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.
--------
Question: The story mentioned that the cost of this drug treatment was several thousand dollars a month and that this was higher than the costs of other treatments. It would have been better to provide a more concrete estimate of costs (several thousand does this mean 2,3 or 6 thousand?). The story might have included some information about additional costs that would be encountered with the comparison treatment such as the cost of intraveneous infusions, testing to evaluate side-effects, and other connected costs. The story did a good job reporting the data comparing patient survival with Iressa as compared to individuals treated with IV chemotherapy. The story skimmed over the side effects; reducing the frequency of bothersome or life threatening side effects would seem to be an advantage. The story mentioned quality of life factors that appear to be better with Iressa but did not quantify the benefit observed. Borderline satisfactory. The story listed the common side effects of the treatment though it failed to indicate the frequency with which these were seen. In addition, rather than than merely listing these, the story could have included some information about the severity of the side effects (i.e. bothersome vs. fatal). The story provided information about the size of the study conducted, the nature of the patients that were enrolled, and that the drug company that markets the drug funded the study. The study was designed as a non-inferiority survival trial to compare this medication with docotaxel, a chemotherapy treatment often used in individuals who have lung cancer and have had platinum based treatment but who are experiencing a return of their cancer. (While the story did provide information about the survival outcomes, it also included information comparing side effects.) The story ended with a comment from one of the interviewed clinicians about quality of life being better with Iressa. The story should have been clearer about the predetermined endpoint of the study (longevity) and should not have ended with less data driven information. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. However the headline does not hint that the trial is not about first-line cancer treatment, rather just patients who have been treated previously with a platinum-based chemotherapy. The story included quotes from two individuals identified as not being connected with the study reported upon but with relevant expertise. The story provided information about two treatment options for individuals who have recurrence of a previously treated lung cancer. It did not provide information about the natural history of not undergoing additional treatment for this condition which is necessary for evaluating the relative merit of the two treatments discussed. The story did not mention radiation and surgery which are both options for some limited cancers. The story mentions that the medication Iressa (gefitinib) is sold in the United States but that its availability in Europe is limited. The story presented the use of Iressa as a treatment of individuals with lung cancer who had previously been treated with a platinum-based regimen as though it was a novel application. However this drug was approved by the FDA in 2003 for this purpose. While the results of study reported on are interesting, the story did not provide the reader with a realistic picture of about the novelty of this product. Does not appear to rely on a press release.

Answer: Pill as good as chemo on lung cancer, but costlier

Question: We were surprised to see that a story that covered as much ground as this one did somehow missed costs. The competing story by NBC spelled out the costs. The story nicely explained that while one of the new studies showed, as expected, that following the updated statin guidelines did increase the number of people who would be treated with statins, following the guidelines would apparently not have saved a significant number of people from dying or having a heart attackor stroke. The story said, "Among the people eligible for statins under the old guidelines, 6.9 percent had a heart attack orstrokeor died from coronary disease over the ensuing nine years. Among those eligible for statins under the new guidelines, the figure was 6.3 percent, almost as high. That suggests that the new guidelines do not lead to treatment of many more people who do not need statins." At the same time, the story noted that the new guidelines "over all did a better job in discriminating between those who should and should not get statins." It said that "only 1 percent of participants deemed ineligible for statins under the new guidelines had a heart attack or stroke over nine years, compared with 2.4 percent of those ineligible under the old guidelines." While an NBC story also used absolute numbers in talking about the potential benefits in terms of heart attacks, we liked the greater level of context provided in the Times piece. Nevertheless, we think it would have been useful for the Times to include the Number Needed to Treat in its discussion of benefits this is an easy-to-understand metric that was reported in the study. In addition, we question the Times's contention that the new criteria "do not lead to treatment of many more people who do not need statins." According to the study, approximately 94% of both guideline groups did not have a cardiovascular event, and yet the new criteria now extend the use of statins to much larger number of people. In light of such findings, it's unclear that the new criteria don't lead to unnecessary treatment for more people as the Time states. We wish the story had explored this result more thoroughly. We thought that NBC did a better job detailing some of the potential harms from statin use, but we give the Times credit here for framing the story as a discussion of risks vs. benefits and making it clear that experts critical of the new guidelines believe that they "would lead millions of additional people to take statins, exposing them to potential side effects such asmuscle painor damage with little to gain." Covering two studies in little more than 1,000 words is already a feat. Doing so while bringing in enough context to explain the caveats to the study is an order of magnitude greater. Compared to the NBCpiece, the Times did a superior job showing that, despite the enthusiasm in some quarters of the scientific community, the two studies did not settle the debate over whether statins should be more widely prescribed. The story did not engage in disease mongering. The story sought out and made good use of independent sources. It mentions that the guidelines were widely criticized and links to some printed criticisms made at the time. It quotes a variety of supportive and critical researchers regarding their opinions on the new research. The storydid not make any reference to dietary changes, lifestyle changes, or exercise. The story made it clear that statins are widely prescribed. One in four Americans take them by some estimates. The story established that the findings of the studies were not novel but rather were in keeping with earlier findings about statins. Because it contains comments from independent experts, we can be sure the story did not rely excessively on any news release.

Answer: 2 Studies Back Guidelines for Wider Use of Statins

Question: The story states that the therapy could cost "thousands of dollars," so we'll give it the benefit of the doubt. However, that's a broad range and we wish the story had told readers whether that means two or three thousand or ten or twenty. We know it's an early idea and cost projections are somewhat speculative. The story discussed benefits of the vaccine in relative terms only. It quotes a researcher saying "The magnitude of the effects are really impressive," but never really quantified the magnitude of the effects. The story accurately describes what is known about the harms of the vaccine at this time. The story should have mentioned that more research is needed to determine how safe the vaccine is. The story adequately describes the design of the current study, rightly pointing out that it was small and preliminary and did not demonstrate effectiveness of the vaccine in an important outcome. The story does not appear to engage in disease mongering. The story quotes two experts the author of the current study and an allergy expert at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The latter is not exactly an impartial source since NIAID helped fund the study, but he did caution about the signficance of the study, "limited by its small size and the vaccine's failure to affect the primary immune system response it was designed to look for." The story does mention alternatives, such as medications, nasal sprays and allergen immunotherapy. The story did state that "a commercial product is still years away." The story also states that further studies could "eventually lead to drug approval by the FDA." That's true, but they could also lead to FDA rejection. It's almost a meaningless line and could have been deleted without losing anything from the story. The story clearly states that vaccination is a new approach for treating hay fever. There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information, although much of the information apparently came from the principal investigator at Johns Hopkins and from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which was one of the funders of the study.

Answer:
DNA allergy vaccine shows promise