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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The story does not talk about costs, which was disappointing. The costs of intensive medical therapy can easily be identified. Using an online pharmacy we calculated the costs to be about $1,500 to $2,000 annually for medical therapy, using generic drugs. Using the Health CareBlue Book, we found the average cost of coronary artery bypass sugery and hospitalization to be about $62,000. We think that this is important information for readers that should have been included. The quantification here was presented in such a way to make it clear to readers that there was no significant benefit found to surgical intervention, which is a fair conclusion to draw from the study. The story says, "In the Stich study, 41% of patients assigned to treatment with drugs alone died during the follow-up period, which averaged five years. That compared with a mortality rate of 36% among patients who received bypass surgery plus medication. Although the relative reduction in risk of death was 14%, the result didn't meet tests for statistical significance, meaning it could have resulted from chance alone."That's a great way to describe the lack of statistical significance. It would have been even more powerful to show readers the actual number of patients who died in each group. The story provides great information about the study itself and about the overall state of the evidence supporting heart surgery. "How best to treat these patients has been fraught with uncertainty," is one of the more notable phrases from the story. It also says, "Many patients aren't evaluated for heart surgery to treat diseased arteries because they don't suffer classic chest pain or because doctors worry that hearts weakened by heart failure won't benefit from the procedure. Other doctors recommend immediate bypass surgery despite a lack of vigorous studies to support that strategy." The story does not engage in disease-mongering and takes a very careful approach to describing the types of patients who would be affected by this study's results. We also like the way they provided snapshots of patients who were in both arms of the study surgery and non-surgery at the end of the story, making it clear, as the study did, that both routes can be equally successful. The story brings in some strong independent voices who help make sense of this complicated study: James Fang, a cardiologist at University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, Raymond Gibbons, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic, and Clyde Yancy, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine. Rarely do you see a story that spends as much time with independent experts as it does with the authors of the study. The story does a great job showing how the standard interventions for heart disease stacked up against each other in this study. We wish that some mention had been made of diet and exercise and that at least a sentence had been included about whether there might be differences in outcomes seen as a result of different medication patterns. The story doesn't make it clear what exactly the patients were taking. The story makes it clear that the range of treatments studied by the authors are widely available. The story makes it clear that there is a great need for more evidence in this field and that this study will be surprising to many clinicians because of a long-held assumption that surgery is the superior option. tudies published in the early 1990s supported the view that bypass surgery provided a better long term outcome. The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: More Options Before Bypass Surgery, Study Finds

Output: The piece gave readers some powerful information to help them sort through the range of factors that should be considered for any medical intervention. The only weakness our reviewers found with the story is the lack of comment about cost. Too often stories present medical options as false choices of best versus worst. They don't take into consideration the very real differences between patients' medical histories, diagnoses and expectations. This story should be applauded for giving readers a clear understanding of the complexities of shared decision-making between providers and patients. As noted by one of the experts quoted in the story, "You don't have a good therapy and a bad therapy, you have a choice." This is a message that the story gets across very well and is an important one for readers.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: A GlaxoSmithKline logo is seen outside one of its buildings in west London, February 6, 2008. REUTERS/Toby Melville The GlaxoSmithKline Plc vaccine Rotarix fights infection with the rotavirus, which causes about 55,000 hospitalizations in U.S. children each year and kills more than 600,000 children worldwide, mostly in developing countries. Rotarix already is approved in more than 100 other countries throughout the world. The vaccine competes with Merck & Co Inc's rotavirus vaccine called RotaTeq. Without vaccination, nearly every child in the United States likely would be infected at least once with rotavirus by age five, the Food and Drug Administration said. In studies of more than 24,000 infants, Rotarix prevented severe and mild cases of rotavirus-caused diarrhea and vomiting during the first two years of life. "This vaccine provides another option to combat and reduce a potentially severe illness that affects so many children," Dr. Jesse Goodman, director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement announcing the Rotarix approval. The most common reactions reported during clinical trials were fussiness, irritability, cough, runny nose, fever, loss of appetite and vomiting, the FDA said. An earlier oral rotavirus vaccine sold by Wyeth was pulled from the market in 1999 after it was linked to a rare, life-threatening type of bowel obstruction known as intussusception. In a Glaxo study of more than 63,000 infants, there was no increase in the problem compared with a placebo. Higher rates of convulsion and pneumonia-related deaths were seen in Rotarix patients in that study but not in other Glaxo trials. "Although the FDA has concluded that the available data do not establish that these events are related to the vaccine, the agency has requested the manufacturer to conduct post-marketing safety studies involving more than 40,000 infants to provide additional safety information," the FDA said. Glaxo said Rotarix "will offer protection against the most commonly circulating rotavirus types in the U.S. and allow infants to complete the vaccination series by four months of age." Rotarix, which is a liquid, is given in two doses to infants from six to 24 weeks of age, the FDA said. Merck's RotaTeq vaccine is administered in three doses from ages six weeks to 32 weeks. Sales of Rotarix were $182 million in 2007 and are expected to rise with approval in the large U.S. market. The vaccine will be commercially available in the United States in the second half of the year, Glaxo said. Also on Thursday, researchers reported that Rotarix provided protection for up to two years in a study of infants from 10 Latin American countries. The Glaxo-funded trial of more than 15,000 infants found severe diarrhea from rotavirus in 0.4 percent of children given the vaccine, compared with 2.3 percent in the placebo group. Results were published in the Lancet medical journal. The arrival of a new generation of oral vaccines against the disease has been welcomed by health-care workers, but some experts caution against assuming the vaccines will work equally well in all countries. In a commentary in the Lancet, Australian pediatric experts Keith Grimwood and Carl Kirkwood noted Rotarix was more effective in European trials than in middle-income Latin American countries. The World Health Organization "is awaiting efficacy data from low-income countries of Africa and Asia, where much greater strain diversity exists and where 413,000 deaths occur every year compared with 15,000 in Latin America and 200 in Europe," Grimwood and Kirkwood wrote. Claim: Glaxo wins FDA clearance for rotavirus vaccine.

Output: A second oral vaccine to prevent a leading cause of severe diarrhea in infants won approval from U.S. health officials on Thursday.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Aegerion shares fell more than 12 percent in extended trading. Juxtapid was approved by U.S. health regulators in December 2012 to treat patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH), a rare genetic disease that impairs the function of the receptor responsible for removing LDL-C or "bad" cholesterol from the body. The company said it intended to cooperate fully with the government investigation. Chief Executive Mark Beer had received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November over statements that the regulator said misleadingly suggested Juxtapid was safe and effective in decreasing cardiovascular events and could be used as a standalone therapy. The FDA asked that the company respond with a plan to show it would not use promotional material containing the misleading statements and a strategy to adopt corrective measures in the marketing of the drug. (link.reuters.com/zup85v) Juxtapid is the sole approved Aegerion product. Aegerion on Thursday also reported preliminary net product sales of between $48 and $49 million, in line with its most recent guidance of between $45 and $50 million. The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based company now expects net product sales of $190 million to $210 million in 2014. Analysts on average were expecting the company to post revenues of $204 million for the period, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S. Aegerion's shares were trading at $64.40 after the bell. They closed at $73.75 on the Nasdaq on Thursday. Claim: Aegerion gets DOJ subpeona over marketing of cholesterol drug.
Output: Aegerion Pharmaceuticals Inc said on Thursday that it received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice, requesting documents related to the marketing and sale of its cholesterol drug Juxtapid in the United States.