Potency vs Efficacy: Interpreting Why Two Drugs Feel Different

Two Different Questions: “How Much?” vs “How Much Effect?”

Potency and efficacy are often confused because both are discussed using dose–response curves, but they answer different clinical questions.

• Potency answers: How much drug is needed to produce a given effect?
• Efficacy answers: What is the maximum effect this drug can produce?

When two drugs “feel different” to a patient, it may be because one reaches the desired effect at a smaller dose (potency), or because one can produce a larger maximum benefit (efficacy), or both.

Side-by-Side Dose–Response Curves: What to Look For

Imagine two dose–response curves plotted on the same axes (dose on the x-axis, effect on the y-axis). You interpret potency and efficacy by looking for two different visual cues:

• Potency = left–right position: a curve shifted left means less dose is needed for the same effect (more potent).
• Efficacy = height (Emax): a curve that plateaus higher can achieve a greater maximum effect (more efficacious).

Quick visual rules

• If Drug A’s curve is left of Drug B’s but both plateau at the same height: A is more potent, equal efficacy.
• If Drug A and B line up horizontally but A plateaus higher: A has higher efficacy, similar potency.
• If A is left-shifted but plateaus lower: A is more potent but less efficacious.

Potency: “How Much Drug Do I Need?”

Potency is about dose requirements. Clinically, potency shows up as differences in milligrams, micrograms, number of puffs, patch strength, or infusion rate needed to reach a target effect.

When potency matters in real decisions

• Dose size and pill burden: smaller tablets or fewer units can be easier to take consistently.
• Formulation feasibility: very large doses may be hard to fit into a single tablet, patch, or injection volume.
• Cost per effective dose: a “more potent” drug is not automatically cheaper, but potency affects how many units are needed.
• Adherence and convenience: fewer pills or fewer actuations can improve adherence for some patients.
• Precision at low doses: highly potent drugs may require careful titration because small dose changes can produce noticeable effect changes.

Step-by-step: using potency to compare two options

1. Pick a clinically relevant target effect (e.g., “moderate symptom relief” rather than “any effect”).
2. Identify the dose that achieves that target for each drug (often near an ED50-like point for that effect level).
3. Compare practical implications: number of units, available strengths, ability to split tablets, device dosing increments, and patient preference.

Key caution: Higher potency does not mean “stronger” in the sense of a higher maximum benefit. It means “less is needed” to reach a given effect.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

Efficacy: “How Much Benefit Is Possible?”

Efficacy is about the ceiling of benefit: the maximum effect achievable with that drug in that system. If symptoms are severe or the clinical goal requires large improvement, efficacy becomes the limiting factor.

When efficacy matters most

• Severe symptoms or high-stakes endpoints: when you need the largest achievable effect, the drug’s maximum matters.
• When partial improvement is not enough: if the patient needs near-complete control, a lower-efficacy option may plateau too early.
• When escalating the dose isn’t working: if increasing dose yields little additional benefit, you may be at (or near) the drug’s efficacy ceiling.

Step-by-step: using efficacy to guide escalation vs switching

1. Confirm the patient is receiving an adequate dose range (enough to approach the plateau for that drug).
2. Assess response trend: are dose increases still producing meaningful improvement?
3. If the curve is flattening (diminishing returns), consider switching to a higher-efficacy option rather than continuing to escalate.

Example 1: Full Agonist vs Partial Agonist (Different Efficacy)

Consider two drugs acting at the same receptor to produce the same type of effect:

• Drug F (full agonist): can produce a high maximum effect (high efficacy).
• Drug P (partial agonist): produces the same kind of effect but plateaus at a lower maximum (lower efficacy).

On a dose–response plot, Drug P’s curve rises but levels off at a lower plateau than Drug F. Even if you keep increasing Drug P’s dose, it cannot reach Drug F’s maximum effect.

Clinical interpretation

• If the patient needs moderate effect and safety/tolerability is a priority, a partial agonist may be sufficient and may offer practical advantages in some contexts.
• If the patient needs maximal effect (e.g., severe symptoms), a partial agonist may be unable to meet the goal regardless of dose.

Practical “feel different” explanation

Two patients taking “higher and higher doses” may report that one drug “hits a ceiling” (efficacy limit) while the other continues to provide additional benefit up to a higher plateau.

Example 2: Highly Potent Drug with Modest Efficacy

Now compare:

• Drug H: very potent (left-shifted curve), but modest efficacy (lower plateau).
• Drug L: less potent (right-shifted curve), but higher efficacy (higher plateau).

Drug H may produce noticeable effects at tiny doses, which can make it seem “strong,” yet it may not be able to achieve the maximum benefit needed for severe symptoms. Drug L might require larger doses (less potent) but can ultimately provide greater maximum relief (more efficacious).

Clinical decision implications

• For a patient who needs only small-to-moderate improvement and values small dose size or convenient formulation, Drug H may be attractive.
• For a patient who needs large improvement, Drug L may be necessary even if the dose is larger or titration takes longer.

Common Misinterpretations to Avoid

• “More potent means more effective.” Not necessarily. Potency is about dose; efficacy is about maximum effect.
• “If I double the dose, I double the effect.” Effects often show diminishing returns as you approach the plateau; efficacy limits the ceiling.
• “A drug that works at micrograms must be better.” Microgram dosing reflects potency, not automatically better outcomes.

Clinical Decision Context: A Simple Triage

Ask first: what is the patient’s goal?

• Goal is “enough relief” with minimal complexity → potency-related considerations often dominate (dose size, formulation, adherence, cost per effective dose).
• Goal is “maximum achievable relief” → efficacy-related considerations dominate (ability to reach the needed effect ceiling).

Then ask: what is the main constraint?

• Constraint: adherence/pill burden → a more potent option may reduce units taken (if efficacy is sufficient).
• Constraint: severe symptoms → prioritize higher efficacy even if the dose is larger.
• Constraint: formulation limits (e.g., patch strength, injection volume) → potency can determine feasibility.
• Constraint: cost → compare cost per target effect, not cost per tablet.

Structured Comparison Exercise: Choose Between Two Options

For each scenario, choose Drug A or Drug B. Use the stated potency/efficacy properties and the patient’s goals/constraints. Assume safety and contraindications are otherwise comparable unless stated.

How to check your reasoning (self-marking rubric)

• If the scenario emphasizes pill burden, formulation feasibility, or adherence and both options can meet the needed effect: your justification should reference potency.
• If the scenario emphasizes severe symptoms, need for maximal relief, or failure to improve despite dose increases: your justification should reference efficacy.
• If one option is a partial agonist and the goal requires near-maximal effect: your justification should mention the efficacy ceiling.