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.

"The story says that the average copayment for a month’s supply of some of the topical NSAID medications is around $30. It would have been nice to include the cost of comparable oral medications. Although the story explains the available evidence comparing topical NSAIDs to oral pain relievers, highlights the limited number of direct comparisons, and carefully states the general consensus of experts, all of this solid reporting is undermined by a focus on personal anecdotal evidence over quantifiable benefits. Indeed, the reporter claims one medication provided immediate relief, a statement at odds with clinical trials that conclude that it usually takes hours for patients to feel the pain-relief effects of topical NSAIDs. The story summarizes the reported side effects of topical NSAIDS. What’s more, the reporter points out that the potential risks in people who have other health problems or are taking other drugs have not been well studied. That insight is something we see too rarely. The story refers to a number of clinical trials and systematic reviews of the evidence. It highlights areas where evidence is lacking or inconclusive. It would have been helpful to point out that in placebo-controlled trials, almost as many people who received the placebo reported pain relief as did those who got the active medication. The story could have mentioned that the systematic review it referred to was published by the Cochrane Collaboration and also the sources of the other clinical trial reports, so that interested readers could more easily locate the original articles. The story does not exaggerate the common pains these drugs are intended to treat, but the personal anecdotes and opinions highlighted at the beginning and ending of the story are unrepresentative of the typical experiences reported by participants in clinical trials and create a powerful impression that is at odds with the evidence. The story includes quotes from several experts and points out that two of them have accepted consulting fees or research support from pharmaceutical companies. The essence of this story is an attempt to compare topical NSAIDs with pills and other pain treatments. As noted above, though, the story does not mention that most people with minor pains feel better after awhile even if they don’t take any pain relief medication. It also should have mentioned that the difference between placebo and active treatment groups in the clinical trials is often slim. The story reports that only three topical NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) are approved for sale with a prescription in the United States, while several brands are sold over the counter in Europe. Part of the focus of the story is that NSAIDS have been around for a long time but only recently are being given a more serious scientific reassessment. As the story says, ""But a number of new controlled trials and meta-analyses like Dr. Moore’s suggest that topical Nsaids are as effective as their oral counterparts for treating osteoarthritis in the knee and hand as well as musculoskeletal injuries like soreness and tendinitis."" The story includes several experts and mentions multiple studies."
Topical Gel Catches Up With Pills for Relief

"The annual effort to raise public awareness about the environment and inspire actions to clean it up marks its 41st anniversary on Friday, coinciding with the Christian Good Friday and Judaism’s celebration of Passover. In an effort dubbed ""A Billion Acts of Green,"" organizers are encouraging people to observe Earth Day 2011 by pledging online at act.earthday.org/ to do something small but sustainable in their own lives to improve the planet's health -- from switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs to reducing the use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals. “Millions of people doing small, individual acts can add up to real change,” said Chad Chitwood, a spokesman for the umbrella group coordinating efforts. There will be hundreds of rallies, workshops and other events around the United States, where Earth Day was born, and hundreds more overseas, where it is now celebrated in 192 countries. In the United States the activities range from the premiere of the new film from the director of “Who Killed the Electric Car?” (it’s called “Revenge of the Electric Car”) at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York to a discussion about creating a green economy in 12 cities along the Gulf Coast, where this time last year residents were reeling from the effects of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In the years since the first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970 the environmentalist movement made great strides with passage of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and other groundbreaking laws. But the bipartisanship that marked the birth of Earth Day — it was sponsored in Congress by a Wisconsin Democrat named Gaylord Nelson and a California Republican named Pete McCloskey — is often missing in discussions about environmental policy today. Efforts to fight climate change by regulating greenhouse gases, for instance, face fierce resistance from many Republicans and members of the business community, who dispute the science supporting global warming and warn new rules to regulate emissions will kill jobs and raise energy costs."
"Earth Day organizers call for ""a billion acts of green""."

The pill is widely considered the most important experimental medicine in Lilly’s pipeline, and its shares rose nearly 3 percent on the news. A priority review means the Food and Drug Administration likely will decide within six months whether to approve the drug, known generically as prasugrel, rather than the usual 10- to 12-month review period. If approved, the drug would compete with Plavix, a blockbuster drug sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co (BMY.N) and Sanofi-Aventis (SASY.PA). “Getting priority review is a positive. Not getting it would have raised some caution,” said Tim Anderson, an analyst for Sanford Bernstein. Anderson, who said he was surprised by the decision, said he still believes the drug will have to go before an advisory panel of experts before the FDA makes its decision. Mixed data on prasugrel were unveiled in November from a study of heart patients slated to receive stents — tiny tubes that prop open coronary arteries after they have been cleared of plaque. In that study, prasugrel was 19 percent more effective than Plavix in preventing cardiovascular death, nonfatal heart attacks and strokes, but caused a significantly higher amount of serious bleeding. The companies filed their application for prasugrel on Dec. 26. If approved, Lilly said the drug’s brand name would be Effient. Shares of Eli Lilly rose 2.9 percent, or $1.43, to $51.25 in after-hours trading following the news. They had closed at $49.82 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Lilly Anti-Clotting Drug Gets U.S. Priority Review.