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]: Researchers studied the medical records of more than 1 million children and young adults aged 2 to 24 who were taking or had taken stimulants such as Ritalin or Adderall and found no sign of increased risk of heart problems. "We don't see any evidence of increased risk," said Dr. William Cooper of Vanderbilt University, whose study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study in children is the first of three commissioned by the Food and Drug Administration to understand the potential heart risks of the drugs after U.S. and Canadian regulators received a number of reports in 2006 of heart attacks, strokes and sudden cardiac arrest in children taking the medications. The reports prompted several FDA advisory committee hearings on heart problems, and Health Canada temporarily suspended marketing of ADHD drugs. The concerns also prompted the American Heart Association to issue guidelines suggesting that children who were just starting to take the drugs should be tested for potential underlying heart problems. "There was a lot of concern and confusion among families and providers about what the best approach would be to treating kids who had ADHD and who might benefit from these medicines," Cooper said by phone. ADHD is one of the most common child mental disorders, affecting around 3 to 5 percent of children globally. Children with ADHD are excessively restless, impulsive and easily distracted, and often have trouble at home and in school. There is no cure, but the symptoms can be kept in check by a combination of behavioral therapy and medication. In the United States, some 2.7 million children have prescriptions for ADHD drugs including Novartis' Ritalin or methylphenidate and Focalin; Johnson & Johnson's Concerta, Shire's Adderall and Vyvanse and Eli Lilly's Strattera. For the study, Cooper's team used prescription data from four large, geographically and demographically diverse health plans on 1,200,438 children and youth, including both current and past users of the drugs. They checked health records for evidence of heart problems, including heart attacks, strokes and sudden cardiac deaths, in children who were currently taking the drugs or who had taken them. The team found no increased risk of heart problems for either current or past users of the drugs. Yet because there were so few cases of serious heart problems just 81 the study may not have been large enough to detect it. But even if there were a risk of heart problems, it is extremely slight, Cooper said. In a guidance document issued on Tuesday, the FDA said it continues to recommend that the drugs not be used in patients with serious heart problems. It added that patients should be monitored for changes in heart rate or blood pressure. Jefferies analyst Peter Welford said the findings will likely reassure investors in Shire, maker of Adderall and Vyvanse. But because there were so few heart problems, the study was underpowered and cannot conclusively dispel concerns about cardiovascular risks. Shire's shares were flat on Tuesday, outperforming a sharply lower market.
[A]: ADHD drugs do not increase heart problems in kids.

[Q]: The news release does not mention costs. While a new therapy may not have an established price, the release could have stated "no price is available for this drug." What would be even better is some context for what women suffering from postpartum pay typically for counseling and medications. The release notes that there was a reduction in depressive symptoms of 17 points for those on the drug, and 12.8 for those in the placebo group based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. The absolute reduction in the rating scale is given for each group. This information would have been much more helpful if the release also clarified the magnitude of the scale and whether a 4.2-point difference is clinically meaningful. The release contains one somewhat vague sentence on harms. The most common (10% of subjects) adverse events following during brexanolone injection administration were headache, dizziness and somnolence. Readers would also be interested in details on whether the drug is safe for nursing infants. That's not mentioned. The double-blinded randomized trials are described in detail and readers are able to judge the quality of the evidence. The published study includes an important limitation of the research that's not mentioned in the release: The trials assessed women for only 30 days; the effects of the treatment beyond 30 days are "unknown." There is no disease mongering. The release explains how common postpartum depression is worldwide. The release notes that Sage Therapeutics funded the research. Sage Therapeutics is the developer of brexanolone injection and sponsor of the trials. A New Drug Application is currently under review by the FDA and brexanolone injection has been granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation. The FDA has assigned a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date of December 19, 2018. What the release doesn't tell us is that both quoted researchers disclosed financial ties with Sage Therapeutics. This information was included in the studies published in the Lancet. SM-B reports personal fees from MedScape and grants from Sage Therapeutics, awarded to the University of North Carolina DRR reports personal fees and has stock options in Sage Therapeutics. The release mentions that women currently can receive antidepressants for postpartum depression, but that the new drug being studied goes to work relieving symptoms faster than traditional antidepressants days rather than weeks. The release notes that the drug is currently under FDA review, with a decision on its approval expected by the end of the year. The release notes that the new drug would be a novel treatment for postpartum depression, if approved. There is no unjustifiable language.
[A]: Newly Published Results Show Investigational Treatment Brexanolone Consistently Reduced Depressive Symptoms Across Three Postpartum Depression Trials, Supporting Submission for FDA Approval

[Q]: "The story addresses cost by implying there is an overall cost savings when labor is not induced early and the birth process is not medically managed if a mother and fetus are otherwise healthy. This story suggests that savings may be in the form of fewer birth complications, decreased risk of hemorrhage and transfusion, less pain medication for longer labors, shorter hospital stays for infection or unplanned caesarean births and fewer days in neonatal intensive care for problems related to immature lungs and related respiratory problems. It is however, optimistic to think that the sort of data they discuss is sound; actual evidence-based cost data is meager or absent. The article likely overstates the evidence, but we give a satisfactory rating as they do directly address cost issues. The story mentions that sometimes an induced labor is medically-appropriate for the safety of the mother and her infant. The story also mentions recent data published in Annals of Family Medicine suggesting that even in healthy women, labor induction can be safe if women are appropriately selected. However, the focus of the story is on the trend to induce labor for the sake of convenience in otherwise healthy women. The story makes the strong case that adherence to evidence-based guidelines may reduce some of the harms of this practice. Regarding the title of Nicolson's work and the concept of ""preventive induction"", indeed the title of the paper is somewhat insidious and not directly addressed by this article. The concept that retrospective cohort data can support the concept of finding an ""optimal time"" for medical intervention to prevent risks in normal, uncomplicated pregnancies that are not post dates deserves to be closely examined. The implication is that we will be able to determine through data when it is the best time to ""prevent"" normal onset of labor. A radical notion that was not much dealt with since we are so accustomed to the concept that aspects of prenatal and birth care can prevent many outcomes which in fact they cannot. The harms they include are well-described (if poorly supported by definitive evidence). The risks may outweigh the benefits if labor is induced early without sufficient medical reason. Among harms listed are potentially longer labors and related dehydration and infection; increased rates of unplanned caesarean births; longer hospital stays for both mother and baby; increased risk of birth injuries and more time spent in the neonatal in-hospital care for babies born with underdeveloped lungs or to heal birth injuries. In the interest of balance it is important to note that few trialsare available to determinethe risks/benefits and costs. The story presented an advocate, a nay-sayer, some commentators, and included the concept that more research is needed. However, they may have walked-by thefact that meta-analyses of trials to datedo not find strong influence on cesearean rates and are underpowered for outcomes like neonatal death, NICU admission, fetal asphyxia, etc. The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story is quite balanced and notes practice variation and ways to reduce the trend of medically-managed birth. The inclusion of details about the medicalization of birth and related cultural trends is a plus. The story cites a new mother and several researchers and obstetricians who provide perspective on this issue and list pros and cons of the increasingly common practice of induced labor in the U.S. All sources are appropriately identified by their practice, related research publications and university or medical center affiliation. This story considers the ""treatment option"" of electively substituting a medical intervention for a physiologic process without specifically noting that it is an odd concept of ""treatment"" (except indirectly in Klein's and the Intermountain representative). The story does a good job of talking about how convenience and ""consumer driven"" the choice is but falls just short of really closing the loop that most normal things don't require a treatment to replace them. The story notes the wide range of practice variation. The story also notes that requests for early labor induction may be restricted or denied by certain payers and at some healthcare settings as the practice is not in accordance with most evidence-based guidelines. The story notes that the practice of inducing labor and rates of caesarean births have increased. The story speculates that this practice may be influenced by obstetrician and patient schedules and the idea that it is equally safe to schedule a birth as it is to wait for a natural labor and delivery. Novelty is not invoked though the cultural trends underpinning increased use are handled well. The story has an excellent variety of sources and there is balanced reporting on the trend to induce early labor in medical practices in the U.S."
[A]:
Inducing labor for convenience gets a second look