Head-to-head evidence
Linagliptin 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
Linagliptin · Tradjenta
Marketed by Boehringer Ingelheim and partners
NCT00602472 · Phase 3 · completed
This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 1,058 participants, and its primary endpoint was met: adjusted HbA1c change was −0.72% with linagliptin versus −0.10% with placebo (p<0.0001). The evidence is considered moderate because HbA1c is a surrogate measure rather than a hard clinical endpoint.
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: Linagliptin's landscape · Teneligliptin's landscape