A commonly prescribed drug for nerve pain, anxiety and epilepsy has been linked with a surprisingly large increase in the risk of heart failure among older patients. The new findings have researchers and regulators urging care when prescribing pregabalin, especially for people with known heart disease.

What the researchers looked at

The team, led by Dr Elizabeth Park at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, analysed health records for 246,237 Medicare patients aged 65 to 89 who all had chronic non-cancer pain. None had a prior history of heart failure. Over a four-year window the researchers tracked admissions and compared outcomes between people taking pregabalin and those taking a similar medication, gabapentin.

The headline numbers

The study found that pregabalin was associated with a 48 per cent higher risk of developing heart failure compared with gabapentin. For patients with an existing history of heart disease, the risk jumped to 85 per cent. In absolute terms, the researchers estimated around six additional cases of heart failure per 1,000 people taking pregabalin each year, compared to those not on the drug.

What heart failure looks like

Heart failure happens when the heart cannot pump enough blood to meet the body’s needs. It is not a single disease but a syndrome with a set of typical symptoms: shortness of breath with exertion or when lying down, persistent tiredness, and swelling in the legs, ankles and feet. People may also have a cough that won’t go away, a racing or irregular heartbeat, dizziness or fainting. Early recognition and management can slow progression and improve quality of life.

How pregabalin fits into the picture

Pregabalin is often chosen because many types of nerve pain do not respond to standard painkillers. It works by changing how nerves signal pain to the brain. Like all medicines, pregabalin carries side effects, common ones include headaches, nausea, diarrhoea, blurred vision and memory issues. Rarely, it can trigger a life-threatening allergic reaction called anaphylaxis.

Why this study matters

This is not a wholesale indictment of a useful medicine. Instead, the study adds important new detail about who may be at increased risk. The researchers interpret their findings as supporting existing cautionary guidance from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) about prescribing pregabalin to older adults with heart disease. The takeaway for clinicians is to weigh cardiovascular risk when choosing between pregabalin and alternatives such as gabapentin.

Numbers you should remember

246,237 Medicare patients aged 65 to 89 were included

1,470 patients were admitted to hospital with heart failure during the study period

48 per cent increased risk overall for pregabalin users compared with gabapentin users

85 per cent increased risk in those with prior heart disease

About six extra cases of heart failure per 1,000 people per year attributed to pregabalin in this cohort

What patients should do now

If you take pregabalin, do not stop it suddenly. Stopping abruptly can cause withdrawal-like symptoms. Instead, book an appointment with your GP or specialist to discuss the risks and benefits in your specific case. If you have a history of heart disease, a heart condition, or new symptoms such as increased breathlessness, persistent swelling or faintness, mention them promptly.

Pregabalin helps many people with otherwise disabling nerve pain, but like any tool, it must be used with care and attention to context. For older adults and those with heart disease, a conversation with a clinician could be the difference between control and complication.

A new CDC-backed study has revealed a startling fact: nearly 9 out of 10 adults arriving in U.S. emergency departments aren’t fully vaccinated against the diseases recommended for their age and health status. These aren’t just patients with severe illnesses—many were seeking help for minor injuries or ailments, yet still carried major gaps in their immunization records.

For some, this is the only point of contact with the healthcare system. Roughly one-third of the U.S. population doesn’t have a primary care provider, meaning they miss out on the regular vaccine screenings typically offered during check-ups. Instead, they end up in the ER for urgent needs—often unaware that they’re overdue for potentially lifesaving shots.

Dr. Robert Rodriguez, lead researcher and associate dean at the University of California-Riverside School of Medicine, calls vaccination screening “one of the most fundamental public health interventions,” on par with water sanitation in terms of lives saved. Yet, without consistent access to primary care, millions of Americans never get screened.

Between April and December 2024, the study surveyed nearly 3,300 adults across 10 ERs in eight major U.S. cities. Patients were asked about their status on six to ten vaccines, including shingles, pneumococcal, RSV, tetanus, COVID-19, and influenza.

The results? Nearly half (49%) didn’t even know they were eligible for one or more of these vaccines. An even more concerning 86% hadn’t received all the shots they needed.

The vaccination gap wasn’t evenly distributed. Unvaccinated rates were higher among African Americans, uninsured individuals, and those without a primary care provider. These same populations often experience higher burdens of chronic disease, making the protection vaccines offer even more crucial.

Dr. Rodriguez points out that this is a symptom of deeper systemic problems—gaps in access, insurance coverage, and health education.

Despite the low vaccination rates, there’s a silver lining: about half of the unvaccinated patients said they’d be willing to get their recommended shots if they could receive them during their ER visit. That opens a door for a potential public health intervention hiding in plain sight.

If vaccine screening and delivery were built into emergency care, researchers estimate the percentage of fully vaccinated adult ER patients could jump from just 14% to as high as 48%—more than tripling current levels.

In most hospitals, emergency physicians and nurses focus on treating the acute problem—a broken bone, a high fever, a deep cut—before sending the patient home. Vaccinations rarely come into play unless it’s an immediate tetanus booster.

But the study suggests a paradigm shift: make the ER not just a place for crisis care, but also a checkpoint for preventive health. Even if the ER can’t stock every vaccine, staff could screen patients and connect them with pharmacies or community clinics that can provide the shots.

For people without regular healthcare access—including uninsured patients, homeless individuals, and recent immigrants—this could be their only realistic opportunity to catch up on vaccinations.

Many think of vaccines as a childhood necessity, but adults need ongoing protection too. The CDC recommends a range of vaccines to prevent illnesses that can cause serious complications, long-term health problems, and even death:

• Influenza and COVID-19 vaccines reduce hospitalizations and deaths, especially in high-risk groups.
• Shingles shots can prevent debilitating nerve pain and vision loss.
• Pneumococcal vaccines protect against pneumonia, blood infections, and meningitis.
• Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis) boosters are essential to prevent life-threatening bacterial infections.
• RSV shots are now available for older adults, who face higher risks of severe disease.

Falling behind on these vaccines doesn’t just put individuals at risk—it increases the chance of outbreaks that can affect entire communities.

Low vaccination coverage among ER patients isn’t just an individual health issue; it’s a population-level concern. Emergency rooms serve as a safety net for millions of underserved Americans, but if these patients remain unvaccinated, it leaves communities vulnerable to preventable disease surges.

Dr. Rodriguez emphasizes that this is a vaccine equity issue. “The ED is often the only healthcare access point for underserved populations,” he says. “We have the infrastructure to change this—if we choose to.”

Implementing vaccine screening in ERs would require coordination, training, and resources—but the potential payoff is massive. Even partial implementation could prevent thousands of hospitalizations, save millions in healthcare costs, and protect vulnerable groups during disease outbreaks.

Right now, 800,000 people across the U.S. are at risk of losing affordable access to contraception after the Trump administration withheld Title X funding. At the same time, TikTok and Instagram are swamped with videos claiming hormonal birth control is “dangerous” or “toxic,” often from non-medical voices. The result is a perfect storm, reduced access to proven reproductive healthcare and rising confusion about what’s actually safe, effective, and backed by decades of research. This isn’t just a policy fight—it’s a public health moment with real consequences for women’s lives.

Contraception has been a mainstay of reproductive health care for decades, and polling has repeatedly indicated support for legal and available birth control across party lines. But that access is under threat. The Trump administration's move to cut off money for Title X—a federal program that has dispensed free contraception to poor Americans since 1970—is already hitting clinics and patients across the country.

Title X was born out of a bipartisan effort to improve public health. In 1969, President Richard Nixon declared that “no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance, because of her economic condition.” The program was formally enacted the following year, guaranteeing contraception for those who could not afford it.

In 2025, Congress allocated $285.6 million to Title X. But the Trump administration’s budget moves—and accompanying enforcement actions—have interrupted the flow of funds to organizations serving over 800,000 people.

The impact has been swift. Fifteen public health organizations are suing the administration, alleging the funding cuts are illegal and jeopardize essential reproductive services. Among them is Bridgercare, a Montana-based nonprofit that helps support 20 reproductive health clinics. Executive Director Stephanie McDowell says the group received just one day’s notice before funding was suspended, citing alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act and executive orders.

In Utah, Planned Parenthood has already closed two clinics due to the loss of Title X funds. In some locations, services that were once free now come with out-of-pocket costs, placing additional burdens on patients already struggling financially. While some clinics have been informed their funding will be restored, the uncertainty has left many scrambling to keep services available.

Why There Is Too Much Birth Control Misinformation Online?

As political battles rage over access, social media has become a breeding ground for misinformation about hormonal birth control. On platforms like TikTok, videos claim that contraception can cause everything from depression and infertility to gut damage and hair loss. Most influencers are now pushing "natural" choices, like fertility apps or herbal treatments, as safer alternatives.

One analysis of TikTok videos about contraception discovered that only 10% of videos were posted by medical professionals, and most rated poorly in terms of reliability and quality. That void in reputable information has permitted myths to flourish unchecked.

Years of studies affirm that hormone contraceptives—whether pills, patches, injections, IUDs, or implants—are safe and extremely effective when properly used. Mild side effects such as headaches, changes in mood or breast tenderness do occur but serious side effects such as blood clots are rare.

There are some subtler risks. Oral contraceptives, for instance, may raise slightly the risk of some cancers but lower the risk of others, including ovarian and endometrial cancer. The assessment of risks is very individual, with smoking history and individual medical background involved. This is why medical advice will always be needed.

Are “Natural” Methods a Real Alternative?

Fertility awareness methods, such as tracking temperature and cycle monitoring apps, may be attractive to those who are hesitant about hormonal contraception. Such methods, though, have increased risks of unplanned pregnancy. Failure rates reported in research studies range from 8–9% for certain cycle tracking apps—well above the less than 1% failure rate of most hormonal methods when used correctly.

Herbal supplements marketed online for birth control are without scientific support and are not regarded as credible by medical practitioners. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists advises against depending solely on such untested measures.

Health Risks of Unplanned Pregnancy

While debates about side effects often dominate online conversations, medical experts stress that the risks of unintended pregnancy—especially for people with pre-existing health conditions—can be far more serious. Pregnancy complications, including preeclampsia and gestational diabetes, carry significant health risks and are more common in unplanned cases where prenatal care may be delayed.

For low-income women, losing access to affordable contraception doesn’t just mean fewer options—it can mean facing higher risks to both maternal and child health, increased financial strain, and reduced educational or career opportunities.

The Title X lawsuit will determine whether clinics can regain the funding they’ve lost under the Trump administration’s changes. For now, many are relying on state programs, private donations, and emergency fundraising to keep contraceptive services available.

At the same time, public health experts say it’s vital to address the parallel challenge of misinformation. “Access without accurate information is only half the battle,” says one reproductive health researcher. “We need policies that protect funding and also combat the myths that prevent people from making informed decisions about their own health.”

The U.S. is not alone in facing both political challenges to reproductive healthcare and a wave of online misinformation. Similar trends are emerging in Europe, Latin America, and parts of Asia, where misinformation about contraception spreads rapidly on social media. The stakes are high: policies and perceptions shaped now could influence reproductive health access for decades to come.

Birth control remains one of the most studied, safest, and most effective medical interventions for preventing unintended pregnancy. The threat to Title X funding could strip that protection from hundreds of thousands of people who rely on it most. While conversations about side effects are valid and necessary, decisions about contraception should be guided by scientific evidence not social media myths.

For now, millions of Americans wait to see if the courts will restore the federal program that has safeguarded reproductive autonomy for more than 50 years.

Cancer does not only target tumors, it often comes with a cataclysmic side effect called cachexia, a syndrome that induces extreme weight loss by removing muscle and fat. It strikes about one-third of cancer patients and contributes to most cancer deaths. Cachexia has until now been largely unmanageable, adding to the difficulties confronting patients and physicians. But new findings are illuminating this enigma—and the solution may be found in an unlikely location- the connection between the brain and liver.

Cachexia is not normal weight loss. It's a multifaceted metabolic syndrome that leads to rapid draining of the body's energy stores, resulting in muscle wasting and fat loss even when food intake is sufficient. Cachexia patients typically experience poorer responses to cancer therapies, reduced quality of life, and greatly compromised survival rates.

The biological basis of the syndrome has long been a mystery to scientists, but a joint effort between scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in the US has revealed an important part of the puzzle. The researchers, in a new study recently published in Cell, identify impaired communication on the brain-liver axis as a critical force behind cachexia.

What is The Critical Brain-Liver Connection?

At the core of this finding is the vagus nerve, a significant communications highway that connects the brain to most organs, including the liver. The vagus nerve is the key regulator of metabolism, hunger, and inflammation. Yet cancer-induced inflammation can disrupt this nerve's signals into dysfunction.

When the activity of the vagus nerve is interrupted, the metabolism of the liver is damaged. The body starts to metabolize its own muscle and fat reserves, resulting in cachexia's relentless weight loss.

What is striking about this discovery is the possibility of intervening. Dr. Naama Darzi and Dr. Aliesha Garrett and their research team discovered that selectively inhibiting signals along the right vagus nerve—using a procedure that is noninvasive and already approved for medical use—prevented cachexia from developing in mice. This treatment also enhanced their chemotherapy responsiveness and prolonged their lifespan.

The potential implications of this study are significant. Cachexia has long been a difficult disease to manage, and no widely successful treatments have been available. With the targeting of the brain-liver pathway, physicians could have a new means of keeping patients on their desired weight and muscle mass while undergoing cancer treatment. This would potentially enhance both their quality of life and treatment success.

As the nerve-blocking approach involves technologies that are already in clinical trials, opportunities for accelerated bench-to-bedside translation compared to conventional drug development time frames exist. The method presents a promising platform not only for cancer patients but also for other metabolic disorders in which organ communication fails.

The liver-brain link revealed in the cachexia study resonates with other recent research emphasizing the significance of organ communication in health and metabolism regulation. A Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania study, published in Science this week, showed how the internal clock of the liver communicates with the brain regarding feeding.

This study describes why those who work at night or dine at odd times usually experience metabolic issues like gain of weight and diabetes. The liver provides timing cues via the vagus nerve to the brain about whether meal times coincide with the body's inherent circadian oscillation. When this signaling is distorted—such as in nightshift workers—the brain overcorrects, resulting in excessive eating and metabolic derangement.

How Brain-Liver Discovery Affect Metabolic Disorders?

The similarities of these studies indicate that manipulating certain pathways in the vagus nerve may benefit a variety of individuals beyond cancer patients. In night workers, frequent travelers with jet lag, or anyone with non-traditional meal times, therapies that regulate liver-brain communication may decrease overeating and metabolic disease risk.

Future research aims to identify the exact chemical signals the liver sends to the vagus nerve. Understanding this dialogue in finer detail could open up targeted therapies for obesity, diabetes, and other chronic conditions linked to disrupted circadian rhythms.

The body is a network, not a collection of isolated parts. These studies highlight that health depends on how well our organs communicate, especially under stress like cancer or lifestyle disruptions.

For cancer patients, preventing cachexia by blocking brain-liver signaling is a significant breakthrough. It changes the emphasis from symptom treatment to addressing underlying causes. And for millions with metabolic disorders, it provides promise of new therapy based on the timing and communication of body processes.

Briefly, the brain-liver axis is becoming a strong target for enhancing health outcomes across a number of conditions. As clinical trials advance and our knowledge unfolds, this area of research may revolutionize the way we treat diseases associated with metabolism and weight.

Cachexia has been a dark cloud over cancer care, but finally, science is lighting the way. By shutting down aberrant brain-liver communication, scientists have opened a window to treatments that could save lives and enhance patients' quality of living with cancer.