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.

[EX Q]: "Costs and the cost-effectiveness of this strategy are not discussed. Any discussion of a preventive strategy should include comments on cost. Avandia and metformin, at the doses used in the study, cost about $195 a month, according to drugstore.com. We get absolute benefits, relative benefits, and the all-important number needed to treat (NNT). Very nice. While harms weren’t quantified, the story provided a good amount of detail, context, and caveat about the safety of this regimen. We get many important details about the study: the number of patients, the enrollment criteria, randomization, placebo control, half doses, and the length of follow-up. It also describes some limitations of the study, such as its inability to detect rare adverse events due to its size. It’s an important caveat, particularly with a cardiovascular cloud hanging over rosiglitazone. The author also points to the editorial’s observation that the approach didn’t affect the problems in the pancreas that underly diabetes and which must be addressed by such a strategy. The author is very specific about the thresholds for the patient population, and who was considered at high risk to progress to diabetes. We note that it was judiciously limited in its use of the term ""prevention."" Props to the author for citing the editorial written by two independent experts and published in the same issue of the Lancet. This article selects several of their many cogent comments. Ideally, another independent source outside the publication would’ve been consulted, too. The story describes how GSK has a dog in this fight, funding the study and manufacturing Avandia. The story also provides the institutional affiliations of Zinman and the two editorialists. While it’s probably covered in the GSK funding source, we’ll point out that several investigators had other financial ties to GSK, too. The article talks about the effectiveness of lifestyle changes and the challenge of implementing them. It also reviews the barriers to using full-dose rosi because of adverse events. It’s clear Avandia and metformin are currently available. We’re told of similar prior studies and the novelty of attempting a low-dose regimen to block progression. We don’t see evidence that the article relied on any news releases."
[EX A]: Low-dose combination of Avandia and metformin decreases progression to diabetes by two-thirds with few side effects

[EX Q]: "The story says gum costs ""a few pennies."" The study itself puts the cost at 4 cents per stick. The report does a good job of handling the statistics, with proper caveats. The story reports: The story does include a comment from a physician who warns that someone chewing gum after surgery may swallow air, which can create problems. The story explains that the findings come from an analysis of five studies, alluding to the fact that this was a meta-analysis. The story could have given a line about the quality of such evidence. The story does not exaggerate the complications following colon surgery. The story is based on a credible meta-analysis published in a top-shelf journal. The report includes comments from both a study co-author and a skeptical independent expert. The independent expert interviewed offers an alternative to chewing gum to speed recovery–introducing liquids and then foods after surgery. He also recommends avoiding the use of pain killers to speed recovery time. The availability of sugarless chewing gum is not in dispute. The story makes no claims for the novelty of the treatment. By indicating the meta-analysis is based on five previous studies, the article implies it’s been used before. The story does not draw excessively from the press release."
[EX A]: Study: You can chew gum and get well at same time

[EX Q]: Although the article notes that current desensitization efforts involving time-consuming immune system drug infusions to stifle rejection antibodies add up to $30,000 to the cost of a transplant, it does not make any estimate of the cost of the enzyme infusion that was the subject of the “novel” approach described in the new study. Based on later comments, it is presumed to cost about $65,000. The story does an adequate job of noting the actual numbers of patients in the study group, the absolute number that were able to have a successful transplant and the absolute number who later had a rejection episode that required standard anti-rejection therapy. Although the article makes clear the patients were “successfully treated” if sensitizing antibodies returned, it does not give any information about side effects, from the enzyme infusion nor the anti-rejection drugs subsequently used. To its credit, the article does emphasize that the long-term value of the new therapy is open to question and that far more work needs to be done to answer questions about quality, safety, efficacy and cost. The article tells us little about the people who participated in the clinical trial, such as type and duration of previous disease treatment, age, gender, race, co-morbidities, insurance status and so on. Nor will the reader get a really clear idea of how healthy–or ill–patients have done on other desensitization protocols overall and in the long term. No mongering here. The article duly discloses that the study was conducted or somehow supported by Hansa Medical, the maker of the enzyme infusion, and quotes at least two experts not involved in the study itself. The story mentions the existence of other desensitization efforts. But it could have done a much better job of comparing such efforts and their likely impact to programs designed to increase the supply of tissue matched organs and to suppress rejection of donor organs. The article makes clear that the only way for patients to receive the experimental therapy at present is through a clinical trial, although it does not say where such trials are taking place or recruiting patients. The article makes it clear that this treatment is novel, but could have been much strengthened if it had explained more of the biology of the enzyme and the way it was developed. One of the experts quoted was clearly astonished enough at the effects of the enzyme that he would consider it a “game changer” if further studies verify its impact. But just why the enzyme works is not clearly explained. Hansa Medical issued a news release pursuant to publication of the study results in the New England Journal of Medicine, but the story clearly goes beyond the release.
[EX A]:
Novel Procedure Improves Kidney Transplant Success