Trial reportBMC pharmacology & toxicology2026
Pharmacokinetic and bioequivalence evaluation of teneligliptin hydrobromide tablets following single-dose administration in healthy Chinese volunteers under fasting and fed conditions.
Trial report in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBy inhibiting dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), teneligliptin provides a therapeutic option for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) that is widely used in Asia. A generic product could lessen treatment costs, provided that its systemic availability is equivalent to that of the branded formulation. Such comparative information remains scarce for Chinese recipients of teneligliptin hydrobromide. We therefore investigated a new generic tablet as the test product and Tenelia
methodsA total of 52 healthy Chinese adults participated in a randomized, open-label crossover investigation involving one dose, two sequences, and two periods; 26 participants were assigned to each sequence. The test and reference products were each administered at 40 mg in the fasting and fed studies, and administrations were 7 days apart. A validated LC-MS/MS assay yielded plasma teneligliptin concentrations. After logarithmic transformation, AUC
resultsIn each dietary setting, the two products produced similar teneligliptin exposure. For AUC
conclusionWhether administered in the fasting or fed state, the generic tablet met the regulatory requirements for bioequivalence with Tenelia
trial registrationThe study was registered retrospectively in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2500112749; November 19, 2025). Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of The Affiliated Panyu Central Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University (PYZXYYEC [2025-013 (YW)]-01).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.