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 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Tuesday withdrew its decades-old guidance that all newborns in the country should be vaccinated against hepatitis B at birth. Instead, the decision has now been shifted to parents, who are advised to consult a healthcare provider when deciding whether babies born to hepatitis B-negative mothers should receive the vaccine, including the birth dose.

The change follows a recommendation made by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s vaccine advisory panel, marking a significant shift in public health policy. Earlier this month, the panel suggested that the birth dose be limited to newborns whose mothers test positive for hepatitis B or whose infection status is unknown. The CDC approved this recommendation as official policy on Tuesday. Here is what this change means for newborns moving forward:

CDC Ends Guidance That All Newborns Should Get Hepatitis B Vaccine

Under the updated guidance, if parents decide against vaccinating their baby at birth but later believe the shot is necessary, the CDC now advises waiting until the child is at least two months old before administering the first dose. Since 1991, U.S. health authorities have supported universal infant vaccination against hepatitis B, with the first of three doses typically given shortly after birth. CDC recommendations influence health insurance coverage decisions and serve as a key reference point for doctors when determining vaccine schedules.

Public health experts have raised concerns that the shift toward what the CDC calls “individual-based decision-making” may leave more children vulnerable to the virus and could encourage families to skip vaccination without a strong federal directive. Kennedy, who has long opposed vaccines, has already introduced sweeping changes to the country’s vaccination policies.

CDC New Guidance On Hepatitis B Vaccine: What Does This Mean For Newborns?

Rather than advising hepatitis B vaccination for every newborn, the CDC now formally recommends that women who test negative for the virus discuss with their healthcare providers whether their babies should receive the first dose within 24 hours of birth. According to NBC News, the agency is also evaluating another proposal from the advisory panel, which suggests parents consult doctors about testing children for hepatitis B antibodies before deciding on second doses of the vaccine. Typically, the hepatitis B vaccine is administered as a three-dose series during infancy.

This policy shift stands out as one of the clearest departures from established medical consensus reflected in current CDC guidance. During discussions, the advisory committee relied on selective data and misinformation, while overlooking decades of research showing that hepatitis B vaccines are both safe and highly effective when given soon after birth.

“Removing the recommendation for newborns increases the likelihood that case numbers will rise again. This makes America sicker,” Senator Bill Cassidy, R-La., a liver specialist who has treated hepatitis B patients, wrote on X earlier this month. Despite the change, pediatricians are still expected to encourage parents to vaccinate their newborns.

The Department of Health and Human Services has stated that the updated guidance will not change insurance coverage for the vaccine. The shots will also remain available to newborns through the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides vaccines at no cost to uninsured or underinsured families.

Last month, the CDC also revised a webpage that had previously stated clearly that vaccines do not cause autism. The updated language now says studies have not ruled out a link, despite decades of scientific evidence showing no connection between vaccines and autism.

No more scribbling, notes a BBC report from October 1, 2025, where the Punjab and Haryana court tells doctors to fix their handwriting. Now, the National Medical Commission or NMC has issued nationwide order to the doctors to ensure their prescriptions are written in a clear and legible manner.

While jokes around the notoriously bad handwriting of many doctors that only can be read by pharmacist are common in India, but after the High Court's ruling, this joke is taken seriously. The High Court noted that "legible medical prescription is a fundamental right" as it can make a difference between life and death.

Also Read: Delhi Sees Rising Cancer Burden With Sharp Increase in Oral and Lung Cancers; Breast Cancer Remains Most Common

What Are The New NMC Guidelines On Doctor's Handwriting?

Under the new directive, the NMC ordered that doctors must:

• Write prescriptions in clear, legible handwriting, avoiding ambiguity.
• Arbitrary or unclear prescription writing will no longer be acceptable, as it compromises patient safety.
• Subcommittees will be formed in all medical colleges to monitor prescription practices and ensure compliance.
• Medical students will be taught the importance of clear prescription writing, making it a core part of clinical training.

The Background Of NMC Guidelines

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered doctors to fix their handwritings while it was looking at a case that involved allegations of rape. While checking a medico-legal report written by a government doctor who examined the woman, the court found it incomprehensible.

Also Read: Delhi Is a Gas Chamber Where Nothing Comes In or Goes Out, Says Expert; Neighboring States Not to Blame for AQI

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, "It shook the conscience of this court as not even a word or a letter was legible".

"At a time when technology and computers are easily accessible, it is shocking that government doctors are still writing prescriptions by hand which cannot be read by anybody except perhaps some chemists," said Justice Puri.

Importance Of Clear Prescriptions

The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies medication errors as a major global patient safety challenge, contributing to avoidable injuries and deaths worldwide. Illegible prescriptions are a well-recognised cause of such errors.

A clear and readable prescription also:

Prevents misinterpretation

Poor handwriting leads to misinterpretation of the intended drug name, dosage, or instructions. Many drugs have names that look or sound alike, making clarity critical.

Ensures the right dosage

Unclear instructions when it comes to dosing result in giving out doses that are ten or one hundred times the correct amount, leading to toxicity or therapeutic failure.

Empowers patient understanding

When the patients are able to clearly read and understand the prescriptions and medication labels, they are more likely to take their medications correctly, reducing the margin for errors.

Reduces healthcare costs

Medication errors resulting from unclear prescriptions lead to increased hospital admissions, prolonged lengths of stay, and additional costs, placing a significant burden on the patient and the healthcare system.

Oral cancer cases recorded the sharpest in Delhi in 2025, as per the Union Health Ministry data presented in the Parliament. While there is no definitive explanation provided by the report by the Union Health Ministry, previous reports show that widespread use of tobacco has increased, and accounted for about 30% of all oral cancer cases in India alone.

As per the report shared by the Union Health Ministry, a 5.1% increase was scene in the reported increase of oral cancer, while lung cancer rose by 4.9% between the period 2023 and 2025.

Also Read: ‘Fix Your Handwriting’: Indian Doctors Told to Write Clear, Legible Prescriptions Under New Rules

The data showed that lung cancer increased among women, and it rose to 6.5%. In numbers, this would make 686 cases in 2025, which is up from the 644 cases recorded in 2024, and 604 in 2023. Among men, oral cancer had the highest growth, with a 5.8% increase. This led to 2,717 cases in 2025, compared to 2,569 cases in 2024 and 2,429 cases in 2023.

However, breast cancer remained the most prevalent cancer in the city. Data from the National Cancer Registry Programme indicate a steady rise in reported breast cancer cases, increasing from 3,198 in 2023 to 3,260 in 2024 and 3,321 in 2025. Oral cancer ranked as the second most common cancer overall, with combined cases among men and women reaching 3,208 in 2025.

A closer look at the data shows that oral cancer continued to rise in the city over the past three years. In 2023, Delhi reported 2,901 cases, including 2,429 among men and 472 among women. The number rose to 3,051 cases in 2024, with 2,569 cases in men and 482 in women. Among women, cases increased slightly further to 491 in 2025.

The International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences provide the tobacco use, betel quid chewing has seen a rising trend in India. Tobacco use includes chewing gutka and khaini in rural areas as well as smoking cigarettes in urban area, which continues to be the nation's leading preventable cause of cancer.

Cervical Cancer Shows a Decline

Cervical cancer followed a different pattern. Cases among women fell from 741 in 2023 to 716 in 2024, and then to 692 in 2025. This reflects a year-on-year decline of around 3.4 percent over both periods.

Rising Trends in Other Cancers Among Men

Among men, oral cancer showed the sharpest increase. Lung cancer cases also rose, climbing from 1,668 in 2023 to 1,814 in 2025. Prostate cancer followed a similar upward trend, with reported cases increasing from 1,168 in 2023 to 1,301 in 2025.

Delhi’s High Cancer Incidence Rate

The health ministry has pointed to Delhi’s relatively high Age-Adjusted Incidence Rate of cancer. Between 2015 and 2019, the AAIR stood at 146.7 per one lakh population among men and 132.5 among women. These figures are higher than those reported in cities such as Mumbai, Kolkata, Pune and Ahmedabad. The AAIR allows cancer rates to be compared fairly across regions with different age profiles.

Treatment Burden Extends Beyond Delhi

It is also important to note that Delhi attracts a large number of cancer patients from across north India and other parts of the country. Major tertiary care centres, including AIIMS and the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, contribute to a higher treatment load in the city.