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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: The story devotes its second paragraph to cost, including how that cost may differ depending on whether patients have insurance. Well done. This is a really close one. The story does a lot of things well here. It notes that, in one trial, there was no difference in the benefits between Xofluza and existing flu treatment drug oseltamivir (better known as Tamiflu). However, it does not actually quantify the benefits associated with Xofluza. Instead, the story states that it “may alleviate some symptoms and shorten the time patients feel sick.” We approve of the cautious language used throughout the story, but we like to see quantified benefits in instances where the information is available. In this case, an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in September reported that Xofluza reduced the “time to alleviation of symptoms” by a mean of 25-38 hours, compared to placebo (the difference depended on the age group of the patient). Ergo, a not satisfactory rating here. The story addresses this issue head on, earning it a solid satisfactory rating from us. One point that would have made it even stronger would have been to note that the company selling Xofluza warns that pregnant women and nursing mothers may want to avoid the drug, as it is not known whether the drug may harm the fetus or if it would pass into breastmilk for nursing mothers. The story does a good job of describing the supporting evidence clearly and concisely. No disease mongering here. In fact, the story provides good context on the risks posed by influenza. The story incorporates input from two sources at the FDA, but the information appears to stem from an FDA statement. Information from pharmaceutical companies is clearly marked, but we really look for news stories to incorporate input from independent sources — beyond what may be available in a news release. The story addresses the similarities (and differences) to other drugs that address flu symptoms, particularly oseltamivir (Tamiflu). The story notes that Xofluza has received FDA approval. As noted above, the drugs similarities and differences to existing pharmaceutical treatment options was laid out clearly. The news peg here was FDA’s approval of the drug, which is also made clear. The work goes well beyond what you would find in any news release. We particularly applaud the story’s discussion of viruses developing resistance to antiviral drugs. Claim: F.D.A. Approves New Drug for Flu

Answer: This story is one of two we are reviewing that focuses on FDA’s approval of a drug designed to speed patient recovery from flu symptoms (the second story is from ABC News). The drug is baloxavir marboxil, marketed under the trade name Xofluza. This New York Times story hits most of the points that we want to see in a story about a new drug. The criteria that we use at HealthNewsReview.org to review health-related news stories were not developed in a vacuum. Rather, these are the criteria we feel are essential to allow patients and health care providers to make informed decisions about diagnosis and treatment options. While we do ding it on a couple things, the story does not exaggerate the findings, and provides people with the fundamental details they need to be informed patients. We were especially pleased that this story did not perpetuate misinformation that’s developed around this drug — that is, that it could help reduce transmission of the virus. To date, there is no evidence to show that as a benefit.


Question: Paragraph: The significant costs of both drugs were mentioned. Nice job. Good job describing the benefits reported in the two drug studies. The two papers present a bewildering array of statistics. This story did a nice job distilling the information into a couple of very understandable sentences. Good job explaining signifcant potential harms of both drugs – something competitors didn’t do at all. Nice job, including linking (in the online version) to the papers in the New England Journal of Medicine. No disease-mongering of melanoma. Several independent sources cited. The story adequately explained the comparisons between both new drugs and the older dacarbazine chemo drug. Vemurafenib was described as experimental and as “expected to be approved by the FDA within a few months.”  Ipilimumab was explained to be approved in March and already on the market. The relative novelty of both drugs was well explained. It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Drugs Show Promise Slowing Advanced Melanoma

Answer: The story made strong, clear attempts to report in a restrained manner, using terms/phrases such as:  “notable progress” “do not cure” “might add two to several moths to expected lifespans” “To be sure, more than half of patients with metastatic melanoma would not be helped all that much by either drug.”   Stories about cancer – perhaps especially melanoma because of its treatment challenges – should balance promise with realistic context. This story did a better job of that than the competitors’ efforts we reviewed.


Question: Paragraph: Officials in Malaysia, as elsewhere, had initially rejected the use of the serology test kits, which can show the presence of antibodies in people who have been infected. Like other countries, it instead chose polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, laboratory tests, which detect the presence of the novel coronavirus itself and are seen as more reliable. But as the number of suspected cases needing testing has risen, the turnaround time for laboratory test results had increased from around 6 hours to as many as two days or more, the director-general of health Noor Hisham Abdullah told reporters. Malaysia reported 170 new coronavirus cases on Tuesday, taking the total to nearly 5,000 infections, the second-highest in Southeast Asia, with 82 deaths. It had done nearly 82,000 PCR tests as of Monday and reported over 8,000 pending lab results earlier this month, before it stopped publishing backlog data. To reduce the testing backlog, the close contacts of people infected will now receive the antibody tests at the end of their 14-day mandatory quarantine period. “On the 13th day, we will use the antibody or serology tests... and if it comes back positive, then we will carry out the PCR test again,” Noor Hisham said. “But if the antibody test comes back negative, then you’re in the clear. This is how we are trying to reduce the number of PCR lab tests.”  A person who tested negative can then be discharged from quarantine, freeing up state resources used to monitor them, but they would still be required to self-isolate under movement curbs imposed by the government until April 28 to limit the virus’ spread. Countries hope antibody tests may one day help them to ease movement curbs by identifying people who may have acquired immunity, but it is not yet clear if that is possible. Some doctors had been calling for Malaysia to use new rapid test kits - both antibody and antigen - to widen testing and reduce the backlog of cases, but like other countries, it has been awaiting trial results. A shortage of laboratory testing supplies and difficulty in procuring them have made it hard to ramp up capacity. Malaysia last week warned of a shortage of reagents, a chemical used in diagnostic tests to detect the presence of the coronavirus. Noor Hisham on Tuesday also warned that the country was running low on personal protective equipment (PPEs) for health workers, with supplies of some items expected to last just another 19 days. Claim: Malaysia turns to coronavirus antibody tests to supplement laboratory checks.

Answer:
Malaysian authorities have begun using COVID-19 antibody rapid tests kits to supplement laboratory tests as the number of cases in the country grows, a senior health official said on Tuesday.