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: “Even though the majority of strokes and heart attacks occur in people who are 65 and older, studies have found that cholesterol-lowering drugs are not prescribed as often for older people as they are for younger people,” Dr. Seemant Chaturvedi of Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, said in a statement. “These results show that using these drugs is just as beneficial for people who are over 65 as they are for younger people.”   In April, British researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that treating high blood pressure in people 80 and older cut their risk of fatal strokes and other heart problems. Statins cut the risk of heart attack or stroke by lowering levels of fatty substances such as low-density lipoprotein, or “bad” cholesterol, and triglycerides. They also raise levels of high-density lipoprotein or “good” cholesterol. They include atorvastatin, made by Pfizer Inc under the brand name Lipitor; pravastatin or Pravachol, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb; fluvastatin, made by Novartis AG under the brand name Lescol, and several others. Seemant and colleagues studied 4,731 people 18 and older who had a recent stroke or a mini-stroke as part of a study sponsored by Pfizer. About half were over 65, with an average age of 72. The other half were under 65 and had an average age of 54. In each age group, about half were taking Lipitor and the other half were on a placebo. The statin worked equally well in both groups, the researchers reported in the journal Neurology. It lowered LDL cholesterol by about 61 points in the group of older patients and by about 59 points in the younger age group. Stroke is the No. 3 killer in the United States behind heart disease and cancer. The U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention estimate 780,000 Americans will have strokes this year. They will kill 150,000 people and permanently disable 15 percent to 30 percent of survivors. Claim: Statins fight stroke in older people too.
[A]: Older people who have had a stroke or mini-stroke benefit from cholesterol-lowering statin drugs just as much as younger people do, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday.


[Q]: Paragraph: The European Medicines Agency had already restricted the use of Protelos - also known as Osseor or strontium ranelate - last April but its pharmacovigilance committee said on Friday the drug should no longer be used to treat osteoporosis at all. The move follows an analysis which found that for every 1,000 patient-years there were four more cases of serious heart problems, including heart attacks, and four more cases of blood clots among patients taking the drug than those on placebo. The recommendation will now be sent to the agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, which is expected to issue a final opinion at its January 20-23 meeting. Claim: EU panel recommends suspension of risky bone disease drug.
[A]: European regulators have recommended suspending a popular bone-building drug made by unlisted French firm Servier because of the risk of serious heart problems and blood clots.


[Q]: Paragraph: While absolute costs of the new drug are not given, the story does tell readers that older, cheaper drugs are less than 20 cents a day, which is 10 times less than the cost of the newer drug. The story provides absolute rates of death, heart attack, or stroke in those taking Actos and in those taking placebo or other diabetes drugs. We applaud the reporter for using absolute -not relative – rates. Not all potential harms associated with Actos are mentioned. Heart failure is one harm and is mentioned. Yet, no absolute data is provided about how often heart failure occurs or how serious it may be. There are also other harms that are not mentioned at all. The article tells readers the findings are based on a review of pooled results from 19 studies that compared the drug to either placebo, or sugar pill, or other diabetes drugs. The article also mentions the study was funded by the drug manufacturer. There is very little information about diabetes given, but one key point is mentioned–that heart attacks are a leading cause of death in people with diabetes. This fact provides context to the discussion of risks and benefits of these newer drugs. Although more background info could have been provided about diabetes itself, there is nothing misstated or embellished. The story obtains multiple sources of information, including from at least one source not connected with the research. The story mentions at least one drug alternative (metformin) to the newer drugs, but fails to mention others. The story also fails to mention lifestyle interventions, such as diet, exercise, and weight loss to help control blood sugar and other risk factors for diabetes complications. The article describes that the diabetes drug studied (Actos or pioglitazone) has been around and used by more than 7 million people since its introduction in 1999. The story tells readers Actos is part of a newer class drugs and tells readers this drug has been on the market since 1999. The story obtains quotes from sources not linked to the research and so it does not appear that this relies solely on a press release. Claim: Analysis weighs benefits, risks of Actos
[A]:
A recent analysis suggests a newer diabetes drug, Actos, may lower risk of death, heart attack, or stroke compared to taking a sugar pill or other types of diabetes drugs. But despite the findings, the story makes it clear that many experts consider these newer types of drugs as second line therapy, due to their higher risk of heart failure and higher costs compared to older drugs that are also effective. The story even includes a quote telling readers that no one is suggesting taking these newer drugs to reduce chance of death, heart attack, or stroke; rather, the analysis was undertaken in an attempt to further understand risk-benefit trade-offs of Actos, particularly in light of recent safety concerns about another drug in the same family (rosiglitazone). The story met most criteria, including describing the type of evidence, costs, availability and novely of the drug, quantifying benefits, and obtaining independent input, or at least describing potential conflicts of interest of sources of information. The story could have been improved with a further discussion of potential harms of treatment (such as quantifying risk of heart failure) and by fully discussing alternate treatment options, including diet, exercise, and weight loss to manage risk factors for diabetes complications.