Consumer News: Energy drinks could make alcohol feel safer than it is

Modernas new shot showed stronger protection than a standard vaccine, while additional research is still underway in older adults

• The FDA approved Modernas mFlusiva for adults ages 50 and older, making it the first mRNA-based seasonal flu vaccine approved in the U.S.

• In a Phase 3 trial of more than 40,000 adults, the vaccine reduced the risk of confirmed influenza-like illness by 26.6% compared with a standard-dose flu vaccine.

• Adults 65 and older received accelerated approval, meaning Moderna must conduct additional research to confirm the vaccines clinical benefit in this age group.

The FDA has approved Modernas mFlusiva, also known as mRNA-1010, for preventing influenza caused by the virus strains included in the vaccine. The approval covers adults ages 50 and older, although the FDA used two different approval pathways depending on age.

Adults ages 50 to 64 received traditional approval based on clinical efficacy data. For adults 65 and older, the vaccine received accelerated approval based largely on immune-response data, along with supporting efficacy findings. That means additional research will be required to confirm its clinical benefit in this older population.

"The FDA approval of mFLUSIVA, our fourth approved product in the United States and the first mRNA-based flu vaccine, demonstrates the continued strength and versatility of our mRNA platform," Stphane Bancel, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna, said in a news release.

"Flu remains a significant public health challenge, and mFLUSIVA provides an important new option for America's seniors. This approval also reflects the ongoing potential of our mRNA platform to help address important public health challenges through continued scientific innovation. We are grateful to the clinical trial participants, investigators, regulators, and Moderna teams whose contributions made this milestone possible."

How researchers tested it

The main Phase 3 study included 40,805 adults at 301 sites across 11 countries. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single injection of mRNA-1010 or a standard-dose flu vaccine. Researchers followed them through the influenza season, for roughly six to eight months.

Researchers looked specifically for influenza-like illness confirmed by RT-PCR testing. During the 2024-2025 Northern Hemisphere flu season, 968 cases were recorded more than the 836 cases researchers had expected to need for the study. That allowed the primary analysis to be completed after one flu season.

For adults 65 and older, another Phase 3 study compared mRNA-1010 with Fluzone High-Dose and measured antibody responses to four influenza strains.

What the results mean

Among adults 50 and older, mFlusiva had a relative vaccine efficacy of 26.6% compared with the standard-dose vaccine. In other words, people receiving mFlusiva had a lower risk of the specific influenza-like illness measured in the study than those receiving the comparison vaccine.

The FDA also found that mFlusiva produced stronger immune responses than Fluzone High-Dose against all four vaccine-matched strains in adults 65 and older. However, the agency noted remaining uncertainty around protection against one strain, B/Victoria, and how the vaccine will perform across different flu seasons.

The vaccine's side effects were generally mild to moderate and lasted a median of two days, although reactions were reported more often than with the comparison vaccines. The FDA found no safety concerns in an integrated safety population of 35,965 adults ages 50 and older.

For people 65 and older, the story isn't quite finished: Moderna is required to conduct a large Phase 4 study designed to verify the vaccine's clinical benefit under real-world conditions.

The smart way to save money when cooking at home

• 31% of Americans are cooking at home more to save money, but eating in only saves if you shop and plan wisely.

• Maximize savings by meal planning, using versatile ingredients, comparing unit prices, and freezing leftovers.

• Avoid budget killers like food waste, impulse buys, overbuying in bulk, and assuming homemade is always cheaper.

Sticker shock at the grocery store is changing the way Americans eat.

A new survey of 2,000 U.S. adults found that nearly one-third (31%) say they're cooking at home more often than they were a year ago, largely to stretch their food budgets.

The trend comes as grocery prices remain significantly higher than they were just a few years ago, forcing many families to rethink how they shop, cook, and reduce food waste.

But simply eating at home doesn't automatically lower your grocery bill.

The biggest savings come from planning meals around ingredients you'll use multiple times, minimizing waste, and avoiding common shopping mistakes that can erase any potential savings.

Five ways to save more when cooking at home

• Build meals around versatile ingredients. Potatoes, eggs, rice, pasta, and beans are inexpensive pantry staples that can be used in breakfasts, lunches, and dinners. The more meals you get from the same ingredients, the lower your overall food costs.

• Plan your meals before shopping. Creating a simple weekly meal plan helps prevent impulse purchases and ensures ingredients get used before they spoil. One rotisserie chicken, for example, can become tacos, soup, and sandwiches over several days.

• Compare unit prices. Don't assume the largest package is always the best deal. Check the shelf tag's price per ounce or pound to find the true bargain.

• Freeze leftovers before they go bad. Bread, cooked meats, rice, shredded cheese, and many vegetables freeze well. Freezing food before it's forgotten is one of the easiest ways to reduce waste.

• Shop your pantry first. Before heading to the store, see what ingredients you already have. Building meals around food that's already in your kitchen can reduce duplicate purchases and keep perfectly good food out of the trash.

When cooking at home doesn't save you money

Cooking at home is usually less expensive than dining out, but it can easily become more costly if you're not careful. Here are some ways that the cost of cooking at home can add up.

• Buying ingredients for a single recipe. Specialty spices, sauces, and produce that you'll only use once can make one homemade meal surprisingly expensive. Instead, try to choose recipes that share ingredients across multiple meals.

• Throwing away food. Food waste is one of the biggest budget killers. Fresh produce, dairy products, and leftovers are frequently discarded because they weren't used in time.

• Buying more than you need. Warehouse clubs and bulk purchases only save money if you actually consume the food before it expires. Otherwise, those savings disappear.

• Paying for convenience. Pre-cut vegetables, marinated meats, meal kits, and individually packaged snacks often cost significantly more than preparing the same foods yourself.

• Shopping without a plan. Wandering the grocery store without a list often leads to impulse buys, duplicate purchases, and ingredients that never get used.

• Assuming homemade is always cheaper. Grocery store prepared meals, warehouse club rotisserie chickens, and family meal deals can sometimes cost less than buying every ingredient from scratch especially for one- or two-person households. Compare the total cost before assuming homemade is the better bargain.

Chrysler, Mack, and Escape Trailers are part of this week's recall roundup

New research suggests the best GLP-1 treatment could depend on a persons individual metabolic health needs

• A new analysis found that different GLP-1 medications and doses can have different effects on weight, blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol.

• Higher-dose treatments generally showed broader improvements across multiple measures of cardiometabolic health.

• The findings could eventually help doctors choose GLP-1 treatments based on a patients individual health goals not just weight loss.

GLP-1 medications have become closely associated with weight loss, but their effects can extend beyond the number on the scale. New research suggests that different GLP-1 drugs and doses may offer different advantages when it comes to other measures of heart and metabolic health.

Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, Yale School of Medicine, and UT Southwestern Medical Center analyzed data from 19 randomized controlled trials involving 13,117 adults with overweight or obesity. They compared oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists to see how they performed across several measures of cardiometabolic health.

The researchers say the findings could eventually support a more personalized approach to choosing these medications. Rather than there being one GLP-1 treatment that is considered best for everyone, the choice could depend partly on which health outcomes are most important for an individual patient.

We hope that clinicians are encouraged by this study to take a more comprehensive and individual approach to treatment selection, senior author Yong Chen, PhD, said in a news release.

For patients, the key message is that there may not be a single best GLP-1 therapy for everyone, and it all could really depend on what their individual goals and needs are.

How researchers compared the medications

For the analysis, researchers searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials published between January 2014 and November 2025. The studies evaluated three GLP-1 receptor agonists semaglutide, liraglutide, and orforglipron in adults with overweight or obesity, both with and without type 2 diabetes.

The researchers created a measure called the Cardiometabolic Efficacy Index, or CEI, to compare the treatments. The index ranges from 0 to 1, with higher scores representing a stronger overall performance across seven measures: body-weight reduction, waist circumference, HbA1c, systolic blood pressure, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol.

The analysis used a network meta-analysis, allowing researchers to compare treatments using evidence from multiple trials. The researchers also looked separately at the individual measures included in the CEI.

Different drugs showed different strengths

Semaglutide at 7.2 milligrams had the highest overall CEI, at 0.86. It was followed by orforglipron at 36 milligrams, with a CEI of 0.68, and semaglutide at 2.4 milligrams, with a score of 0.66. All three produced placebo-adjusted weight reductions of at least 10% on average.

But the overall rankings don't tell the whole story. Orforglipron showed stronger effects on blood sugar control, HDL cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure, while semaglutide showed larger effects on body weight, waist circumference, and LDL cholesterol.

The study also found that oral GLP-1 treatments could perform competitively with injectable options. Among adults without type 2 diabetes, orforglipron 36 milligrams had a CEI of 0.67, compared with 0.63 for oral semaglutide at 25 milligrams.

For consumers, the findings don't mean one medication should automatically be chosen over another. The researchers note that the CEI measures relative performance across several risk factors and does not establish differences in actual cardiovascular outcomes.

As obesity treatment becomes increasingly personalized, clinicians are often choosing among several highly effective therapies rather than deciding whether to treat at all, co-author Yuan Lu said in the release.

Considering blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose control together could be key to aligning with each patients overall, individualized cardiometabolic profile.