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.

Long COVID is a group of debilitating conditions that can persist for months or even years after infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19.

While scientists are still working to fully define the condition, one of the most common and disabling symptoms is brain fog—a cognitive impairment that can significantly affect people's personal and professional lives.

People with brain fog often report difficulty concentrating, multitasking, reading, remembering information, and speaking in full sentences. Fatigue frequently worsens these symptoms. Despite its widespread impact, there are currently no established diagnostic tests or approved treatments for long COVID-related cognitive impairment.

First Treatment For Brain Fog

A new clinical trial led by researchers at UCL now offers promising evidence that cognitive rehabilitation may provide lasting relief for these symptoms.

Published in JAMA Network Open, the study found that a 10-week cognitive rehabilitation program helped people with long COVID-related brain fog achieve meaningful improvements in returning to work, hobbies, and everyday activities.

The treatment consisted of weekly one-hour, one-to-one video sessions with a therapist who helped participants develop practical strategies to meet their personal rehabilitation goals. Most participants continued to benefit from the program for at least six months after treatment.

Also read: Natural Origin or Lab Leak? Gabbard Reignites COVID Origins Debate, Claims Fauci Funded Wuhan Lab Research

"As many as one in three people with COVID go on to develop long COVID, and cognitive difficulties are among the most common symptoms that can persist for months, disrupting day-to-day functioning and quality of life. People might find it hard to focus or hold on to their thoughts as they struggle with memory, attention and planning, often compounded by fatigue," said lead author Dr Martina Vanova, who completed the research at UCL before moving to Kingston University.

"In our study, we used well-established strategies of goal-oriented cognitive rehabilitation to help people develop ways to tackle the challenges that are most meaningful to them," Vanova added.

How Was The Study Conducted?

Read More: 1 in 6 Americans May Be Suffering From Long COVID, Study Finds

The study, funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), included 78 participants in England who had experienced cognitive symptoms of long COVID for at least three months.

Half of the participants received the cognitive rehabilitation program, while the other half continued with standard NHS care, which varied by region.

Before treatment began, each participant completed an online goal-setting interview to identify three personal goals they wanted to achieve. Most goals focused on returning to work and improving job performance, while others involved everyday activities such as staying focused long enough to watch a full film or read a book.

Therapists then worked with participants to develop personalized strategies to help them achieve those goals.

What Did the Study Find?

Read: COVID-19 Vaccination Reduced Risk of Heart Attacks and Strokes in Elderly by 40%: Study

Three months after completing treatment, 84% of participants who received cognitive rehabilitation reported a significant improvement in goal attainment on a 10-point scale, compared with 53% of those receiving standard care.

The benefits were sustained over time. After six months, 53% of participants in the rehabilitation group reported a substantial improvement—defined as an increase of four or more points on the 10-point goal scale—compared with just 15% of those in the control group.

Researchers also observed measurable improvements in executive function, including better cognitive flexibility and faster processing speed.

Researchers also noted that early findings from a separate analysis suggest the program is cost-effective.

"We have found a treatment that provides clinically meaningful and sustained benefit for people with cognitive long COVID symptoms," said Joint senior author Dr Aida Suarez-Gonzalez of the UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology.

"As this program is based on established cognitive rehabilitation techniques that have been used for other conditions, we hope that it can be easily rolled out as a treatment option for people currently living with long COVID."

For nearly eight decades, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been regarded as one of the world's leading public health institutions.

Established in 1946 to combat malaria, the public health agency has since evolved into a global authority and standard on infectious diseases, vaccinations, chronic illnesses, epidemics, emergency preparedness, health surveillance and much more.

However, the institute has undergone significant changes President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025.

80 Years Of CDC

Since its inception in 1946, the CDC has led the response to numerous public health threats, including polio, HIV/AIDS, Ebola, Zika, H1N1 influenza, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

CDC scientists have spent decades shaping its long-standing vaccination programs and policies, disease tracking systems, and emergency responses during epidemics that have influenced public health policies and practices globally.

CDC Under Donald Trump’s Regime

As the institution completes eight decades, we take a look at how it has changed over time under Donald Trump’s administration. From changes in vaccination policies, reduction in workforce to a shuffle in leadership, CDC has undergone a tectonic shift.

While planning and preparedness for infectious disease has been a huge part of CDC's legacy, the current administration has increasingly focused on chronic diseases, nutrition, and environmental exposures.

Appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as HHS Secretary

One of the earliest and most controversial consequential decisions of the administration was the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Kennedy, who is a renowned anti-vaxxer, introduced different goals for federal public health, particularly on chronic disease prevention, environmental health, and greater scrutiny of long-standing vaccine policies.

Also read: Illinois Governor Claims Trump Continues To Suffer From Dementia

Soon after the administration took office, HHS was significantly restructured, with plans to consolidate many public health functions under a newly created Administration for a Healthy America.

Largest Staff Reduction In The History Of CDC

In February 2025, more than 1,300 employees of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lost their jobs. Workforce restructuring was carried out in multiple departments in the following months.

Departments like outbreak surveillance, violence prevention, antibiotic resistance surveillance, Freedom of Information Act requests, and laboratory leadership programs were either downsized or eliminated.

Public health experts widely critcised the move, warning that the reductions could hamper the country’s ability to detect and respond quickly to future outbreaks.

Changes In Vaccine Policy

One of the healthcare sections that saw perhaps the biggest change under Trump’s administration was vaccination.

In June 2025, HHS dismissed all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the independent panel tasked for recommending how vaccines are used in the country.

Also read: New Book Examines Donald Trump's Health, Age Concerns; White House Responds

The committee was later recreated with new members. The move that drew criticism from several medical and scientific organisations. The administration revised several vaccine recommendations, particularly those relating to COVID-19, vaccination for healthy children and pregnant women.

The U.S. additionally withdrew its financial support for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. It also stopped hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for mRNA vaccine research, including projects involving COVID-19, influenza and RSV vaccines.

Changes In Gender-Related Healthcare Policies

Major changes were made in reproductive and gender-related healthcare policies. One of the most talked about was the Mexico City Policy, also known as the ‘global gag rule’. The move restricted U.S. funding for non-government organisations that provide abortion services.

Insurance coverage and funding for gender-affirming healthcare was withdrawn. Several LGBTQ+ references were removed from many federally supported health programs, which sparked widespread outrage.

Changes In Leadership

Susan Monarez was appointed as CDC Director in 2025. But her stint was short-lived after she was dismissed later that year. Reports stated that disagreements over vaccine recommendations led to the leadership dispute. Several senior CDC officials also resigned after Monarez’s exit.

Trump supporters support these changes as they believe they are a part of a long-overdue overhaul of an institution they believe had grown too bureaucratic and too reliant on established scientific principles.

However, many public health experts argue that the changes have affected scientific independence, disrupted long-standing public health programs, and altered the CDC's traditional role as a reliable evidence-driven body.

Weight-loss medications such as oral semaglutide have become increasingly popular for treating obesity. However, a new study suggests that a 45-minute, minimally invasive procedure called Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty (ESG) may deliver greater short-term weight loss than oral semaglutide tablets.

Published in the Endoscopy journal, the study compared two established non-surgical obesity treatments—ESG and oral semaglutide 14 mg.

ESG Led to Greater Weight Loss at 6 Months

Researchers from AIG Hospitals, Hyderabad, found that patients who underwent ESG lost significantly more weight than those taking oral semaglutide after six months.

Patients treated with ESG achieved an average 12.72% total body weight loss, compared with 8.67% among those taking semaglutide. The difference remained significant even after adjusting for age, sex, BMI and diabetes.

"The most important message from this study is that obesity treatment has to be individualized. ESG appears to offer a stronger early push in weight loss, especially for patients who need a meaningful reduction in a short period," said Dr. Nitin Jagtap, Consultant Gastroenterologist at AIG Hospitals.

He added that ESG is not a shortcut but a structured intervention that helps patients reset eating habits and build sustainable lifestyle changes.

How Was the Study Conducted?

The retrospective study included 150 adults with obesity treated between January 2024 and April 2025. Of these, 50 underwent ESG, while 100 received oral semaglutide 14 mg once daily.

All participants also followed a calorie-deficient diet and moderate exercise plan, highlighting that both treatments work best alongside lifestyle modifications.

What Did the Study Find?

ESG also outperformed semaglutide in the number of patients achieving clinically meaningful weight loss.

• 70% of ESG patients lost at least 10% of their body weight, compared with 43% in the semaglutide group.
• 36% of ESG patients achieved 15% or more weight loss, versus just 7% of those taking semaglutide.

No major adverse events were reported in either group.

Notably, by 12 months, the gap between the two treatments had narrowed. Average weight loss was 11.92% in the ESG group and 10.91% in the semaglutide group, with no statistically significant difference.

The findings are particularly relevant for India, where obesity often occurs alongside diabetes, fatty liver disease and cardiovascular risk at lower BMI levels than in Western populations, the researchers said.

Researchers Urge Caution

The researchers noted that the findings should be interpreted carefully because this was a retrospective, single-centre study, not a randomized clinical trial.

They also stressed that the comparison was limited to oral semaglutide 14 mg and should not be extended to higher-dose injectable GLP-1 drugs or newer dual-incretin therapies, which may produce different results.

"Obesity care is entering a new phase where endoscopy, pharmacology, nutrition and lifestyle medicine must come together," said Dr. D. Nageshwar Reddy, Chairman of AIG Hospitals.

He emphasized that ESG and medications like semaglutide should be viewed as complementary options rather than competing therapies, with the shared goal of achieving and maintaining meaningful weight loss.

ESG vs Oral Semaglutide: How Do They Work?

Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty (ESG) is a minimally invasive procedure performed through the mouth without external incisions. Using an endoscope and suturing device, doctors reduce the stomach's size by placing internal stitches, helping patients feel full sooner without surgically removing part of the stomach.

Oral semaglutide belongs to the GLP-1 receptor agonist class of drugs. It reduces appetite, increases feelings of fullness and helps lower calorie intake. Unlike ESG, it requires daily medication, long-term adherence and continued affordability.