Head-to-head evidence
iPS-NSC cells vs TED-A9 (A9-DPC)
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.
Parkinson's Disease
Shared mechanism: dopaminergic neuron replacement · full Parkinson's Disease pipeline
iPS-NSC cells
Developed by Allife Medical Science and Technology
NCT03815071 · Phase 1 · status unknown
This is a small, single-arm, unblinded study of 10 participants with no control group, designed to check safety rather than test efficacy against a comparator, and results have not yet been posted.
TED-A9 (A9-DPC)
Developed by S.Biomedics
NCT05887466 · Phase 1/2 · completed
The study assigned six participants to each of two dose groups without randomization, blinding, or a placebo or active comparator. Its primary outcomes focused on adverse events and transplant failure or rejection. Registry results were not posted at the time of grading; the key result shown was recovered from the cited external source.
Caveat: this result is taken from a company announcement or a news report of one, not from the trial registry or a peer-reviewed publication. Treat the figures as the sponsor's own statement, not as independently verified evidence.
Next expected readout: February 2029 · NCT06477744 (registry estimate)
The full competitive landscape for each asset (every same-race competitor with aligned evidence, sortable) is on the asset pages: iPS-NSC cells's landscape · TED-A9 (A9-DPC)'s landscape