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: A panel of Food and Drug Administration advisers voted unanimously in favor of Amgen’s version of AbbVie’s Humira, a biotech drug that raked in nearly $15 billion last year, according to IMS Health. While not binding, the recommendation likely paves the way for FDA approval of the knockoff drug. For years, biotech drugs faced no competition because there was no regulatory way to approve copycat versions, even after patents had expired. If approved, Amgen’s drug would join a new wave of so-called biosimilars, which have the potential to generate billions in savings for U.S. insurers, doctors and patients. But it could take years for those savings to arrive. Evercore ISI analyst Mark Schoenebaum says the earliest Amgen could launch its product would be March 2017, though that would risk infringing patents which Abbvie says protect its drug until at least 2022. Wall Street analysts expect the patent issue to be fought in court, and then for Amgen’s drug to launch sometime between 2018 and 2022. First approved in 2002, Humira has long been among the most profitable drugs in the world. It accounted for 60 percent of Abbvie’s total revenue last year. The injectable drug, which blocks chemicals linked to inflammation, is approved for multiple uses, including rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease and psoriasis. Thousand Oaks, Calif-based Amgen is seeking FDA approval to market its version, known only as ABP 501, for seven diseases. Amgen is itself a biotech powerhouse, and it too has medications facing competition from cheaper versions. The company is working to hedge those loses by developing lower-cost versions of competitors’ drugs. Biotech drugs are powerful, injected medicines produced in living cells that are typically much more expensive than traditional, chemical-based drugs. In 2015, six of the 10 top-selling medicines globally were biotech drugs, with more than $56 billion in combined sales. The FDA only approved the first lower-cost biotech drug last March, a Novartis version of the Amgen drug Neupogen. Pfizer won approval to market a second biosimilar in April, a version of Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade, but it is not yet for sale. Questions remain about just how much savings U.S. biosimilars will deliver. Novartis’ Zarxio sells for 15 percent less than the original Neupogen. Experts predict biosimilar discounts of 15 percent to 30 percent in the U.S. In Europe, where governments regulate prices, discounts are higher. Development of lower-cost anti-inflammatory drugs like Humira is considered pivotal in reducing U.S. spending on specialty drugs, which has doubled to $150 billion since 2010, according to IMS Health. On Wednesday, the same panel of FDA advisers will review a Novartis version of Enbrel, which is marketed by Amgen. Claim: Lower-cost biotech drug gets thumbs up from FDA panel.

Answer: The second-biggest selling drug in the world could get some cheaper competition in the U.S., after a federal panel endorsed an alternative version of the pricey medication used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases.


Question: Paragraph: Employees of Novartis Pharma K.K. (NPKK) transferred some data from research centers to a Tokyo hospital when that data should have been sent directly without first passing through Novartis hands, according to a report by Japanese broadcaster NHK that was picked up by the Wall Street Journal. “NPKK is currently investigating the allegations,” Novartis said in a statement. The data was from a not yet fully enrolled 55-patient trial testing the Novartis cancer drug Tasigna, the company said. “Novartis Pharma K.K. is aware of the media report regarding a small investigator-initiated clinical study ... conducted to assess side effects in patients with chronic myelocytic leukemia,” Novartis said in a statement. “NPKK has conducted employee trainings on proper protocol related to investigator-initiated clinical studies and believes that any involvement of our medical representatives in investigator-initiated clinical studies is inappropriate.”  The University of Tokyo Hospital said it was re-examining test results it had received but had uncovered no evidence that Novartis employees had manipulated any of the data during the transfers, according to the Wall Street Journal report. Claim: Novartis employees may have violated trial protocol in Japan.

Answer: Swiss drugmaker Novartis said on Friday it was looking into a report that employees of is Japanese unit may have violated clinical trial protocol by handling data from a small independent study of one of its cancer drugs.


Question: Paragraph: "No cost was discussed. Benefits were described but only in relative terms. Half of what? A third of what? We wish absolute data were provided. Potential  harms were listed but not quantified. How often do they occur? The radio piece didn’t give much information on how the studies were done – and therefore, not much on the quality of the evidence. But the NPR online piece at least offered direct links to both studies and to an editorial – something often overlooked by many news organizations covering studies in journals. For that reason, we give this a satisfactory grade. There was no disease mongering. The story used one independent expert source in addition to interviewing one of the study authors. For a short radio and web piece, the story did a good job of comparing the new drugs with injections (through the story of a patient’s experience) and mentioning the problems with another MS drug Tysbari and mentioning another new oral MS drug that may be approved soon. The story was clear that the drugs in question are not yet on the market and that ""federal regulators may go slowly with the two new drugs."" The story appropriately addressed the novelty of the oral drugs – and added something the AP and LA Times stories did not – about approval of another new oral MS drug that may occur soon. The story clearly did not rely on a news release." Claim: MS Patients May Soon Bypass Painful Injections

Answer:
The online story (we listened to the radio version as well) did some nice things that other stories didn’t do – including providing a direct link to an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine – when many news organizations surprisingly fail to refer to accompanying editorials when they do appear. This story was a nice little example of how a short radio piece and web article can provide appropriate context on a research story.