Head-to-head evidence
Mitiglinide vs Nateglinide
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: SUR1 (short-acting) · full Type 2 Diabetes pipeline
Mitiglinide · Glufast
Developed by Kissei Pharmaceutical
NCT00519142 · Phase 3 · completed
The study randomly assigned 367 participants to quadruple-blinded mitiglinide-plus-metformin or metformin-plus-placebo groups, with a third mitiglinide dosing group. Its primary measure was the change in HbA1c after 24 weeks, a laboratory surrogate endpoint, and no results are available to show whether the comparison favored mitiglinide.
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.
Nateglinide · Starlix
Marketed by Novartis
NCT00097786 · Phase 3 · completed
This was a large (N=9,306), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2x2 factorial trial in adults with impaired glucose tolerance, comparing nateglinide, valsartan, the combination, or placebo. The primary outcomes for nateglinide versus non-nateglinide were hard clinical endpoints - progression to diabetes and cardiovascular morbidity/mortality - but the posted results give only event percentages with no significance testing; the diabetes progression endpoint was numerically higher with nateglinide (36.0% vs 33.9%) and the cardiovascular differences were small. Because the primary comparison was not shown to be statistically significant in nateglinide's favor, this well-designed trial provides only moderate-level evidence for nateglinide.
The full competitive landscape for each asset (every same-race competitor with aligned evidence, sortable) is on the asset pages: Mitiglinide's landscape · Nateglinide's landscape