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.

[Q]: Paragraph: Researchers around the world are working to develop potential treatments or vaccines against the respiratory disease that has killed nearly 47,000 people and infected almost a million in just a few months. A team at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in the United States said they were able to move quickly in developing a potential COVID-19 vaccine after working on other coronaviruses that cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). “These two viruses, which are closely related to SARS-CoV-2 (the new coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic), teach us that a particular protein, called a spike protein, is important for inducing immunity against the virus,” said Andrea Gambotto, an associate professor at Pittsburgh. “We knew exactly where to fight this new virus.”  When tested in mice, the prototype vaccine - which the researchers have called PittCoVacc - generated what they described as “a surge of antibodies” against the new coronavirus  within two weeks. The Pittsburgh researchers cautioned that because the animals have not been tracked for very long as yet, it is too early to say whether and for how long the immune response against COVID-19 lasts. But they said that in comparable tests in mice with their MERS experimental vaccine, a sufficient level of antibodies was produced to neutralize the virus for at least a year. So far, the antibody levels of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated animals seem to be following the same trend, they said in peer-reviewed study in the journal EBioMedicine. The team said they hope to start testing the vaccine candidate on people in clinical trials in the next few months. The potential vaccine uses a needle patch design, called a microneedle array, to increase its potential potency. This array is a fingertip-sized patch of 400 tiny needles made out of sugar and the spike protein, Gambotto explained. It is designed to deliver the spike protein pieces into the skin, where the immune reaction is strongest. Claim: Potential COVID-19 vaccine shows promise in mouse study.
[A]: Initial tests in mice of a potential COVID-19 vaccine delivered via a fingertip-sized patch have shown it can induce an immune response against the new coronavirus at levels that might prevent infection, U.S. scientists said on Thursday.


[Q]: Paragraph: This release makes no mention of the costs of the drugs compared in this study, even though the drugs have been in use for years and are widely available. Since the study is a comparison of various treatments for this form of cancer, it seems relevant to offer a cost comparison as well as a comparison of efficacy. It appears that the high dose methotrexate is given over a 24-hour period, presumably in the hospital, while the standard methotrexate is given as a single dose. Also, the high dose methotrexate is followed by leucovorin administration while the standard dose is not. According to the site GoodRx, the cost for methotrexate in low-dose (2.5 mg) pill form averages out to about $50 for a month’s supply. Newer, injectable variations of the drug cost upwards of $500 a month for the 25 mg dose. The release states that patients receiving high doses of the drug methotrexate “had a significantly better outcome, by 5 to 6 percent” than did patients receiving the current standard of care, which is gradually escalating doses of the drug. The release also explains that patients nine years old or younger who were also treated with a steroid called decadron (dexamethasone) for half as long as normal (14 versus 28 days) benefited from the treatment while patients 10 and older did not. We’re not sure of the meaning behind these results as portrayed in the release. Which outcome was better by 5 or 6 percent? The study has several. Does that mean the relapse rate was reduced or is it the event free survival that was better? It would be more meaningful to readers if the release had included the actual relapse and event free survival rates for each group analyzed in terms most people can understand. For example: “relapse rates were 5 percent lower in Group X compared to Group Y.” We’ll give this category a satisfactory rating largely due to the release including information that patients 10 and older receiving dexamethasone “were at much higher risk for a debilitating bone condition called osteonecrosis,” although we would have been happier if that greater risk would have been quantified. However, the published study explains that there were toxicity problems beyond that of dexamethasone and the release would have been stronger including that information as well. The release stated the study was randomized and controlled, and provides a broad overview of the study design, for which we give the release a borderline satisfactory under this criteria. However, these are the superficial results. On deeper delving into the study methodology, the statistical significances of the results were very close to not statistically significant. This is due to their planned interim stopping of the treatment and the fact that they were looking at multiple outcomes in multiple groups. This release doesn’t demonstrate disease-mongering. While the release does say that this clinical trial was run by the Children’s Oncology Group, which is funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health, it makes no mention of possible conflicts of interest. Compounding that is the fact that the published study says, “Disclosures provided by the authors are available with this article at www.jco.org,” but that information is behind the journal’s paywall for most readers, so it’s unknown if there is, or is not, a conflict. It appears as though five of the authors (out of a total of about 20) have some conflicts of interest, mostly from several types of drug company payments. The release is comparing the efficacy of treatment regimens using different drugs so alternative treatments for B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia are noted. The release makes clear at the end that the treatment of this disease is improving thanks to refinement of the use of existing drug treatments, meaning that they are readily available for patient use. The release suggests the study findings could change the way childhood leukemia is treated. Modifying existing treatments to enhance a patient’s survival is certainly novel enough to warrant a release. There is no use of unjustifiable language in this release. However, the tone may be a bit overly optimistic given the study findings. Claim: Relapses of childhood leukemia improve with high doses of common chemo drug
[A]: This release reports the findings of a large clinical trial testing whether alternative dosing regimens of standard chemotherapeutic drugs can improve the treatment of B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The study showed that using high doses of the drug methotrexate, rather than the standard regimen of gradually increasing doses, improved the outcomes for patients with the disease. The study also showed that using the steroid dexamethasone increased a debilitating bone condition in patients 10 and older but not in patients nine or younger. While the study results are promising, they are by no means clear-cut in the release. The release needed some qualifiers in order to give a clear picture of the benefits. The release also neglected to discuss costs and potential conflicts of interest among the investigators. This form of cancer — B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia — is the most common cancer in children and a major cause of cancer death in patients under 40 years old. And while the majority of patients survive with appropriate treatment, anywhere from one-fifth to one-quarter of patients do not. This study showed that refining the dosing of standard cancer drugs may improve the outcome for some high-risk patients.


[Q]: Paragraph: The preliminary settlement announced on Monday, which requires court approval, would resolve many claims arising from tainted steroid injections linked to New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc of Framingham, Massachusetts. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least 64 people died and 751 were sickened in 20 U.S. states by injections of methylprednisolone acetate, a drug typically used to ease back pain. The outbreak occurred after NECC shipped tainted vials of the steroid to medical facilities throughout the United States. NECC filed for bankruptcy protection December 21, 2012, two months after shutting down as the outbreak began. Thomas Sobol, a partner at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro representing a plaintiffs’ steering committee, called the accord “a big step forward in getting justice for victims.”  Kristen Johnson Parker, another Hagens Berman partner, in a phone interview said, “All victims of the NECC tragedy should be able to share in the funds.”  NECC’s owners, bankruptcy trustee Paul Moore and lawyers for a committee of unsecured NECC creditors also confirmed the settlement in a joint statement. The owners denied liability or wrongdoing. Settlement funds are expected to come from the owners, insurers, tax refunds and proceeds from the sale of a related business. “We are pleased that a significant amount of funds will become available for distribution to victims and their families as compensation for the deaths, injuries and suffering they endured as a result of this tragic meningitis outbreak,” said Moore, a partner at Duane Morris. The accord requires final documentation and does not cover claims against various clinics that sold the tainted steroid or various vendors used by NECC. According to NECC’s bankruptcy filing, the company’s equity shareholders were Carla Conigliaro with a 55 percent stake, Barry Cadden and Lisa Conigliaro Cadden each with a 17.5 percent stake, and Gregory Conigliaro with a 10 percent stake. A lawyer for the owners did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The case is In re: New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Massachusetts, No. 12-19882. Claim: Settlement reached over deadly U.S. meningitis outbreak.
[A]:
Owners and insurers of a now-bankrupt Massachusetts pharmacy linked to a deadly meningitis outbreak have agreed to pay more than $100 million to compensate victims, families of victims and creditors.