Question

    ＂New and improved."These words are put in so many marketing campaigns that we tend to accept them as linked.But many new drugs aren't an improvement over the best existing drug for a given condition,and the fast drug-approval processes in recent years have added to the uncertainty about their advantages.

A recent report in the British Medical Journal,"New Drugs;Where Did We Go Wrong and What We Do Better?" analyzed the issue,The authors looked at 216 drugs approved between 2011 and 2017; 152 were newly developed,and 64 were existing medicine approved for new uses. Only 25% offered a major advantage over the established treatment,and fully 58% had no confirmed added benefit to reduce symptoms or improve health-related quality of life.

＂This doesn't mean there's no added benefit,"lead author Wieseler said."It just means we have no positive proof Either we have no studies or have studies not good enough.”Wieseler and her co-authors work for a German agency which evaluates new treatments and advises on whether the country's health care system should pay a premium(补贴）for them.If payers think a new drug isn't better than an existing drug,these agencies will require that hospitals try the cheaper drug first.

Germany's HTA demands trials to prove that a new treatment beats the existing standard. This isn't always practical. For one thing, such studies can be expensive and time-consuming,with no guarantee of success.Secondly,it can discourage companies from attempting to develop new alternatives.This is already happening.Drug developers are increasingly focused on areas where there are no good treatments to compete with,such as rare diseases.

This lack of meaningful data to guide patients is a major point of Wieseler's paper.With accelerated approval,there are more products approved,with a greater amount of uncertainty about risks and benefits. But there are other solutions besides drug trials.One idea is to require postmarket studies to track the effectiveness of newly approved drugs-a step too often neglected.

1.What message does the recent report convey?

A.Improved drugs have advantages over old ones.

B.The approval processes for new drugs are too fast.

C.Many new drugs have no improved advantages.

D.Almost half the drugs approved target the special cases.

2.What's the disadvantage of Germany's HTA trial demands?

A.Making drug companies think of illegal ways to cut cost.

B.Holding companies back from improving existing drugs.

C.Getting patients to depend on the government for support.

D.Pushing companies to try alternatives for existing drugs.

3.What is the best title for the text?

A.The Advantage of Existing Drugs B.The Great Potential of New Drugs

C.People's Preference for New or Old Drugs D.A Dilemma with New Drug Alternatives

Answer

1.C

2.B

3.D

【解析】

这是一篇说明文。文章主要介绍了英国的一项研究表明，与传统药物相比，市场上不断推出的新药大部分并不具有新的疗效。作者分析其中原因并指出，因为相关机构的要求，加上新药耗时费钱，现有药品的更新面临窘境。

1.

细节理解题。根据第二段最后一句“Only 25% offered a major advantage over the established treatment,and fully 58% had no confirmed added benefit to reduce symptoms or improve health-related quality of life.”可知，58%的新药没有任何得到证实的新增加的药效，所以这项报告传达了许多新药没有改进的优势信息。故选C项。

2.

推理判断题。根据倒数第二段中“Germany's HTA demands trials to prove that a new treatment beats the existing standard. This isn't always practical. For one thing, such studies can be expensive and time-consuming,with no guarantee of success.Secondly,it can discourage companies from attempting to develop new alternatives.(德国的HTA需要试验来证明新的治疗方法优于现有标准。这并不总是可行的一件事。首先，这样的研究是昂贵的和耗时的，没有成功的保证。其次，它可以阻止公司开发新的替代品。)”可推测出，德国HTA要求有试验来证实改良后的新药比原先的药品要好，这需要投入大量的时间和金钱，这不利于公司对已有药品进行改进。故选B项。

3.

主旨大意题。第一段＂New and improved."These words are put in so many marketing campaigns that we tend to accept them as linked.But many new drugs aren't an improvement over the best existing drug for a given condition,and the fast drug-approval processes in recent years have added to the uncertainty about their advantages.（“新的和改进的”这句话出现在很多营销活动中，以至于我们倾向于接受它们之间的联系。但是，许多新药并没有在现有的最佳药物基础上有所改进，而且近年来的快速药物审批过程也增加了它们优势的不确定性。）是全文的主题句。结合全文内容，可知文章讲述药品研发的窘境：传统药物的更新未必有新的疗效，即使有新的疗效，相关机构的要求使这个更新过程漫长而且费用高，于是很多药企干脆转向罕见病的新药，这就使已有药品的更新面临窘境。所以D项“新药物的两难选择”适合作本文标题。故选D项。