ChaseDream

标题: 揽瓜阁阅读做题小分队 第117天 "药品滞后"之谬误 [打印本页]

作者: 小白斩鸡    时间: 2021-7-25 07:43
标题: 揽瓜阁阅读做题小分队 第117天 "药品滞后"之谬误
请大家在本帖回复:
1. 文章大概结构
2. 自己写的答案

解析+文章翻译明晚微信群里公布

报名活动,加微信号killgmat

From the time they were first proposed, the 1962 Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act have been the subject of controversy among some elements of the health community and the pharmaceutical industry. The Amendments added a new requirement for Food and Drug Administration approval of any new drug: The drug must be demonstrated to be effective by substantial evidence consisting of adequate and well controlled investigations. To meet this effectiveness requirement, a pharmaceutical company must spend considerable time and effort in clinical research before it can market a new product in the United States. Only then can it begin to recoup its investment. Critics of the requirement argue that the added expense of the research to establish effectiveness is reflected in higher drug costs, decreased profits, or both, and that this has resulted in a “drug lag. ”The term drug lag has been used in several different ways.

It has been argued that the research required to prove effectiveness creates a lag between the time when a drug could theoretically be marketed without proving effectiveness and the time when it is actually marketed. Drug lag has also been used to refer to the difference between the number of new drugs introduced annually before 1962 and the number of new drugs introduced each year after that date. It is also argued that the Amendments resulted in a lag between the time when new drugs are available in other countries and the time when the same drugs are available in the United States. And drug lag has also been used to refer to a difference in the number of new drugs introduced per year in other advanced nations and the number introduced in the same year in the United States. Some critics have used drug lag arguments in an attempt to prove that the 1962 Amendments have actually reduced the quality of healthcare in the United States and that, on balance, they have done more harm than good. These critics recommend that the effectiveness requirements be drastically modified or even scrapped.

Most of the specific claims of the drug lag theoreticians, however, have been refuted. The drop in new drugs approved annually, for example, began at least as early as 1959, perhaps five years before the new law was fully effective. In most instances, when a new drug was available in a foreign country but not in the United States, other effective drugs for the condition were available in this country and sometimes not available in the foreign country used for comparison. Further, although the number of new chemical entities introduced annually dropped from more than 50 in 1959 to about 12 to 18 in the 1960s and 1970s, the number of these that can be termed important—some of them of “breakthrough” caliber—has remained reasonably close to 5 or 6 per year. Few, if any, specific examples have actually been offered to show how the effectiveness requirements have done significant harm to the health of Americans. The requirement does ensure that a patient exposed to a drug has the likelihood of benefiting from it, an assessment that is most important, considering the possibility, always present, that adverse effects will be discovered later.



1. The author is primarily concerned with
(A) outlining a proposal
(B) evaluating studies
(C) posing a question
(D) countering arguments
(E) discussing a law


2. The passage states that the phrase “drug lag” has been used to refer to all of the following situations EXCEPT
(A) a lag between the time when a new drug becomes available in a foreign country and its availability in the United States
(B) the time period between which a new drug would be marketed if no effectiveness research were required and the time it is actually marketed
(C) the increased cost of drugs to the consumer and the decreased profit margins of the pharmaceutical industry
(D) the difference between the number of drugs introduced annually before 1962 and the number introduced after 1962
(E) the difference between the number of new drugs introduced in a foreign country and the number introduced in the United States


3. The author would most likely agree with which of the following statements?
(A) Whatever “drug lag” may exist because of the 1962 Amendments is justified by the benefit of effectiveness studies.
(B) The 1962 Amendments have been beneficial in detecting adverse effects of new drugs before they are released on the market.
(C) Because of the requirement of effectiveness studies, drug consumers in the United States pay higher prices than consumers in foreign countries.
(D) The United States should limit the number of new drugs which can be introduced into this country from foreign countries.
(E) Effectiveness studies do not require a significant investment of time or money on the part of the pharmaceutical industry.


4. The author points out the drop in new drugs approved annually before 1959 in order to
(A) draw an analogy between two situations
(B) suggest an alternative causal explanation
(C) attack the credibility of an opponent
(D) justify the introduction of statistics
(E) show an opponent misquoted statistics


5. The author implies that the non availability of a drug in the United States and its availability in a foreign country is not necessarily proof of a drug lag because this comparison fails to take into account
(A) the number of new drugs introduced annually before 1959
(B) the amount of research done on the effectiveness of drugs in the United States
(C) the possible availability of another drug to treat the same condition
(D) the seriousness of possible unwanted side effects from untested drugs
(E) the length of time needed to accumulate effectiveness research

参考答案:


作者: 南瓜星人    时间: 2021-7-25 09:23
ECACC
作者: CaryX    时间: 2021-7-25 11:05
mark
作者: Blanche会努力    时间: 2021-7-25 11:23
ECBCC
作者: Blanche会努力    时间: 2021-7-25 11:25
第一段介绍了新法令的内容及产生了一个叫做drug lag的东西
第二段从不同角度解释了frug lag
第三段对与第二段进行了反驳,使用数据说明这些lag不能说明新法令损害了美国人的健康
作者: KaylaZZZ    时间: 2021-7-25 11:36
D C A E C
作者: Ariafox    时间: 2021-7-25 20:21
1 引出drug lag这个术语点由来(来次一个法案里的新规定),并说明这个术语还有别的用处
2 分别列举了drug lag在哪些场景被运用,并引出有人利用这个宣称法案带来的是负面影响,应该改或废
3 作者反对这些人的观点,并一一反驳他们的论据,认为这个法案是好的
ecabc
作者: ChloeD    时间: 2021-7-25 22:55
一个法案提出 它的反对者反对的主要借口- Drug lag
drug lag的多种诠释- 都是发案反对者的理由
大多数诠释都是错误的- 法案对美国是好事
EBBCC
作者: sssszzzzxccsc    时间: 2021-7-26 10:23
ECBAC
作者: 山言寺林    时间: 2021-7-26 14:24
1. 提出问题:1962年的一条法令带来drug lag的问题
2. 反对者对drug lag的不同定义和解释
3. 反驳反对者的观点,作者的态度是amendment还是benefit多
ECABC
作者: vincentm9426    时间: 2021-7-27 01:56
看一下!               
作者: Sylvia_Ah    时间: 2021-7-27 09:22
DCCCC
作者: Sylvia_Ah    时间: 2021-7-27 09:24
1. 1962一个法律control drug→成本上升
2. 解释term drug lag 有些人因此说这个法律不好
3. 驳斥第二段那些人,给证据,表达了对1962法律的肯定
作者: xyy12138    时间: 2021-7-27 10:18
ECACC
作者: Blackui    时间: 2021-7-27 12:46
dcbec
作者: 浪浪清    时间: 2021-7-28 20:36
DCACC
作者: yu33    时间: 2021-7-28 21:59
ECBDD
作者: Alan-Endless    时间: 2021-7-28 23:26
Mark一下!               
作者: ccccherry    时间: 2021-8-4 17:33
ECBCC
作者: 上780    时间: 2021-8-4 20:51
Mark一下!               
作者: lfengi    时间: 2021-8-4 23:17
D C B D C
作者: jiajiajiayi    时间: 2021-8-6 22:25
DCBCC
作者: setmefree1    时间: 2023-10-14 17:21
1. 提出了医药法案,收到医届和制药的反对。批准新药增加了要求,新药物必须证明是有效的。制药公司为满足要求花费时间精力才能在美国售卖,继而收回投资。批评者:增加成本减少利润。导致了药物滞后。
2. 药物理论上可以实施时间和经过证明疗效的时间产生滞后。提出了药物滞后的其他几个概念:1962之前每年的新药数量和之后的数量、新药在美国和其他国家运用时的时间差、其他国家每年新药数量和美国新药数量的差额。批评家使用药物滞后来说明美国的医疗质量下降,危害大于益处。他们建议减少或者取消有效性要求。
3. 药物滞后理论学家的具体主张都被驳回。药物减少从1959年就开始了。当一种新药在美国买不到时,会有同功效的替代药,有时这种药在相比较的国家没有。尽管每年推出药实体下降,新药数量保持基本稳定5/6。几乎没有具体例子说明药物有效性对美国人健康造成危害。此要求确保接触药物人们从中受益,不良反应始终存在,有效性评估是有用的。
E C A C C

作者: setmefree1    时间: 2023-10-14 17:24
setmefree1 发表于 2023-10-14 17:21
1. 提出了医药法案,收到医届和制药的反对。批准新药增加了要求,新药物必须证明是有效的。制药公司为满足 ...

提出法案,提出反对--药物滞后,分析药物滞后批评、驳回批评,法案有利




欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3