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 release, while loaded with information about the research, fails to mention costs related to this new approach at any point. This is in spite of the fact that the paper provides what’s necessary to fulfill this criterion. The study authors wrote: “The easy access to the tumor site, the absence of the need for surgical removal of the tissue containing the T cells, the numbers of cells obtained with the harvest, and the ability to expand products in all patients with a relatively short process at a reasonable cost contrast sharply with several limitations of TIL ACT” (a current therapeutic approach to the disease). The release does a good job of spelling out the results of this phase 1 trial by providing data showing that MILs can target and kill cancer cells. It shows that in more than half of the study’s patients, their cancers had shrunk by at least half. In 15 of the 22 patients, their cancers did not progress for nearly a year after the MILs therapy. This wasn’t a controlled study, so it’s unclear how these patients would have fared without the MILs treatment, and the release could have attempted to provide some insight on that point. But we’re pleased that the release focuses appropriately on the apparent safety of the approach, rather than trying to make claims about survival benefits that aren’t supportable by this kind of small, uncontrolled study. The release also explains that the research provides information suggesting which patients might benefit best from this approach, and that other research at this cancer center is centered on testing this approach on different forms of cancer. We’ll give this criterion a satisfactory rating since the release specifically spells out, “None of the participants had serious side effects from the MILs therapy.” However, the study is really too small, and the time span too short, to comment substantively on the possible harms that might be seen if and when the treatment is more widely used. The research paper actually makes the point that the new procedure doesn’t require the “surgical removal of tissue,” and the procedure can be done at bedside rather than an operating suite. But the removal of cells from the bone marrow is still an invasive procedure that carries its own risk of infection or other problems. The release would have benefited from at least mentioning this aspect. The release makes a very good effort to objectively describe a technically complicated trial. It defines the trial at least twice as being “small” and calls it a “pilot,” suggesting that caution is appropriate when considering the results. It effectively explains the process involved in the treatments, including what was learned regarding the growth of cells in the lab after harvesting. It also points to the fact that while tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) can only be retrieved from a quarter of the patient candidates for this technique, MILs were obtained from all of the patients in this study, suggesting that they may be a better tool for this therapy. Describing multiple myeloma as “the second most common cancer originating in the blood” doesn’t add much to our understanding of this disease. However, other statistics provide context regarding the scope of the problem in the United States. We’ll give it a pass. The funding sources for this research are listed in an end note in the release. No conflict of interest information is provided in the release, although the research paper discloses no conflicts. The release does mention that other forms of this adoptive T cell therapy use different cells, suggesting that other approaches are possible. The release also notes, “Three days before the injections of expanded MILs, patients received high doses of chemotherapy and a stem cell transplant, standard treatments for multiple myeloma.” The release points out that “several U.S. cancer centers have conducted similar experimental treatments” but adds that Johns Hopkins is the only one using the MIL cells. It also points to several other ongoing clinical trials at Hopkins that build on the findings of this small study. Using the terms “pilot” and “experimental,” the release signals that availability is very limited. We like the fact that the headline itself defines this as a “pilot” clinical trial and that the lede says that it is “what is believed to be the first small clinical trial of its kind.”  Those kinds of qualifiers both declare the specifics of the research and also provide informative caveats, allowing the reader to gauge how much credence to give to the findings. All too many other medical releases fail to provide this measured approach. This release is conservative throughout in its choice of language in describing this research which, based on its findings, might be ripe for exaggeration.
Pilot clinical trial finds injected immune cells safe in multiple myeloma patients

Luke Miels, who joined GSK in September 2017 after a contract dispute with his former employer AstraZeneca, said picking the most promising projects and developing them quickly now takes precedence over spreading the risk of failure. “In the past, 10 programs were chosen, a budget for eight was allocated. Usually what happened was that time was the trade off that was made,” he said in an interview. “Now what we do is we pick five or six programs, and concentrate investment there.”   GSK, like rivals, was in the habit of testing new drugs first on patients who had run out of other treatment options. If successful, it would try patients at an earlier stage of their disease, replacing older, established treatments. In today’s market, where rivals in the United States and China catch up fast if a new class of drug shows promise, GSK has to run costly drug tests on humans in several settings at the same time, even if it means dropping other drug candidates. “Rather than do things sequentially, you do them in parallel, or as close to parallel as possible,” Miels said. GSK, which is battling to return to profit growth, has taken this approach for instance with an experimental drug that for now goes by the code name of GSK’916 against multiple myeloma, a common and incurable type of blood cancer. Likewise, GSK doubled down on its quest to bring a drug known as GSK’165 to market as a rheumatoid arthritis treatment, even after initial results in a mid-stage drug trial did not show a clear enough reading. “This drug has very interesting effects on pain. That could potentially reduce the use of opioids and pain meds,” Miels said. More trials will be run to make the pain argument more clearly, he added. GSK expects a decline of 5%-9% in adjusted earnings per share this year, excluding exchange rate moves, as it suffers from generic competition to its inhalable lung drug Advair and pressure from rival Gilead in HIV treatments. Miels said a tougher stance on drug prices by U.S. lawmakers and medical insurers was one of the reasons for the need for speed in bringing drugs to market - to try to remain ahead of competitors for as long as possible. At the same time, rapid growth in the Chinese market was spurring a more sophisticated healthcare system there, with local biotech groups quick to catch up with Western pioneers in drug development, producing similar drugs for their home market.
GSK pharma head flags need for speed in high-pressure drug market.

Wearing an army cap and saluting from his wheelchair, Piveta left the Armed Forces Hospital in Brasilia to an ovation from medical staff and a soldier’s trumpet homage. “Winning this battle was for me bigger than winning the war,” he said of his fight against an invisible enemy. “In war you kill or live. Here you have to fight to live,” he added. Piveta was a second lieutenant in the Brazilian Army forces during World War Two and served in Africa. He tested positive for the coronavirus two weeks ago and spent two days in the hospital’s intensive care ward after he developed pneumonia. But he never needed a ventilator and recovered due to his good physical shape derived from life in the military and longevity that runs in his family, the hospital’s director said. Piveta’s release from hospital was a bright moment in an otherwise darkening scenario as the epidemic hit Brazil with force this week. The coronavirus has infected 25,262 people and killed 1,532 people, the health ministry said on Tuesday, with 204 deaths just in the last 24 hours.

'Bigger than winning the war': WWII vet, aged 99, survives coronavirus in Brazil.