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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    FDC Reports, The pink sheets. May 6, 1991;53(18): 14-15.

  4. 4.

    Kallen A, Larsson P. Dose response studies: how do we make them conclusive? Stat Med. 1999; 18: 629–641.

    CAS  Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ebbutt AF, Frith L. Practical issues in equivalence trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:1691–1701.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Senn SJ. Statistical issues in short term trials in asthma. Drug Inf J. 1993;27:779–791.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Hamasaki T, et al. Statistical approaches to detect dose-response relationships. Drug Inf J. 2000;34: 579–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kallen A, Larsson P. On the definition of therapeutic equivalence. Drug Inf J. 2000;34:349–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders Källén.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Källén, A. A Note on Therapeutic Equivalence and Therapeutic Ratio with Application to Studies in Respiratory Diseases. Ther Innov Regul Sci 35, 1495–1505 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500444

Download citation

Key Words

  • Therapeutic equivalence
  • Noninferiority trials
  • Therapeutic ratio