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.

Q: The country went into a 21-day lockdown on Wednesday, and experts have said it faces a tidal wave of infections if rigorous steps are not taken to keep the virus in check. India's public health care infrastructure is poor and it suffers from an acute shortage of medical staff, who will generally see many patients over a short period. Some doctors in temporary residences had been forcefully evicted by their landlords over infection fears, the Resident Doctor's Association of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in New Delhi said. "(They) are now stranded on the roads with all their luggage, nowhere to go, across the country," the association - which represents 2,500 doctors - said in a letter to the federal home minister on Tuesday, urging the government to intervene. Late on Tuesday India's Health Minister Harsh Vardhan, himself a doctor, said on Twitter he was "deeply anguished" to see reports of doctors being ostracized in residential complexes, adding that precautions were being taken to ensure health care workers were not carriers of the infection. A home ministry spokeswoman said the Delhi state administration had issued orders saying penal action would be taken against those evicting doctors. She did not comment on the situation in other states. India, a country of 1.3 billion, has recorded 539 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and nine deaths. It has just one doctor for every 1,404 people, the government said in February, significantly below the World Health Organization's norm of one per 1,000. The AIIMS association's president, Adarsh Pratap Singh, said three doctors in New Delhi and around 15 in the southern city of Hyderabad had already faced issues with their accommodation. He did not have estimates of how many have been impacted overall. "People are not accepting them... The morale of doctors is down because of this, a stigma is being created due to lack of awareness of coronavirus," he told Reuters on Wednesday. Airline staff have faced similar problems, with state-run carrier Air India and private airline IndiGo saying there had been instances of employees being ostracized from their communities.

A: Indian doctors evicted over coronavirus transmission fears: medical body.
****
Q: "Costs and the cost-effectiveness of this strategy are not discussed. Any discussion of a preventive strategy should include comments on cost. Avandia and metformin, at the doses used in the study, cost about $195 a month, according to drugstore.com. We get absolute benefits, relative benefits, and the all-important number needed to treat (NNT). Very nice. While harms weren't quantified, the story provided a good amount of detail, context, and caveat about the safety of this regimen. We get many important details about the study: the number of patients, the enrollment criteria, randomization, placebo control, half doses, and the length of follow-up. It also describes some limitations of the study, such as its inability to detect rare adverse events due to its size. It's an important caveat, particularly with a cardiovascular cloud hanging over rosiglitazone. The author also points to the editorial's observation that the approach didn't affect the problems in the pancreas that underly diabetes and which must be addressed by such a strategy. The author is very specific about the thresholds for the patient population, and who was considered at high risk to progress to diabetes. We note that it was judiciously limited in its use of the term ""prevention."" Props to the author for citing theeditorialwritten by two independent expertsand published in the same issue of the Lancet. This article selects several of their many cogent comments. Ideally, another independent source outside the publication would've been consulted, too. The story describes how GSK has a dog in this fight, funding the study and manufacturing Avandia. The story also provides the institutional affiliations of Zinman and the two editorialists. While it's probably covered in the GSK funding source, we'll point out that several investigators had other financial ties to GSK, too. The article talks about the effectiveness of lifestyle changes and the challenge of implementing them. It also reviews the barriers to using full-dose rosi because of adverse events. It's clear Avandia and metformin are currently available. We're told of similar prior studies and the novelty of attempting a low-dose regimen to block progression. We don't see evidence that the article relied on any news releases."

A: Low-dose combination of Avandia and metformin decreases progression to diabetes by two-thirds with few side effects
****
Q: Although it is not known how much abaloparatide will cost at this stage, the article does discussthe costof its would-be competitor, Forteo, which costs about $2,500 a month for those without insurance. The story does agoodjob discussingthe quantitative evidence from the study. (The few missteps, which are actually quite critical in their nature, were related to a not-entirely-adequate grasp of the study design. This we discuss in detail in a separate criterion, Quality of Evidence, below.) The story discusses several measures by which the effectiveness of abaloparatide was compared to the placebo (and Forteo), including the number of spine fractures, the number of other types of fractures, and the number of cases of hypercalcemia. And it does so using actual numbers. For example: "Fewer women on the injectable drug abaloparatide had spine fractures (0.58 percent) than women receiving a placebo (4.22 percent)" The story lists nausea and heart palpitations among the serious side effects of both abaloparatide and Forteo. The story contains a subtle misunderstandingof the study design that leads it to misinterpret the quantitative evidence for abaloparatide and Forteo. The study's presentation of the quantitative results suggest that the figures can be directly juxtaposed for the two drugs, when this is not actually the case. Toward the end of the research article on which the story is based, we have the following statement: "Comparison of abaloparatide vs teriparatide [Forteo] for the primaryefficacy end point [cases of spine fractures] was not part of the study objectivesbecause the study would have required a sample size of approximately22,000 per treatment group to provide 90% powerto detect the treatment difference between abaloparatide (observedrate, 0.58%) and teriparatide (observed rate, 0.84%)based on our study results." This effectivelymeans that comparing the 0.58% observed rate of spine fractures under abaloparatide and the 0.84% rate under Forteo, is, quite simply put, rather meaningless. The clinical trial study was never powered to discover a significant difference between the two, i.e. the study was not designed to be able to detect any meaningful difference. Indeed, the statements by Dr. Caroline Messer, interviewed in the story, and the research article's accompanying editorial, partly reprinted at the end of the story, both emphasize that this research study does not in fact compare abaloparatide directly to Forteo. Another minor point is that Forteo had to be injected via its trademarked injection pen in the study, rather than subcutaneously as was done with abaloparatide and the placebo. This obviously has implications for the blinded nature of the study. While an ideal clinical trial is double-blinded, in this case both patients and doctors knew when Forteo was being administered. The story shares the fact that "A study based on 2010 U.S. Census data estimated that more than 3 million women between the ages of 50 and 69 have osteoporosis. A 60-year-old woman has a 44 percent lifetime risk of fracture due to low bone density." An explanation of the term "lifetime risk" would be helpful to the reader. (In this setting, it meansthe probability of experiencing a fracture during the remaining years of life. In fact, the figure reported is really a "residual lifetime risk.") Now for a slight tangent: It is great that the story chose to report an absolute risk here rather than a relative risk. This is a point we at HealthNewsReview.org try to hammer home. In a 2007 article in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Nguyen et. al. in their article titled "Residual lifetime risk of fractures in women and men" had the following comment on relative versus absolute risk: Communication of risk in the osteoporosis field has traditionally relied on the concept of relative risk. However, relative risk can be misleading to patients and clinicians,(42) because the interpretation of a relative risk or its change is highly dependent on the baseline risk. For instance, doubling a minor risk is still minor, but doubling a common risk is alarming. It is therefore desirable that individuals who have BMD measurements be informed about their fracture probability risk category instead of their relative scores. (4) The lifetime risk estimates from this study provide such a means for communication of risk to an individual patient. Dr. Caroline Messer of the Center for Pituitary and Neuroendocrine Disorders at Lenox Hill Hospital was interviewed as an independent source. She correctly pointed out that a head-to-head trial directly comparing Forteo and abaloparatide is needed in the next step of research. The story also discloses that the research study wasfunded by the maker of abaloparatide, Radius Health. However, the story doesn'tpoint out that the study author (whom they quote extensively) also serves on a Radius Health Advisory Board. The story describes Forteo, the current dominant drug on the market for treating low bone mineral density. But see Quality of Evidence section above for how this could have been done better. The story states that abaloparatide is currently in a Phase 3 trial stage. The story does not make clear the novelty of abaloparatide, and seems to focus rather on the similarities between it and Forteo. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.

A:
Injected Drug May Help Fight Osteoporosis in Women
****