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 Supreme Court of India has slammed the steep mark-ups private hospitals charge for cancer medicines, describing excessive pricing as “loot” and “dacoity” as it considers whether tighter regulations are needed to protect patients.

During a hearing on October 27, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reserved its verdict on petitions seeking stronger controls on the prices of medicines.

The court highlighted the financial burden faced by people who need life-saving treatment, especially those battling cancer, and questioned whether the government’s current pricing framework protects patients from excessive healthcare costs.

Cancer Injection Costs ₹11,000 But Billed At ₹1.3 lakh

Also read: India Caps Cancer Drug Trade Margins At 30%; Patients May Save Rs 2,500 Crore Annually

The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Kishan Chand Jain who sought seeking mandatory generic drug prescriptions, stricter initial price controls on non-scheduled medicines, and statutory margin caps on medical devices under the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO).

One example cited by the court is of a medicine distributor whose wife was undergoing cancer treatment at a prominent private hospital.

According to the account presented during the hearing, the distributor offered to procure a chemotherapy injection at his dealer price of ₹11,000, but the hospital charged ₹1.3 lakh for the same medicine.

“Can you show any justification for this loot, please? Why this difference? Where does the money go?” the bench asked.

The judges also questioned the pricing of routine hospital supplies. A saline drip line with a cost ₹15 was reportedly being billed to patients at ₹250.

These examples raised questions about how medicine procurement costs, manufacturer discounts, hospital operating expenses and final patient bills are accounted for.

The Court also addressed Centre's recent decision to cap trade margins for anti-cancer drugs at 30 percent but how nearly 90 percent of medicines available in the market remain outside the purview of the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO).

"Why is the DPCO in place at all? The government is allowing this to happen. There have been three parliamentary committees on this. And their outcome is not very convenient to people who pull the strings, let us tell you," the Bench remarked.

Medicine Price Caps Under Scrutiny

Also read: 137 Cancer Drugs To Cost Up To 70% Less From November 9: NPPA Caps Trade Margins

India regulates prices of scheduled medicines under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013. The government has also introduced trade margin limits for a few anti-cancer medicines.

During the hearing, the Centre said trade margins on 137 anti-cancer medicines had been capped at 30% of the maximum retail price (MRP), a measure it estimated could save patients around ₹2,500 crore annually.

The court questioned why such interventions were limited to only a few medicines and whether a bigger and more comprehensive drug regulation was needed.

The petitions seek measures including mandatory generic prescriptions, controls on the initial prices of non-scheduled medicines and limits on trade margins for medical devices.

Hospitals And Government Raise Concerns

Representing private hospitals, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that healthcare institutions must maintain round-the-clock infrastructure and cover substantial operating costs. He also raised concerns about patients bringing medicines from outside, including the risk of counterfeit products.

The Centre maintained that medicine pricing policy must balance affordability with investment, competition and the sustainability of the pharmaceutical sector.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati told the court that the government continued to review its rules. The bench questioned whether these considerations addressed patients’ limited bargaining power when they need life-saving treatment.

"Your calibration is too wayward. ₹11,000 to ₹1,30,000 is no calibration. When you talk of patients and life, should we have such capitalistic thinking. Hospitals can survive through other means. Not through this dacoity,” the bench remarked, according to reports of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict. Until the order is delivered, no new price cap should be assumed. The court’s decision could influence future regulation of medicine prices and hospital mark-ups.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released a report that stated drug-resistant infections are causing an estimated 50,800 deaths and 9.7 million infections annually in the United States.

Common bacterial infections are usually treated with antibiotics but some germs develop the ability to resist the medicines designed to fight them. This is a grave threat to public health.

The agency has classified four pathogens as urgent threats, warning that resistance to antibiotics and antifungal medicines is making some infections difficult to treat.

The CDC’s 2026 Antimicrobial Resistance Threats Report, released on October 27, is based on data from 2023. It examines 19 drug-resistant bacterial and fungal threats, categorising them as urgent, serious or concerning based on factors including their effects, spread, preventability and the availability of effective treatments.

“Antimicrobial resistance threatens modern medicine and puts millions of Americans at risk every year,” CDC Director Dr Erica Schwartz said in a statement.

Drug-Resistant Pathogens That Pose The Greatest Risks

The federal health agency has identified the following four pathogens as requiring urgent and aggressive action.

Candida auris

Candida auris, a fungus that can cause severe infections, includes potentially fatal bloodstream infections, particularly in people who are already seriously ill. It is a major concern in hospitals and nursing homes because it can be transmitted through contaminated surfaces and medical equipment like catheters, and some strains resist multiple antifungal medicines.

The CDC recorded 4,523 cases in the United States in 2023. Cases increased by more than 50% between 2022 and 2023, according to the report.

People can carry the fungus on their skin without developing symptoms, allowing it to spread in healthcare environments.

Drug-resistant gonorrhoea

Gonorrhoea is a sexually transmitted infection caused by the bacterium Neisseria gonorrhoeae. The infection can be treated with antibiotics, but the bacterium has developed resistance to several medicines.

The CDC estimates that approximately 787,000 drug-resistant gonorrhoea infections occurred in the US in 2023. Untreated gonorrhoea can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility and other reproductive complications.

The growing resistance leaves healthcare providers with fewer reliable treatment options, making surveillance and the development of new antibiotics important.

Also read: 'It’s The Best-Studied Vaccine In Human History': Former CDC Adviser Busts Common Myths About COVID Vaccines

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE)

CRE are a group of bacteria, including some strains of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella, that resist carbapenems, a powerful class of antibiotics often reserved for difficult-to-treat infections.

These bacteria can cause infections in the bloodstream, lungs and urinary tract. They pose a particular risk to hospital patients, especially those with weakened immune systems, catheters or ventilators.

In 2023, CRE caused an estimated 14,878 infections among hospitalised patients and 1,252 deaths in the US. Drug resistance can leave doctors with few effective treatment options.

Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter

Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter is another group of bacteria that can cause serious infections, particularly among critically ill patients in healthcare settings. These include pneumonia, bloodstream infections and infections associated with wounds.

Resistance to carbapenems makes these infections difficult to treat and can increase the risk of complications and death.

Antimicrobial Resistance Is A Growing Concern

The CDC is also monitoring six more kinds of germs. One is drug-resistant ringworm, a fungal skin infection that is becoming harder to treat with standard fungal medications. The health body says misusing over-the-counter antifungal creams and using steroid-antifungal cream combinations may contribute to resistance.

Antimicrobial resistance occurs when bacteria, fungi and other pathogens develop the ability to survive medicines designed to kill them or stop their growth. This can happen through genetic changes and the spread of resistance mechanisms between microbes. The unnecessary or inappropriate use of antimicrobial medicines can accelerate the process.

The consequences extend beyond infections themselves. Drug resistance can prolong hospital stays, increase healthcare costs and make procedures like surgery, cancer treatment and organ transplantation riskier because these depend on effective medicines to treat infections.

Infections commonly associated with healthcare settings accounted for more than 42,000 deaths and nearly $12 billion in US healthcare costs in 2023, according to the report.

The CDC also reported progress in some areas. Clostridioides difficile, a bacterium associated with severe diarrhoea and often linked to antibiotic use, was downgraded from an urgent to a serious threat. The agency attributed the change partly to improvements in infection prevention and antibiotic stewardship.

However, the CDC cautioned that its methods and data sources changed substantially since its previous report. The latest estimates therefore cannot be directly compared with older figures to determine how much the overall burden has increased.

How To Prevent Antibiotic Resistance?

The CDC recommends using antibiotics only when prescribed by a healthcare professional and taking them exactly as directed. Antibiotics do not treat viral infections like the common cold or flu.

Hand hygiene, vaccinations, infection-control measures in healthcare environments including appropriate prescribing practices can also help limit the spread of resistant pathogens.

Joshua, 27, was diagnosed with autism at two and a half. He was nonverbal and experienced severe anxiety, while getting a full night's sleep remained a struggle for years.

An experimental drug called L1-79, touted as ‘Ozempic Of Autism' has reportedly brought significant improvements in his condition, according to the Daily Mail, raising interest in its potential to address core features of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

How Did The Drug L1-79 Help Joshua?

Developed by Yamo Pharmaceuticals, L1-79 is an oral drug designed to target core symptoms of autism.

Joshua’s psychiatrist of eight years, Dr. Eric Bartky, an autism specialist involved in the US FDA trial of L1-79, asked his parents Linda and Jim Turteltaub to consider trying the drug.

The decision involved uncertainty. Taking part in the trial required Joshua to stop all his other medications, and the potential side effects of the new treatment were not fully known. Despite these concerns, his parents decided in 2015 to give it a try.

“We just wanted something to address the issues, to try and get him better so that he can at least communicate with us,” Linda said.

According to the report, Joshua showed his first notable improvement within a week of beginning treatment.

Also read: Autism Care Begins Early: Why the First 1,000 Days Matter Most, Says AIIMS Expert

How Does L1-79 Work?

Yamo Pharmaceuticals describes L1-79 as a selective inhibitor of tyrosine hydroxylase, an enzyme involved in the production of dopamine and norepinephrine.

The drug is intended to lower the production of these chemical messengers in an effort to regulate pathways that may contribute to sensory overload and social withdrawal in people with autism.

Dr. Bartky said the drug differs from existing approaches because it aims to address core features of autism, including social interaction and communication.

“What makes L1-79 different is that L1-79 treats the core symptoms of autism, things like socialization and communications, things that go along with that like eye contact, reciprocal conversation, nonverbal communication, such as reading social nuance. These are things that are extremely important for a person's emotional growth and functioning in society.”

The response to treatment has varied among Dr. Bartky's patients, reflecting the wide range of symptoms associated with ASD.

What Is The Status Of L1-79 Clinical Trials?

Read More: Stem Cell Therapy For Autism: What India’s New Advisory Means For Patients

There is currently no single medication that treats all the core features of autism spectrum disorder. Several medications are prescribed to manage particular behavioral patterns and associated conditions.

L1-79 is being investigated as a potential treatment that could address autism's underlying neurological features. The Daily Mail reported that 116 patients had participated in L1-79's three clinical trials.

The drug has received Fast Track designation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This program is intended to facilitate the development and review of treatments for serious conditions that address unmet medical needs.

Although the designation does not shorten the clinical trial process, it can make a drug eligible for priority review. Under this pathway, the FDA aims to complete its review within six months, compared with the standard 10-month timeline.

Are There Any Safety Concerns?

Dr. Bartky also pointed to what he described as L1-79's safety profile.

Some existing medications can cause serious side effects, including dyskinesia, which involves involuntary movements that can sometimes be permanent; metabolic syndrome, a group of conditions associated with increased risks of heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes; and hypertension. Dr. Bartky said L1-79 had “not had one single serious side effect.”