instruction:
Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.
question:
Paragraph: No mention of the cost of treatment. This is important if the surgery is not a permanent fix for acute sinusitis. Repeated operations and continued medications need to be compared to cost for traditional surgery. No quantitative estimate of the benefits of the new procedure. There was a study of 10 people that found “no safety concerns”, but readers should be told more about this very small group. What were the long term outcomes and did these patients eventually have to have further sinuplasty, more invasive surgery or continue to take medications to relieve sinusitits? The story mentions that a larger, randomized trial is underway to better understand the risks and benefits of sinuplasty compared to medication and traditional sinus surgery. Mentions that more information is needed and no one knows if balloon sinuplasty works as well as the more traditional surgical option for chronic sinusitis. Mentions that general anesthesia is still needed for balloon procedure and this comes with its own set of health risks. There isn’t much evidence for the story to report. The story did stress the importance of a randomized trial underway comparing medication, traditional sinus surgery and the newer balloon sinuplasty. Story describes this trial and the need for further evidence before this new procedure can be widely recommended. Mentions that this procedure should not have been FDA approved with so little quality evidence. No evidence of disease mongering. The story mentions that this procedure would be for chronic, not acute sinunitis and describes how these are different. Good balance of information on treatment options with input from otolaryngologists not affliated with the makers of the device who are able to provide perspective on the new procedure. They mention that further study is needed. There is a note that one of the physicans studying the new sinuplasty has no financial ties to Acclarent, maker of the balloon devices used in this type of sinuplasty. Mentions that this form of sinuplasty is not for everybody and that it may not prevent the need for more comprehensive surgery in which bone and tissue are removed. There is mention of other options including medication and the more traditional surgery, which is decribed as highly effective, but with a painful recovery and side effects such as scar tissue. Quantification of the incidence of this and other side effects of traditional surgery would be useful. The story is clear that the FDA approved the device but that it still needs to undergo further study via randomized controlled trials. Story mentions that this is a new procedure only offerred by 100 doctors. This story is a blananced presentation of sinuplasty and the information here does not appear to be from a press release. The are quotes from otolaryngologists not affliated with the makers of the device who are able to provide perspective on the new sinuplasty procedure. Claim: A balloon instead of a knife: Sinuplasty for ailing sinuses
answer:
This story provides a good balance of information on a new treatment option for chronic sinusitis, and there is corroboration with otolaryngologists not affiliated with the makers of the balloon device who are able to provide perspective on the procedure. The story clearly notes this procedure would be for chronic, not acute sinusitis and describes how these are different. The story explains that this form of sinuplasty is not for everybody, and that it may not prevent the need for more comprehensive surgery in which bone and inflamed tissue are removed to open the sinus passages. More information is needed on the safety and efficacy of balloon sinuplasty, and no one knows if this surgery works as well as traditional surgery for chronic sinusitis. The story mentions other options for treating chronic sinusitis, including medication and sinus surgery, which is described as highly effective, but with a painful recovery and side effects such as scar tissue. Quantification of the incidence of side effects with traditional surgery would be useful. While there is not much quantitative evidence available on the new procedure, the story stresses the importance of a randomized trial underway comparing medication, traditional sinus surgery and the newer balloon sinuplasty. There is adequate description of this trial and the need for further evidence before this new procedure can be widely recommended. There is a caveat that this procedure should not have been FDA approved with so little quality evidence: a study of 10 people that found “no safety concerns”, but readers should be told more about this very small group. What were the long term outcomes and did these patients eventually have to undergo further sinuplasty, more invasive surgery or continue to take medications to relieve their chronic sinusitis? The story explains that general anesthesia is still needed for the balloon procedure and this comes with its own set of health risks and additional costs. There is no mention of the cost of this newer procedure. This is important information if the surgery is not a permanent fix for chronic sinusitis. A cost comparison of the newer sinuplasty, which may require repeated operations, sinus medications and traditional surgery is needed.


question:
Paragraph: "The cost of the drug wasn’t mentioned – a big oversight. Other news stories pegged it at about $35,000 a year. Adequate job. The story explained: ""But experts stress that Benlysta is not a miracle drug: It only worked in 35 percent of North American patients tested and was not effective for patients with the deadliest form of the disease. Additionally, it did not show positive results in African Americans, who are disproportionately affected by lupus."" There was no discussion of harms. An NPR story, by comparison, pointed out that ""There are side effects, of course, and some of them are pretty serious. In clinical tests involving about 2,100 people, 11 taking Benlysta died compared with 4 getting placebo. About 6 percent of people taking Benlysta got serious infections compared with 5.2 percent on placebo."" The story offered an interesting historical perspective on the evidence: ""The company originally tested Benlysta, known generically as belimumab, as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. When a mid-stage trial in lupus patients failed to meet researchers’ goals in 2006, many analysts wrote the drug off and downgraded the company’s stock. But when scientists reanalyzed the data they found that the drug helped block the antibodies that cause lupus symptoms in a subset of patients."" No disease mongering of lupus. Two independent sources were quoted. Not applicable. With no other new drug approved for lupus in 56 years, there’s not been much to compare it with. The story did state that some experts thought this ""could prompt development of other drugs that are even more effective in treating the debilitating immune system disorder."" The focus of the story is FDA approval of the new drug. The headline explains that the FDA approved the first new drug for lupus in 56 years. It’s clear the story did not rely solely on a news release." Claim: FDA approves first new drug for lupus in 56 years
answer:
"Good caveats, including in the patient profiled, who said, ""It’s a bittersweet thing for me because I have friends with lupus for whom this drug won’t work. There’s no one-size-fits-all for lupus and I’m just extremely fortunate that my lupus is mild and is helped by Benlysta."" The story should have discussed potential harms and costs. As the story explained, this was not only the first new lupus drug approved in 56 years, but it could be ""a milestone that medical experts say could prompt development of other drugs that are even more effective in treating the debilitating immune system disorder."""


question:
Paragraph: Doctors and investors alike have been anxious to see how the experimental combination of dolutegravir and lamivudine, also known as 3TC, would stack up against highly effective triple drugs championed by arch-rival Gilead Sciences. GSK’s majority-owned ViiV Healthcare unit, which is responsible for HIV medicine, had reported success from the two so-called GEMINI studies last month but details were only unveiled at the International AIDS Conference in Amsterdam. Pedro Cahn, a veteran HIV researcher from Argentina who led the GEMINI studies, said the results showed it was possible get the efficacy of three drugs in a two-drug regimen. After studying 1,400 patients for 48 weeks, researchers found 91 percent of patients taking dolutegravir and lamivudine had high levels of viral control versus 93 percent of those on three drugs. The difference was not statistically significant. Rates of virologic failure, or inability to control HIV, were consistent at no more than 1 percent across all groups and no patients developed drug resistance. Importantly, the results were also broadly consistent whether individuals had higher or lower starting levels of HIV in their blood, reassuring those who had worried the two-drug regimen might work less well in people with more virus. “This is a new option for treatment,” Cahn said. “The main reason for doing this is to reduce the amount of drug burden when patients are on life-long treatment.”  GSK is betting that a shift to using two drugs rather than three will boost its sales by offering patients a therapy with fewer potentially toxic side effects. A two-drug regimen should also be cheaper, since lamivudine is an off-patent generic. ViiV has set itself a goal of overtaking Gilead in the $26 billion-a-year HIV market by the mid-2020s - an ambitious target, since Gilead currently has a market share of 52 percent against GSK’s 22 percent. Linda-Gail Bekker, an HIV expert at the University of Cape Town, who was not involved in the studies, said two-drug treatment was attractive in principle. “Simplification of treatment is what people want to see, both to reduce costs and to reduce side effects,” she told Reuters. Nearly half of all HIV patients in the profitable markets of North America and Europe are now over 50 and are vulnerable to side effects from the drugs that keep them alive, making tolerability more important than in the past. But a key question remains the durability of the treatment, given that many patients will be on HIV medication for decades. So while some doctors will be assured by the 48-week data, others may want to see two- or three-year results. The central worry is the emergence of drug resistance. While no resistance was seen in the 48-week trials, there was a case in an earlier study, although GSK believes this was likely down to failure to take the drugs properly. Regulators are also investigating if dolutegravir might be linked to birth defects, although there is no evidence proving a connection at this stage. ViiV, in which Pfizer and Shionogi have small stakes, plans regulatory submissions for the two-drug combination later this year. If approved, the new combination is expected to be much more widely used than another GSK two-drug regimen called Juluca. Claim: GSK's two-drug HIV treatment proves itself in key tests.
answer:

GlaxoSmithKline’s simple two-drug treatment for HIV works as well as standard triple therapy, even in people with relatively high levels of the virus that causes AIDS, clinical study results presented on Tuesday showed.