A Note on Therapeutic Equivalence and Therapeutic Ratio with Application to Studies in Respiratory Diseases

  • Anders Källén


This paper argues that the concepts of therapeutic equivalence and noninferiority trials have some unclear logic and give results that might not be in accordance with clinical experience. They are also totally unnecessary. The discussion focuses on therapeutic equivalence trials, but carries over directly to noninferiority trials. Therapeutic equivalence proves to be a flexible tool for delusion and should be abandoned. Statistics should end where it can claim to be correct and useful, in this case, with estimates and confidence limits of clinically relevant parameters such as relative dose potency. If therapeutic equivalence is still needed for special purposes, the testing and definition should be done on the dose scale.

Key Words

Therapeutic equivalence Noninferiority trials Therapeutic ratio 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1999; 18:1905–1942.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rohmel J. Therapeutic equivalence investigations: statistical considerations. Stat Med. 1998;17:1703–1714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    FDC Reports, The pink sheets. May 6, 1991;53(18): 14-15.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kallen A, Larsson P. Dose response studies: how do we make them conclusive? Stat Med. 1999; 18: 629–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ahrens RC, et al. Therapeutic equivalence of Spiros dry powder inhaler and Ventolin metered dose inhaler. A bioassay using methcholine. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;160:1238–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parameswaran KN, et al. Protection against metha-choline bronchoconstriction to assess relative potency of inhaled pYagonists. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;160:354–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Senn SJ. Statistical issues in Drug Development. Chichester: John Wiley; 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finney DJ. Statistical Methods in Biological Assay. London, UK: Griffin; 1978.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Govindarajulu Z. Statistical Techniques in Bioassay. Basel, Switzerland: Karger; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Senn SJ, et al. An incomplete blocks cross-over in asthma: a case study in collaboration. Cross-over Clinical Trials. J. Vollmar, L.A. Hothorn, eds. Stuttgart: Fischer; 1997:3–26.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boulet LP, et al. Comparison of Diskus’ inhaler, a new multidose powder inhaler, with Diskhaler™ inhaler for the delivery of Salmeterol to asthmatic patients. J Asthma. 1995;32(6):429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ebbutt AF, Frith L. Practical issues in equivalence trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:1691–1701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Senn SJ. Statistical issues in short term trials in asthma. Drug Inf J. 1993;27:779–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rott Z, Bocskei C, Poszi M, Juhasz G, Larsson P, Rosenborg J. On the relative therapeutic index between formoterol Turbuhaler and Salbutamol pressurized metered dose (pMDI) inhaler in asthmatic patients. Eur Respir J. 1998;12:suppl 28:324s.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bates DM, Watts DG. Nonlinear Regression Analysis and its Applications. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamasaki T, et al. Statistical approaches to detect dose-response relationships. Drug Inf J. 2000;34: 579–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kallen A, Larsson P. On the definition of therapeutic equivalence. Drug Inf J. 2000;34:349–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Drug Information Association, Inc 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anders Källén
    • 1
  1. 1.Astra Zeneca R&D LundLundSweden

Personalised recommendations