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.

Let me give you an example: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release."
The answer to this example can be: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Here is why: The paragraph mentions that "Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be." which is considered evidence for the output. Thus, the output is a valid claim.

OK. solve this:
Furiex said it would apply by mid-year for U.S. approval of the drug, eluxadoline, to treat diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-d), a debilitating bowel disorder that affects about 28 million people in the United States and major European markets. Furiex said it expected to seek European approval in early 2015. The company's shares rose as much as 165 percent to $121.97, valuing it at about $1.3 billion. "We believe that there are a lot of patients out there who need this drug. There is a huge unmet need," Furiex Chief Medical Officer June Almenoff said in a telephone interview. Currently approved drugs for IBS address constipation associated with the disorder, but there are few options for diarrhea predominant IBS. Furiex founder and chairman Fred Eshelman said he believes the drug has the potential for blockbuster sales, which he defined as annual sales of between $750 million and $1 billion. Eluxadoline was tested at two doses against a placebo over the course of 12 weeks to meet requirements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and for 26 weeks for European health regulators, in Phase III studies involving 2,428 patients, Furiex said. For the combined goal of improvement in abdominal pain and stool consistency for at least half the days in the study, eluxadoline achieved a statistically significant improvement at the 100 milligram and 75 mg doses through 12 weeks in both studies. On the 26-week measure, the higher dose succeeded in both studies but the lower dose missed statistical significance in one of the two trials, according to initial results released by the company. The success appeared to be driven by the percentage of patients reporting improvements in diarrhea, which ranged from 30 percent to 37 percent versus 22 percent and 20.9 percent for the placebo groups. When the composite goal was broken into its two components, researchers found a numerical improvement in pain response rates that did not achieve statistical significance. The drug appeared to be safe and well-tolerated in both studies, Furiex said. The most commonly reported side effects were constipation and nausea. The company plans to present a far more detailed analysis of the late stage studies at an upcoming medical meeting. "We're very excited about the path ahead and about how this can transform patients' lives," Almenoff said. Furiex shares were up 142 percent at $110.99 in early trading on the Nasdaq.
Answer:
Furiex irritable bowel syndrome drug succeeds in large trials.