Instructions: 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.
Input: There is no mention of the costs of Victoza. This would have been easy to includegiventhe drug is widely prescribed and pricing information is freely available on the internet. The article compares the performance of Victoza against rival diabetes drugs, so it would have been informative to have a comparison of costs as well. The story'skeyfigure, which features in the headline, is a 13% reduction in the risk of heart attack, stroke and cardiovascular death. Unfortunately this figureonly measures the relative risk reduction; i.e. the changeinrisk for patientswho got Victoza as a percentage of the actualrisk of heart attacks, strokes or cardiovascular death for patients who didn't get Victoza. However, the story does also give actual risk figuresforthe treatment and placebogroup (13.0% vs. 14.9%). This allows a keen eyed reader to calculate the absolute risk reduction: a less impressive sounding1.9%. Because of this, the story rates Satisfactory on this criterion. It's worth nothing the news release didn't include the placebo group reductions. The story does a good job of mentioning the side effects of Victoza, even pointing towards whether effects were statisticallysignificant. One omission was that the story did not mention the higher incidence of gallstone disease, a side effect that was highlighted as significant in the paper. Although the strength of the evidence is not directly interrogated, the storyprovides sufficient details about the study, such as trial size, length of trial, and where it was published. Type II diabetes is a major public health problem and, as the story mentions, patients frequently die of heart disease. No disease-mongering here. No third-party scientist is quoted, although the views of one industry analyst are paraphrased. It's not clear, however, if this analyst was actually interviewed for the story, and his comments pertain only to the market's expectations for the drug. We didn't think this was substantive enough to rate as Satisfactory. The story does mention that Novo Nordisk funded the study and the focus is squarely on the pharmaceutical industry, making the company's role clear to the reader. How Victoza performs in reducing severe cardiovascular events compared to rival drugs is mentioned numerous times. It is worth noting that there was no mention that the drug is given by injection. For individuals with diabetes reading the article, this oversight is important in that it may make them more inclined to oral medicines that are easier to take. The story makes it clear that the drug is already established on the market, calling it "top-selling" in the first line and mentioning that it is typically prescribed as a third or fourth option. The story makes clear that the purpose of this study was to meet FDA requirements. "Since 2008, U.S. regulators have demanded studies for new diabetes medicines to show there is no increase in heart risk, opening a new battleground between different treatments," it says. The story is not based solely on Novo Nordisk's newsrelease. As mentioned, some of the relative risk figures which the story leans on, as well as twosources who are quoted, are found in thenews release. Butthe writer clearly conducted independent interviews and sourced information elsewhere.
Output:
Novo diabetes drug cuts heart risks by less-than-hoped 13 percentage