TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: The story makes clear the “big unknown” remains the price and “how much people are willing to spend to cut a day or so off of a bout of flu.” The story reports that Genentech, the drug’s manufacturer, said it’s too early to comment on the drug’s U.S. price. The story also notes that in Japan, where the drug was invented, it “sells for the equivalent of about $43.50.” The story uses terms like “a little more than a day” and “nearly a day” and “substantially” to describe the drug’s reduction in flu symptoms, fever, and coughing and sneezing, respectively. It does not explain, as the news release does, that: “Similar efficacy results were seen between baloxavir marboxil and [Tamiflu] in relation to duration of symptoms and fever reduction.” In other words, on the symptom front, both drugs were the same. According to the news release, a difference was seen in the length of time the virus was shed from the body (presumably through coughing and sneezing): 24 hours for baloxavir marboxil verses 72 hours for Tamiflu. The news release also states that there was also a difference seen in the level of virus in the nose and throat, but it provides no precise numbers. It is not known whether this benefit translates into less infection transmission, and the story should have made that clear. The news release issued by Genentech about the FDA’s decision to grant priority review describes baloxavir marboxil’s most common side effects: diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea and sinusitis. The news release also states that overall incidence of adverse events seen in patients taking baloxavir marboxil were lower than those seen in both the placebo group and the group taking Tamiflu. The STAT News story does not mention any potential harms. This evidence comes from the randomized phase III Capstone-1 study the FDA will review, which included 1,436 people in the US and Japan. It excluded people older than 64. The news story does not note this exclusion, nor does it state a key problem with this study: It has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal (instead, a study abstract was released as part of ID Week 2017). This means the full data analysis has never been seen by anyone other than the researchers. We explained why this is important in February 2018, when we discussed news coverage of the drug’s approval in Japan. The 2017-2018 flu season was the worst the US had experienced in nearly a decade. The flu impacted the entire country, and was responsible for 172 pediatric deaths. The news article did not use these or any other flu-related statistics to increase fear about the flu and, in turn, the need for this medication. The article includes two sources: Mark Eisner, Genentech’s VP of product development for immunology, infectious diseases and ophthalmology and Richard Webby, head of the World Health Organization’s influenza collaborating center at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis. Eisner’s affiliation with Genentech, the drug’s manufacturer, is clearly noted. Webby does not appear to have any conflicts of interest. The article would have been stronger if it had included a third source who commented on what–if anything–is known about whether reducing the duration of symptoms leads to reduced levels of transmission that result in fewer people contracting the flu and fewer deaths. The story explains that the only other drug approved to treat the flu is Tamiflu, which is not widely used. The writer explains that both drugs need to be taken within 48 hours of symptom onset and that baloxavir marboxil is a single one-time dose, while Tamiflu must be taken twice daily for five days. It is clear from the story that the FDA is expected to decide by the end of the year whether to approve this new flu medication. The story explains that it’s been more than 20 years since a new class of flu drug has been developed and marketed. (It is available in Japan.) The catalyst for the story was a news release issued by Genentech about the FDA granting priority review of baloxavir marboxil, but the story does not use direct quotes from the news release.

SOLUTION: A flu drug — shown to reduce the duration of symptoms — could upend treatment in U.S.

PROBLEM: Collins, a Republican, introduced the proposal with Democratic Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith. It’s also designed to beef up prevention, diagnostics and treatment for tick-borne diseases, and it’s headed to the full Senate next. The proposal’s named the Kay Hagan Tick Act in honor of former Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina who died in October of complications from Powassan virus, a tick-borne infection. Cases of Lyme disease nearly doubled in Maine from 2010 to 2018. Collins describes the surge of tick-borne diseases as a “burgeoning public health crisis.” The proposal would require the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to develop a national strategy about the diseases.

SOLUTION: Collins bill to combat Lyme and other tick diseases moves on.

PROBLEM: There was no discussion of costs. Costs would include treating the double digit rates of incontinence and erectile dysfunction in these younger men who do have surgery. The surgery may help them live longer, but many, especially since younger at time of surgery, live decades with these potential harms and folllowup costs of the surgical choice. This should get at least a line in such stories. While describing some of the differences observed in general terms without quantification, the story provided absolute percentage of men dying from prostate cancer in the two study groups. The story then went on to explain that the difference was in the men who were less 65 years of age at the time of diagnosis. The story would have been better if it had more clearly explained this important caveat about the benefit seen. The potential harms associated with various approaches to treating prostate cancer as well as the increased risk of prostate cancer progression and death seen in the cohort of men who followed the watchful waiting approach were discussed. The story did a laudable job of providing information about the study reported on including the fact that the results most recently published basically expand the timeframe of followup on these men which have previously been published. It provided insight about the number of men involved in the study, how their prostate cancer was detected and that the men had been randomly assigned to their treatment group. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Two clinicians who were not involved in the study provided quotes which were used in the story. The story included a list of the commonly available treatment options for early stage prostate cancer. But we must give an unsatisfactory score because the story included a factually incorrect statement indicating that watchful waiting is synonymous with active surveillance. It is not. The story went on to misinform readers by indicating “watchful waiting is often recommended when a man is not expected to die of the cancer” by failing to complete the thought by explaining that the reason they are not expected to die of the cancer is because their advanced age makes it unlikely that the cancer will have sufficient time to progress to lethality OR because they have other diseases from which they are likely to succumb before there is time for the prostate cancer to be deadly. An important caveat about how the prostate cancer in the study differed from the way in which prostate cancer is most commonly detected today in the US was explained. The story provided a reasonable view of the novelty of the treatment options detailed in the study along with the critically important caveat that the majority of the men in the study had their prostate cancer first detected at a later state than is seen with the current screening practices in the US. The story did not rely on a news release.

SOLUTION:
Aggressive Treatment May Be Beneficial for Early Prostate Cancer