own rules, leading to business models built to capture attention and collect data, with health treated as an afterthought," she said.

What the Lancet Series Recommends

The authors call for coordinated action by technology companies, governments and international bodies rather than relying on a single intervention such as age limits.

Their recommendations include:

• Requiring companies to assess new products and features for potential health harms before release.
• Giving vetted public-interest researchers access to data on how platform features affect health.
• Establishing global standards through a WHO governance treaty.
• Creating an international body to monitor AI-related harms to children and young people.
• Using litigation as one route to hold technology companies accountable.

"A key recommendation of our series is that governments should require technology companies to share data on how their features affect users' health with vetted public-interest researchers," said series author Louise Holly.

The series also included a Youth Advisory Group of six young adults aged 23 to 30.

"The health risks and harms associated with digital systems are preventable," said Dr. Salman Fitrat Khan of India. "Governments shouldn't wait for 'perfect' evidence before acting for our generation and the ones coming after us."

A suspected plague case linked to the death of a lab worker at an anti-plague research facility in Russia has sparked questions about whether the incident could pose a wider pandemic threat.

However, Russian authorities have not confirmed plague. Russia's consumer safety watchdog, Rospotrebnadzor, said the woman's diagnosis was “pneumonia of unknown etiology.” Expanded testing of samples taken from her did not identify microorganisms associated with her professional activities, the agency said.

Nearly 200 people who may have come into contact with her remain under medical observation, but authorities have reported no symptoms or positive test results among those monitored.

Could This Become Another Pandemic?

Experts say comparisons with COVID-19 should be treated cautiously because pneumonic plague and viral respiratory diseases behave very differently.

Dr Simon Clarke, an expert from the University of Reading, said pneumonic plague is caused by Yersinia pestis, the bacterium responsible for plague.

“Pneumonic plague is particularly serious because it means the infection has reached the lungs and is nearly always fatal if not treated promptly,” said Clarke, associate professor in cellular microbiology in the School of Biological Sciences at varsity.

Also read: 2026 Nobel Medicine Prize Awarded for Discoveries on How Nerve Cells Shape Memory, Feelings and Behaviour

Unlike bubonic plague, which is commonly associated with infected flea bites, pneumonic plague can spread between people through respiratory droplets during close contact. But there is an important difference from diseases such as COVID-19.

“Unlike many viral respiratory diseases, plague is caused by bacteria and is generally treatable with antibiotics if identified quickly,” Clarke said, in a post on the University's website.

Could Pneumonic Plague Spread Widely?

Pneumonic plague can spread from person to person, making rapid identification and contact tracing important. But that does not mean every suspected case carries pandemic potential.

Clarke said more information is needed to determine whether the Russian incident represents an isolated case, an occupational exposure or evidence of wider transmission.

“Transparency, rapid diagnosis and effective contact tracing would be the most important factors in managing an outbreak,” he said.

Dr Richard Hirschson, a specialist general physician at Sydney Adventist Hospital, said “a local Russian lab leak is a local issue, it will not become a global pandemic”.

In a post on social media platform X, he said isolation and preventive antibiotic treatment for exposed contacts can help limit transmission if pneumonic plague is confirmed.

Expert Says We Don't Even Know If This Is Plague

Read More: Exclusive: From IPL To Olympics — How Sport Became A Marketing Tool For Junk Food And Sugary Drinks

Dr Krutika Kuppalli, an infectious disease specialist and Associate Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University Texas Southwestern Medical Center, urged caution over the growing speculation.

“But right now, we have an unexplained death from pneumonia—not confirmation of plague and certainly No evidence of a plague outbreak,” Kuppalli said on X.

“It’s appropriate to watch closely and ask questions. It’s not helpful to fill gaps in information with speculation and sensationalism. Good outbreak response starts with the same thing every time: -- follow the evidence,” she added.

Kuppalli also stressed the importance of public health preparedness in responding to emerging infectious threats.

“Infectious disease threats don’t follow political calendars,” she said. “This is why public health matters and why weakening our surveillance, expertise and response capacity should concern everyone. Pathogens aren’t political. Preparedness matters.”

What We Know About Pandemic Risk

As of now, there is no confirmed evidence of a plague outbreak or sustained person-to-person transmission linked to the Russian case.

The immediate priority is to determine what caused the woman's pneumonia while continuing to monitor potential contacts.

Even if plague is eventually confirmed, experts say its bacterial nature, antibiotic sensitivity and transmission pattern make it fundamentally different from the respiratory viruses that can spread silently and extensively through populations.

For now, the evidence supports close surveillance and investigation—not a conclusion that a new pandemic is emerging, the experts said.