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.

A 25-year-old Spanish woman has died by euthanasia after a long battle with her father over her right to die.

Noelia Castillo, a rape survivor who was left paralyzed in her lower half of the body after a suicide attempt in 2022, died on Thursday evening at a hospital in Barcelona.

While the Catalan regional government had granted her the right to assisted dying in 2024, her father, Geronimo Castillo, had raised legal objections. Her wish to ‘die in peace’ has also sparked debate around the country’s right-to-die law -- legalized in 2021.

Who Is Noelia Castillo?

Much of Castillo’s life during her childhood was spent in care homes. Her father's problems with alcohol had a significant impact on her mental health, and she underwent psychiatric treatment since her early teens.

Later, she was diagnosed with conditions including obsessive-compulsive disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder.

She was raped twice: first by an ex-boyfriend and later by three men in 2022 while at a state-supervised facility for vulnerable youth.

The assaults, which took a severe toll on her mental health, led her to make multiple suicide attempts.

In October 2022, she jumped from a fifth-floor window, which left her with a severe spinal cord injury and permanent paralysis in her lower body.

Also read: Harish Rana, India’s First Passive Euthanasia Case, Dies at AIIMS

Noelia Castillo’s Fight For Euthanasia

Castillo chose assisted dying to escape years of physical pain and emotional trauma.

In her final days, Castillo spoke openly about her suffering and her decision. In an interview with Spanish broadcaster Antena 3, she said: “I just cannot go on anymore… I want to go in peace now and stop suffering.”

Speaking earlier to Spanish TV programme Y Ahora Sonsoles, she added: “I am very clear… none of my family is in favour of euthanasia. But what about all the pain I’ve suffered during all these years?”

In 2024, the Catalan regional government granted her the right to assisted dying in 2024. But the process was suspended after legal objections raised by her father. According to her father, her mental health did not allow her to make better decisions about herself.

Noelia Castillo: 18-month-long Legal Battle

Christian Lawyers (Abogados Cristianos) had been attempting to block her death until the last moment. For 18 months, the case moved through multiple courts, eventually reaching Spain’s Constitutional Court, which ruled there was “no violation of fundamental rights” in allowing her euthanasia.

Finally, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled this week in Noelia Castillo's favour, and her death was eventually confirmed late on Thursday.

In a TV interview this week, she said nobody in her family had supported her decision to die by euthanasia, and her father "hasn't respected my decision and never will".

"I want to go in peace now and stop suffering," she told Antena 3 TV the day before she died.

Critics Call Her Death A Failure Of The State

"For a girl who obviously has had a very tough life, which we all regret, the only thing that could be offered to her by the healthcare system is death," said José María Fernández, of Christian Lawyers.

The opposition conservative People's Party (PP), which voted against a 2021 euthanasia law, had a similar response.

Several senior Catholic leaders in Spain have sharply criticised the euthanasia of 25-year-old Noelia Castillo, calling it a reflection of societal failure and raising concerns over the country’s right-to-die law.“We have all failed as a society,” Jose Mazuelos Perez, Bishop of the Canary Islands, was quoted as saying by EuroNews.

In a joint statement, church leaders said the case reflected “an accumulation of personal suffering and institutional shortcomings”.

The BA.3.2 COVID-19 variant, nicknamed Cicada, is evading capable antibodies gained from previous vaccinations. According to experts, it is less likely that the currently available COVID vaccines will provide protection.

As per the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Cicada — a highly mutated variant of COVID — has already been reported in at least 23 countries, including 25 states in America. It has also been detected in 132 wastewater samples from Massachusetts.

What Is The Cicada COVID Variant?

Cicada was first identified in a respiratory sample in South Africa in November 2024.

It is a descendant of the Omicron BA.3 lineage, and is genetically distinct from the previously circulating JN.1 lineages (including LP.8.1 and XFG).

BA.3.2 comprises two major branches, BA.3.2.1 and BA.3.2.2. BA.3.2.2 also has substitutions like: K356T, A575S, R681H, and R1162P.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has designated BA.3.2 as a Variant Under Monitoring (VUM). It means the variant may not be that dangerous yet, but it may have concerning mutations.

The CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report explains that Cicada has “70 to 75 substitutions and deletions in the gene sequence of its spike protein”.

Will Current COVID Vaccines Work?

The variant is particularly concerning as it provides no immune protection to people with previous infection or even vaccination.

“The number of mutations from JN.1 viruses makes it less likely that the current vaccines will be highly effective against Cicada, but we need more data to better answer this question,” Dr. Robert H. Hopkins Jr., medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, told USA TODAY.

However, according to the WHO, current COVID vaccines are expected to continue protecting against severe disease. Moreover, the WHO said BA.3.2 doesn’t seem to be making people sicker so far and hasn’t resulted in increased hospitalizations and deaths.

“Overall, available evidence suggests that BA.3.2 poses low additional public health risk compared with other circulating Omicron descendant lineages,” WHO said.

And unlike previous strains, BA.3.2 hasn’t rapidly overtaken other variants; in fact, it hasn’t fueled enough cases nationally to land on the CDC’s variant tracker.

“If it had really special advantages, we’d probably have seen it take off and dominate globally relatively quickly,” Andrew Pekosz, a virologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told TODAY.com. “We didn’t see that, but it’s not going away, so it’s something to keep an eye on.”

Also read: Unique Symptoms Of 'Cicada' The Highly Mutated New COVID Variant Of 2026

Will Cicada Become The Dominant COVID Strain

Hopkins Jr. expressed the possibility that "Cicada can become the dominant strain in the US”. While it is not certain, it can also "drive a US summer surge.”

The CDC has also warned that a new variant "with substantial capacity to evade immunity from previous infections or vaccines could be associated with seasonal increases in COVID-19 activity.”

Also read: COVID Variant BA.3.2 Spreads To 23 Countries: Is The Variant Under Monitoring A Cause Of Worry?

What Makes Cicada So Unique?

T Ryan Gregory, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Guelph stated that Cicada is emerging as a contender for the next major lineage.

He wrote on social media platform X: "Well, it's that time again. Meet "Cicada", BA.3.2* (including descendant RE.*). This one has been underground for years (its ancestor BA.3 hasn't been circulating since early 2022, and didn't do much then either) but is now emerging as a contender for the next major lineage."

While most of the symptoms of this new variant remain the same as those of the other variants, one thing that stands out here is the gastrointestinal symptoms that cicada could cause.

However, experts note that this variant will not make anyone sicker. Other symptoms include:

• Cough
• Fever or chills
• Sore throat
• Congestion
• Shortness of breath
• Loss of smell or taste
• Fatigue
• Headache.

After a recent Supreme Court of India order banning the use of stem cell therapy to treat autism -- a neurodevelopmental condition affecting communication, social interaction, and behavior -- the country's National Medical Commission has issued a clear warning to doctors and hospitals not to use the therapy to treat autism in routine medical practice.

The National Medical Commission, in a new advisory, asked all medical colleges, hospitals, and doctors to strictly follow the rules.

In a letter sent to the regulator, Indian Council of Medical Research Director-General Dr. Rajiv Bahl stated that the stem cell treatment can now be used in regular medical practice only for 32 diseases that are officially approved by the government. These include blood cancers and serious blood disorders such as:

Acute myeloid leukemia

Thalassemia

Multiple myeloma

Aplastic anemia

Myelofibrosis

Germ cell tumors.

The letter asked doctors not to offer stem cell therapy for any other disease outside this list.

Notably, the Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB), under the National Medical Commission (NMC), had, in December 2022, constituted the Committee on Stem Cell Use in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

It had stated that none of the current international guidelines recommend stem cell therapy as a treatment for ASD and added that the therapy is not recommended as a treatment for ASD in clinical practice.

Also read: Japan Approves First-Ever Stem Cell Therapies For Parkinson’s And Heart Failure

What Was The Supreme Court Ruling On Stem Cells?

Earlier this year, in January, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan noted that stem cell therapy lacks “scientific support and has not been recognized as a sound medical practice backed by empirical evidence”.

The Bench ruled that “every use of stem cells in patients outside an approved clinical trial is unethical and shall be considered as malpractice.”

The apex Court, however, added that the advanced therapy, which holds promise in several medical fields, can still be approved for monitored clinical research trials. It added that the patients have the liberty to participate in approved and regulated clinical trials.

What Is Stem Cell Therapy

Stem cell therapy, also called regenerative medicine, is a medical treatment that uses stem cells to repair or replace damaged tissues.

While the therapy is useful and effective for blood cancers and autoimmune diseases, for the treatment of autism, there is no proof or scientific evidence of its utility.

As stem cell therapy is vastly unregulated in India, many private labs have been minting money over the promise of treatment for autism.

“Most stem cell therapies are unregulated in India and are promoted based on no evidence, and fake advertisements. While these disorders have no cure, many people are falsely lured by these companies,” Dr. Manjari Tripathi, Head of Department, Neurology, AIIMS Delhi, had told IANS, after the SC verdict.

Also read: New Stem Cell Transplant Breakthrough Could Replace Chemo In Cancer Treatment

Stem Cells Permissible Only For Research

The NMC warned that any doctor or institution offering stem cell therapy for autism will face regulatory and legal action.

The top medical regulator, however, stated that stem cell therapy is permissible only for research purposes.

Such studies must follow strict rules set by the government and must be approved by ethics committees and national regulatory bodies.

Researchers must also ensure that patients give written consent, that treatment is provided free during the trial, and compensation is offered if injury or death occurs during research.