Head-to-head evidence
Alogliptin vs Teneligliptin
Same mechanism, same race: design-graded trial evidence for both assets, with the grading rationale shown. Grades describe the quality of the evidence, never the merits of either security.
Type 2 Diabetes
Shared mechanism: DPP-4 · full Type 2 Diabetes pipeline
Alogliptin · Nesina
Marketed by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
NCT00286429 · Phase 3 · completed
The 390-participant trial was randomized, quadruple-blind, and placebo-controlled, with 130, 131, and 129 participants assigned to placebo, alogliptin 12.5 mg, and alogliptin 25 mg, respectively. Both primary HbA1c comparisons were statistically significant in favor of alogliptin, but HbA1c is a surrogate measure, so the evidence does not establish a strong clinical-outcome grade.
Next expected readout: December 2026 · NCT07093476 (registry estimate)
Teneligliptin · Tenelia
Developed by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma
NCT00974090 · Phase 3 · completed
The trial was properly randomized and double-blinded with a placebo control and a real hard clinical endpoint (HbA1c change), and enrollment (~96-98 per arm) was reasonable for a 12-week phase 3 add-on study. However, the posted results report only least-squares mean changes with standard errors and no explicit statistical significance test for the primary comparison, so while the numeric difference favors teneligliptin, whether it formally met its pre-specified endpoint cannot be confirmed from this record alone.
The full competitive landscape for each asset (every same-race competitor with aligned evidence, sortable) is on the asset pages: Alogliptin's landscape · Teneligliptin's landscape