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 commonly prescribed blood pressure medication is being pulled from shelves after routine testing revealed possible contamination with another drug. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., which has its U.S. headquarters in Elmwood Park, New Jersey, has voluntarily recalled more than eleven thousand bottles of bisoprolol fumarate and hydrochlorothiazide tablets, sold under the brand name Ziac. The recall was announced in an online report published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Why the Drug Was Recalled

According to the FDA, reserve sample testing detected traces of ezetimibe, a medication used to treat high cholesterol. Glenmark manufactures both drugs, and officials say the presence of ezetimibe suggests the tablets may have been cross contaminated during production. The recall affects the 2.5 milligram and 6.25 milligram strengths of the medication, which is used to treat hypertension by helping the heart beat more normally, reducing fluid retention and relaxing blood vessels.

The recall has been classified as Class III, which is the lowest risk category. This means that although the product violates FDA standards, the agency does not expect the contaminated tablets to pose serious or immediate health risks. Class III recalls generally involve issues that are unlikely to cause adverse health consequences. However, the FDA still requires the manufacturer to remove the affected lots from circulation.

Products and Lots Included

The recall covers several bottle sizes packaged for the U.S. market. The affected National Drug Codes are:

• 30 count bottles, NDC 68462 878 30
• 100 count bottles, NDC 68462 878 01
• 500 count bottles, NDC 68462 878 05

According to the FDA report, the impacted lots include Lot 17232401, which has an expiration date of November 2025, and Lot 17240974, which expires in May 2026. The tablets were manufactured in Madhya Pradesh, India for Glenmark’s U.S. division. In total, more than eleven thousand bottles are part of the recall.

What Patients Should Know

Neither Glenmark Pharmaceuticals nor the FDA has issued specific instructions for patients who may have the recalled medication at home. However, standard guidance from GoodRx and other pharmacy resources advises patients to take a few simple steps. Individuals should check the lot number on their medication bottle and compare it with the recalled lots. If the numbers match, patients are encouraged to contact their pharmacist or prescriber to discuss next steps. Most pharmacists will recommend safely discarding the recalled medication and arranging for a replacement prescription.

While the contamination involves only trace amounts of another drug and is not expected to cause serious harm, health experts note that taking medication that has been compromised in any way is not advisable. Patients who rely on bisoprolol fumarate and hydrochlorothiazide for blood pressure control should not stop treatment abruptly without consulting their healthcare provider.

Understanding the Medication

Bisoprolol and hydrochlorothiazide is a combination drug that lowers blood pressure by blocking beta 1 receptors in the heart, increasing urination to remove excess sodium and water, and relaxing blood vessels. It is commonly prescribed to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes in patients with hypertension.

With the recall in place, patients are encouraged to stay alert, review their medication labels and reach out to their healthcare team if they believe they have received an affected batch.

It is no news that ever since the President Donald Trump's administration has signed in, transgenders have seemed to lost their rights, with their research being removed, defunded, and now the administration has changed the name of transgender health leader on her official portrait. The new name used is her head name.

The person in question is Adm. Rachel Levine, who made history in 2021 when she was sworn in as the assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services under former President Joe Biden. Levin was nation's highest ranking and openly transgender federal official. Her portrait hands in the HHS office, along with pictures of other federal officials who have led the US Public Health Corps. However, recently, especially after the US government went on a shutdown, HHS has removed Levine's name from her portrait and replaced it with her dead name, reported NPR.

As per the GLAAD, formerly Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, a major LGBTQ media advocacy organization, the act of revealing or using a transgender person's birth name without their permission is known as deadnaming.

What Does Levine Say On The Act Of Deadnaming Her?

Adrian Shanker, a former deputy assistant secretary for health policy in the Biden administration and Levine's current spokesperson told the NPR that this act is of "bigotry against her".

“During the federal shutdown, the current leadership of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health changed Admiral Levine's photo to remove her current legal name and use a prior name," Shanker told the outlet.

As per Levine, it was a “great honor to serve in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.” In a statement to The Independent, she said, "My focus has been and continues to be on public health and health equity. I am not going to comment on this type of petty action.”

While the HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon told that the agency's priority "is ensuring that the information presented internally and externally by HHS reflects gold standard science. We remain committed to reversing harmful policies enacted by Levine and ensuring that biological reality guides our approach to public health," in a statement to NPR.

Trump Administration Against Transgender

Over the last year, Trump administration has rolled back many rights of transgender people.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released new definitions for 'sex,' 'man,' and 'woman', an action that has provoked widespread discussion in health, scientific and policy communities. While proponents believe the revisions bring back biological truth, opponents caution that they will weaken science and harm healthcare policies. On February 19, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released new federal guidelines that strictly define sex as an unchanging biological category based on reproductive function. The memo claims that sex is genetically determined at birth and does not change throughout life, making it clear that biological sex cannot be altered by medical treatment or self-identification.

Also Read: Department of Health And Human Services Updates Its Guidance For Gender To Comply With Trump's Executive Orders

The government of the United States abruptly terminated at least 68 grants which were awarded to 46 institutions. This was a total of $40 million in funding. These grants were supporting research which was related to LGBTQ health, and included HIV prevention, youth suicide, cancer and bone health. While some of these funds have already been used, at least $1.36 million was withdrawn from future support. This figure is also an undercount, as estimates were available only for a portion of the cancelled grants.

A new law in South Dakota has restricted transgender people's use of communal facilities in public schools and state-owned buildings. This was implemented from July 1 2025.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) retracted references to transgender people, gender identity, and equity from its website. This change followed the executive order and a directive from the Federal Office of Personnel Management instructing agencies to eliminate taxpayer-funded programs reflecting "gender ideology". The guidelines issues on Wednesday asked to end "all agency programs that use taxpayer money to promote or reflect gender ideology", and was signed by President Trump.

According to a latest BBC report, GPs think that many people in England are being over diagnosed with mental health problems. Being stressed does not mean an illness. As per the commonly held view by family doctors, the society tends to over medicalize normal life stresses. However, the doctors are also concerned about the difficulty for the patients who actually have a mental health condition.

Earlier this week, the Health Secretary launched an independent review to understand why more people in England are seeking mental health, ADHD and autism services, and to identify where support is currently falling short.

BBC News sent a questionnaire to more than 5,000 GPs in England to understand their experiences supporting patients with mental health concerns. The 752 responses that came back show just how complicated and emotionally heavy this workload has become for many family doctors.

Of those who took part, 442 GPs said they believed over-diagnosis was a problem. Most felt mental health issues were being slightly over-diagnosed rather than significantly. At the same time, 81 GPs felt the opposite and said under-diagnosis was still a real concern.

Concerns about Limited Support

Over-diagnosis was far from the only issue. Many GPs told us they were deeply worried about the lack of meaningful support available for patients who come to them in distress. The questionnaire included both multiple-choice questions and an open invitation to leave anonymous comments, which many used to explain their frustrations.

One of the most common sentiments was summed up by a GP who said, “Life being stressful is not an illness.” Another reflected on how much expectations have changed, noting that society seems to have forgotten that heartbreak and grief are painful but still part of normal life. Another GP argued that labels like anxiety or depression risk medicalizing everyday emotional struggles, and this could pull resources away from people facing severe and complex needs.

A small number were openly critical of certain patients, with one describing them as “dishonest and narcissistic” and taking advantage of a system that is free at the point of use.

Rising Need Across Age Groups

According to NHS England, one in five adults lives with a common mental health condition. The rate is even higher among young people, where it rises to one in four for those aged 16 to 24.

GPs who responded to the questionnaire identified young adults between 19 and 34 as the age group most in need of mental health support. Some felt young people have become less resilient since the pandemic, with a stronger focus on seeking a diagnosis instead of learning coping strategies. Others disagreed and said the real problem was that services have become increasingly hesitant to assess and diagnose people when needed.

A Growing Workload for GPs

There are nearly 40,000 fully qualified GPs in England. While the responses cannot represent every doctor across the country, they do reveal clear patterns. Almost all GPs with more than five years of experience said the amount of time they now spend on mental health has risen sharply.

They pointed to three main reasons for this increase:

• Supporting patients who are unable to access good quality mental health services elsewhere

• Helping people whose mental health is affected by practical issues like housing, employment or financial pressure

• Seeing patients who believe they have a mental health condition when they may be dealing with normal life challenges

Earlier this year, the Health Secretary said mental health conditions were being over-diagnosed and too many people were being written off. He has since acknowledged that his comments were divisive and did not reflect the full complexity of the situation.

Demand That Services Cannot Meet

It is estimated that 2.5 million people in England have ADHD, including many without a formal diagnosis. Some NHS ADHD services have already stopped accepting new patients because they cannot cope with the demand. Many individuals have told the BBC just how difficult it has become to find proper assessment and care.

Overall, most GPs agreed that the system is not keeping up. Of the 752 respondents, 508 said there was rarely or never enough good quality mental health support for adults in their area. An even larger number, 640, said they were worried about getting young patients the help they need.

One GP called the state of mental health support “a national tragedy”. Another described the situation for children starkly: “A child literally needs to be holding a knife to be taken seriously and the second that knife is put down, services disengage.”

The Pressure to Prescribe

GPs were also asked whether they prescribe medication because they worry patients will not get other types of support, like talking therapies, quickly enough. The most common answer was yes, and that they do this routinely. One GP admitted they often reach for antidepressants even though they know it may only offer short-term relief and does little to prevent future episodes.

Professor Victoria Tzortziou Brown, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said family doctors face a difficult balance. Patients increasingly expect a diagnosis, yet not every emotional difficulty meets the criteria for one. She added that society needs to be careful not to medicalize the full range of normal feelings but also must avoid dismissing genuine concerns.