The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will convene an outside advisory panel July 23-24 to consider whether compounding pharmacies should be allowed to manufacture seven popular peptide injections, the agency announced April 15-16. The compounds under review include BPC-157, KPV, TB-500, MOTS‑c, emideltide, semax and epitalon; another meeting is planned before February 2027 to assess additional peptides. The substances were among nearly 20 peptides placed on a restricted list in 2023 amid concerns about immunogenicity, toxicity, impurities and potential organ risks and cancer, and because most lack robust human safety and efficacy data. The move follows public advocacy by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has said he uses and supports peptide access, and has prompted warnings from former FDA officials and scientists that loosening rules without stronger clinical evidence could undermine drug-safety standards. Proponents say regulated access could reduce a thriving gray market and improve quality control.

A team of about 50 researchers led by Paul Verweij at Radboud University Medical Center has warned of a "silent surge" in drug-resistant fungi in a Nature Medicine paper published April 2026. The researchers — from 16 organisations worldwide — say resistance is rising in pathogens including Candida auris, azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus and Trichophyton indotineae. They argue that resistance often originates in the environment, driven in part by widespread agricultural use of fungicides chemically related to medical azoles, and can spread long distances via airborne spores. People with weakened immunity, such as ICU patients, transplant recipients and cancer patients, face the greatest risk; Candida auris bloodstream infections can carry high mortality. The authors set out a five-step plan calling for increased awareness, strengthened surveillance, improved infection prevention and control, optimized antifungal use, and investments in diagnostics and new drugs. They urge the inclusion of antifungal resistance in the 2026 Global Action Plan on AMR and stress the need for coordinated One Health policies linking agriculture, environment and clinical practice.

A preprint analysis and Reuters report this week found that Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide, while producing larger average weight loss than Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide, was linked with greater losses of lean body mass. The Massachusetts data‑analytics firm nference analysed roughly 1,800 tirzepatide users and about 6,200 semaglutide users, finding tirzepatide associated with an average 1.1% greater lean mass loss at three months and about 2.0% more after 12 months. The preprint categorised a “depletive GLP‑1 metabotype” (>20% total weight loss and >5% lean mass loss) in 10.3% of tirzepatide patients versus 6.7% on semaglutide in the first year. Higher doses, longer treatment and baseline musculoskeletal pain correlated with greater lean mass decline for both drugs. Separately, U.S. prescription data for the week ending April 10 show Eli Lilly’s newly approved oral weight‑loss pill Foundayo had about 1,390 prescriptions versus more than 113,000 for Novo’s Wegovy pill in the same period. Market commentary and investor notes circulated April 16–17 highlighted potential competitive and access implications as the two companies press in the global GLP‑1 market.

Belgian biopharmaceutical group UCB said on April 17 it will acquire U.S.-based Neurona Therapeutics for $650 million upfront and up to $500 million in milestone payments, valuing the deal at as much as $1.15 billion. The acquisition, expected to close by the end of the second quarter of 2026, adds Neurona’s clinical-stage cell therapy NRTX-1001 — a pluripotent stem cell‑derived GABAergic interneuron therapy in Phase I/II trials for drug‑resistant mesial temporal lobe epilepsy — to UCB’s neurology portfolio. UCB said the transaction will not change its 2026 revenue guidance but expects adjusted EBITDA to grow in the high-single-digit to mid‑teens percentage range. Neurona’s backers include Fidelity and Schroders Capital; the startup previously raised significant private funding to advance its regenerative medicine programme. UCB described the move as a strategic expansion into advanced therapies aimed at durable, targeted repair of the nervous system for hard‑to‑treat seizure disorders.

New analyses and recent American Cancer Society reports show colorectal cancer deaths are rising among younger Americans and are concentrated among people with less formal education. ACS researchers, using government death records, examined more than 101,000 colorectal cancer deaths in people aged 25–49 from 1994–2023 and found the death rate in that group rose from about 3 to 4 per 100,000. Increases were almost entirely among those without a four‑year college degree: rates for people with only a high school diploma rose from roughly 4 to 5.2 per 100,000, while rates for those with at least a bachelor’s degree stayed near 2.7 per 100,000. Separate national death‑certificate analyses reported similar education gradients. Colorectal cancer has become the leading cancer killer for Americans under 50; incidence in younger adults has been climbing for years. Experts point to disparities in screening, later diagnosis, obesity, diet, physical inactivity and access to care as likely contributors. Researchers also caution that changes in how education is recorded on death certificates and lack of linked clinical data limit firm conclusions about causes.

About one in four U.S. adults — roughly 66 million people — reported using an artificial intelligence tool or chatbot for physical or mental health information or advice, according to a West Health–Gallup Center survey of more than 5,500 adults conducted Oct.–Dec. 2025 and released in mid-April 2026. Most users turn to AI for quick answers or additional information: 71% cited speed or extra research, 67% said they were curious, and many use AI before (59%) or after (56%) seeing a clinician. A substantial minority cited access and cost barriers: 42% wanted help outside normal hours, 27% did not want to pay for a doctor’s visit and 14% said they could not afford one. While 84% of recent AI health users still saw a provider, 14% reported not seeing a clinician they otherwise would have after receiving AI guidance — an estimated 14 million adults. Trust in AI health information is split roughly evenly: about one-third trust it, one-third neither trust nor distrust it and one-third distrust it; only 4% say they strongly trust AI accuracy, and roughly 11% reported encountering advice they judged unsafe.