Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

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.
Relapses of childhood leukemia improve with high doses of common chemo drug

Baldwin, one of the Senate’s most liberal members, beat Vukmir, a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, by double digits, based on unofficial results. Baldwin won a number of counties that Trump took in 2016 when he narrowly carried Wisconsin by less than 1 point. Baldwin said in her victory speech Tuesday that her win sends a “loud and clear message” that people in Wisconsin want a senator who will stand up for them against special interests. Baldwin was an early target for outside conservative groups that spent millions attacking her over the summer. But Baldwin outraised Vukmir 5-to-1 and blanketed the airwaves with ads contrasting her support for the Affordable Care Act with votes Vukmir made in the state Legislature in favor of insurance companies. “Democrats, Republicans and independents sent a loud and clear message tonight that they wanted a senator who works not for the special interests, but someone who works for you,” Baldwin said in her victory speech. Vukmir campaigned as the underdog and urged Republicans who supported Trump to surprise the pollsters like they did in 2016. But Democrats came through for Baldwin in a race that marked the first time in Wisconsin history both major party candidates for U.S. Senate were women. Baldwin had recent history on her side: In the last three midterm elections, no incumbent Wisconsin senator from the party not in the White House lost a re-election bid. Baldwin, 56, won her first local race at age 24 and was elected to the Senate in 2012, beating former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson, in a year when former President Barack Obama was also on the ballot. Baldwin was the first openly gay person elected to the Senate. Baldwin and Vukmir disagreed on every major issue including health care, immigration, taxes, abortion, national security, gun control and criminal justice. Stephenie Hamen, a 42-year-old artist from Sun Prairie, said she voted for Baldwin, in part as a vote for women’s rights and a vote against Trump. “I don’t know if it was to vent (against the president),” she said. “It’s a way to stand up for women as Americans and be heard. It’s a scary time to be a woman in America. No matter what (Trump) says about being a white man in America, it’s scarier for women and minorities. If the Republicans stay in power, we’re writing a check for that party to do whatever they want. If we continue down that path we have no idea what’s coming next.” While Baldwin campaigned with former President Barack Obama and independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vukmir rallied with Trump and forcefully supported his Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh. Baldwin voted against his confirmation. Baldwin is a supporter of Sanders’ “Medicare for All” bill and ran as a defender of the Affordable Care Act. Baldwin cast Vukmir, a nurse, as the potential deciding vote to repeal the law and its guarantees of insurance for people with pre-existing conditions. Vukmir, 60, focused on Baldwin’s handling of the opioid over-prescription crisis at the Tomah Veterans Affairs Medical Center, saying her inaction let veterans down. But the widow and parents of a veteran who died there has come out in support of Baldwin, cutting television ads to help her and undercutting Vukmir’s criticism. Baldwin recounted the story of her childhood illness that made her an advocate for universal health coverage, while also speaking in detail for the first time about her mother’s struggles with mental illness and prescription drug abuse. Baldwin said that has fueled her fight against opioid abuse. ___ Follow Scott Bauer on Twitter: https://twitter.com/sbauerAP ___ For AP’s complete coverage of the U.S. midterm elections: http://apne.ws/APPolitics
Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Baldwin cruises to second term.

"Cost data for flibanserin is not provided. Some projection of cost should be available for any drug this far along in Phase III trials – and for which the company has already begun marketing campaigns. If not from the company, then from stock analysts. The story properly quantifies the reported benefits in absolute terms which allows the reader to see that they are small. (Results are described in Quality of Evidence comments.) In an interview a study researcher conceded that the absolute number of women reporting benefit was not large. The story provided statistics on common side effects including daytime sleepiness, dizziness, fatigue, anxiety, dry mouth, nausea and insomnia. These side effects resulted in 15% of those taking flibanserin vs 7% taking placebo withdrawing from the study. The story does a good job of presenting and evaluating the available evidence. Results are presented in absolute terms, for example that just under one third of women taking flibanserin reported improvement in sexual distress/desire compared to approximately one fifth of women taking placebo. In contrast, these results were presented in relative terms by the manufacturer. Except for the headline, "" ‘Female Viagra’ May Treat Low Sexual Desire"", this story avoids disease mongering and notes that ""hypoactive sexual desire disorder"" in women is a controversial diagnosis. The text clarifies that while the popular press is dubbing flibanserin as the ""female Viagra"", it is not similar to Viagra or other drugs to treat erectile dysfunction. Conflicts of interest are disclosed. The story noted that the study researcher interviewed is a paid consultant for the drug manufacturer. An alternative point of view is provided by two independent experts, a psychologist and a sex-therapist. The independent sources comment on the role that personal relationships play in sexual desire and experience which was not addressed or acknowledged by the researchers. The story indicates that an alternative drug called the Intrinsa testosterone patch is available in Europe, but not in the U.S. The story also notes a difference between these dugs; Intrinsa is a hormonal treatment compared to flibanserin which is a non-hormonal. The story indirectly informs that reader that flibanserin is not available by noting that it is in phase III clinical trials and that the manufacturer is seeking FDA approval (despite early direct to consumer marketing campaigns). The story makes it fairly clear that this is a new treatment – also for a new and controversial diagnosis. The story was apparently based on research presented in abstract form at the annual clinical meeting of the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, although this information has not been published in independently, peer-referred scientific journals. There is no direct evidence that it relied largely on a news release. In fact, the use of interviews with independent experts makes it clear that independent reporting took place."

‘Female Viagra’ May Treat Low Sexual Desire