Comparative effectiveness and cardiovascular safety of abaloparatide and teriparatide in postmenopausal women new to anabolic therapy: A US administrative claims database study.

Real-world evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of abaloparatide versus teriparatide in women with osteoporosis may help inform treatment decisions. Following 18 months of treatment, abaloparatide was comparable to teriparatide for prevention of nonvertebral fractures, resulted in a 22% risk reduction for hip fractures, and demonstrated similar cardiovascular safety. Osteoporotic fracture risk can be reduced with anabolic or antiresorptive medications. In addition to efficacy and safety data from controlled clinical trials, real-world evidence on comparative effectiveness and safety may help inform treatment decisions. INTRODUCTION: The real-world effectiveness of abaloparatide versus teriparatide on nonvertebral fracture (NVF) incidence and cardiovascular safety during the 19-month period after treatment initiation were evaluated (NCT04974723). METHODS: Anonymized US patient claims data from Symphony Health, Integrated Dataverse (IDV)®, May 1, 2017 to July 31, 2019, included women aged ≥ 50 years with ≥ 1 prescription of abaloparatide or teriparatide and no prior anabolic therapy. Most were enrolled in commercial and Medicare health plans. Index was the date of the initial prescription dispensed during the identification period. In 1:1 propensity score matched cohorts, time to first NVF following index date, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and MACE + heart failure (HF) were compared between cohorts using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Propensity score matching yielded 11,616 patients per cohort. Overall median age (interquartile range) was 67 (61, 75) years, and 25.6% had a fracture history. Over 19 months, 335 patients on abaloparatide and 375 on teriparatide had a NVF (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.89 [0.77, 1.03]), and 121 and 154 patients, respectively, had a hip fracture [HR (95% CI): 0.78 (0.62, 1.00)]. The MACE and MACE + HF rates were similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Following 18 months of treatment, abaloparatide was comparable to teriparatide for prevention of NVF and similar cardiovascular safety was demonstrated between cohorts.

Forearm bone mineral density and fracture incidence in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the ACTIVExtend phase 3 trial.

Abaloparatide increased ultradistal radius bone mineral density (BMD) in the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial in Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) trial. Over the subsequent 24 months in ACTIVExtend, ultradistal radius BMD gains were maintained with alendronate. Conversely, 1/3 radius BMD remained stable during ALN treatment in ACTIVExtend after decreasing during ACTIVE. INTRODUCTION: Abaloparatide (ABL) increased femoral neck, total hip, and lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and decreased the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in ACTIVE. Effects on fracture risk and BMD were maintained subsequently with alendronate (ALN) in ACTIVExtend. In a prespecified subanalysis of ACTIVE, ABL also increased BMD at the ultradistal radius. Our objective was to determine the efficacy of ABL followed by ALN vs placebo (PBO) followed by ALN on forearm BMD and fracture risk over 43 months in ACTIVExtend. METHODS: Ultradistal and 1/3 radius BMD (ACTIVE baseline to month 43) were measured (ABL/ALN, n = 213; PBO/ALN, n = 233). Wrist fracture rates were estimated for the ACTIVExtend intent-to-treat population (ABL/ALN, n = 558; PBO/ALN, n = 581) by Kaplan-Meier (KM) method. RESULTS: At cumulative month 25, mean increase from ACTIVE baseline in ultradistal radius BMD was 1.1% (standard error, 0.49%) with ABL/ALN vs - 0.8% (0.43%) with PBO/ALN (P < 0.01). BMD increases with ABL were maintained with ALN through month 43 in ACTIVExtend. BMD decreases at the 1/3 radius in ACTIVE (similar with ABL and PBO) were maintained through 24 months of ALN treatment in ACTIVExtend. Wrist fractures over 43 months occurred in 15 women with ABL/ALN (KM estimate, 2.8%) and 20 with PBO/ALN (KM estimate, 3.6%) (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.39, 1.50; P = not significant). CONCLUSION: Ultradistal radius BMD gains following treatment with ABL in ACTIVE were maintained over 24 months of ALN treatment in ACTIVExtend. Conversely, 1/3 radius BMD remained stable during ALN treatment in ACTIVExtend after decreasing during ACTIVE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT01657162 submitted July 31, 2012.

Bone turnover markers to explain changes in lumbar spine BMD with abaloparatide and teriparatide: results from ACTIVE.

Early PINP changes correlate with 18-month lumbar spine BMD changes and the correlation was greater with abaloparatide versus teriparatide. The uncoupling index was similar between the two agents. INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the relationship between early PINP changes and subsequent changes in spine BMD following abaloparatide and teriparatide treatments. We also explored the use of an "uncoupling index" (UI), the balance between bone formation and bone resorption, which we hypothesised would be similar in response to these treatment groups. METHODS: Blood samples were taken for measurement of bone turnover markers (BTMs) s-PINP and s-CTX at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months from 189 abaloparatide patients and 227 teriparatide patients randomly selected from all participants who completed the study. BMD was measured by DXA at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months. Correlations were calculated between log ratio of BTMs from baseline to 3 months and percent change from baseline in BMD at 18 months. A UI was calculated using log transformation and subtraction of the standard deviate for s-CTX from the standard deviate for s-PINP for each patient. RESULTS: Early BTM changes were associated with subsequent BMD changes for both treatments. Pearson correlations for the log ratio of PINP over baseline at 3 months and BMD percent change from baseline at 18 months were larger (P < 0.0001) with abaloparatide (r = 0.561) than teriparatide (r = 0.198). The mean UI at 1 month was greater for abaloparatide versus teriparatide (1.743 and 1.493, respectively; P = 0.03) but was similar at 3 months or later time points. CONCLUSIONS: Early s-PINP changes correlate with percentage change in lumbar spine BMD 18 months after treatment with both abaloparatide and teriparatide, though the correlation with abaloparatide was greater. The UI was similar between abaloparatide and teriparatide suggesting that the balance between formation and resorption markers was similar.

FRAX and the effect of teriparatide on vertebral and non-vertebral fracture.

UNLABELLED: Daily teriparatide injections have been shown to reduce vertebral and non-vertebral fractures. Here, we demonstrate that the magnitude of fracture risk reduction is independent of baseline fracture probability assessed by FRAX. INTRODUCTION: Daily administration of 20 or 40 µg teriparatide has been shown to significantly decrease the risk of vertebral and non-vertebral fracture compared with placebo. The aim of the present study was to evaluate fracture risk assessed at baseline using the FRAX® tool and to determine the efficacy of teriparatide as a function of baseline fracture risk. METHODS: One thousand six hundred thirty-seven postmenopausal women in the pivotal phase three trial, randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 544), teriparatide 20 µg per day (n = 541) or teriparatide 40 µg per day (n = 552), were studied. Baseline clinical risk factors were entered into country-specific FRAX models to compute the 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures with or without input of femoral neck BMD. Because there was no difference in effect of 20 and 40 µg teriparatide daily on fracture occurrence, the two active groups were merged. The interaction between probability of a major fracture and treatment efficacy was examined by Poisson regression. RESULTS: The 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fractures (with BMD) ranged from 2.2-67.2 %. Treatment with teriparatide was associated with a 37 % decrease in all non-vertebral fractures (95 % CI 10-56 %) and a 56 % decrease in low-energy non-vertebral fractures (95 % CI 24-75 %) compared with placebo. The risk of morphometric vertebral fractures decreased significantly by 66 % (95 % CI 50-77 %). Hazard ratios for the effect of teriparatide on the fracture outcome did not change significantly with increasing fracture probability (p > 0.30). Similar findings were noted for the interaction when BMD was excluded from the FRAX model, or when probability of hip fracture was used as the marker of baseline risk. CONCLUSION: We conclude that teriparatide significantly decreases the risk of non-vertebral and morphometric vertebral fractures in women by a similar extent, irrespective of baseline fracture probability.

Tools in the assessment of sarcopenia.

This review provides a framework for the development of an operational definition of sarcopenia and of the potential end points that might be adopted in clinical trials among older adults. While the clinical relevance of sarcopenia is widely recognized, there is currently no universally accepted definition of the disorder. The development of interventions to alter the natural history of sarcopenia also requires consensus on the most appropriate end points for determining outcomes of clinical importance which might be utilized in intervention studies. We review current approaches to the definition of sarcopenia and the methods used for the assessment of various aspects of physical function in older people. The potential end points of muscle mass, muscle strength, muscle power, and muscle fatigue, as well as the relationships between them, are explored with reference to the availability and practicality of the available methods for measuring these end points in clinical trials. Based on current evidence, none of the four potential outcomes in question is sufficiently comprehensive to recommend as a uniform single outcome in randomized clinical trials. We propose that sarcopenia may be optimally defined (for the purposes of clinical trial inclusion criteria as well as epidemiological studies) using a combination of measures of muscle mass and physical performance. The choice of outcome measures for clinical trials in sarcopenia is more difficult; co-primary outcomes, tailored to the specific intervention in question, may be the best way forward in this difficult but clinically important area.

Treatment of osteoporosis in men.

SUMMARY: Aspects of osteoporosis in men, such as screening and identification strategies, definitions of diagnosis and intervention thresholds, and treatment options (both approved and in the pipeline) are discussed. INTRODUCTION: Awareness of osteoporosis in men is improving, although it remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. A European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) workshop was convened to discuss osteoporosis in men and to provide a report by a panel of experts (the authors). METHODS: A debate with an expert panel on preselected topics was conducted. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Although additional fracture data are needed to endorse the clinical care of osteoporosis in men, consensus views were reached on diagnostic criteria and intervention thresholds. Empirical data in men display similarities with data acquired in women, despite pathophysiological differences, which may not be clinically relevant. Men should receive treatment at a similar 10-year fracture probability as in women. The design of mixed studies may reduce the lag between comparable treatments for osteoporosis in women becoming available in men.

Management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

This review summarizes the available evidence-based data that form the basis for therapeutic intervention and covers the current status of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) management, regulatory requirements, and risk-assessment options. Glucocorticoids are known to cause bone loss and fractures, yet many patients receiving or initiating glucocorticoid therapy are not appropriately evaluated and treated. An European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis workshop was convened to discuss GIOP management and to provide a report by a panel of experts. An expert panel reviewed the available studies that discussed approved therapeutic agents, focusing on randomized and controlled clinical trials reporting on bone mineral density and/or fracture risk of at least 48 weeks' duration. There is no evidence that GIOP and postmenopausal osteoporosis respond differently to treatments. The FRAX algorithm can be adjusted according to glucocorticoid dose. Available antiosteoporotic therapies such as bisphosphonates and teriparatide are efficacious in GIOP management. Several other agents approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis may become available for GIOP. It is advised to stop antiosteoporotic treatment after glucocorticoid cessation, unless the patient remains at increased risk of fracture. Calcium and vitamin D supplementation as an osteoporosis-prevention measure is less effective than specific antiosteoporotic treatment. Fracture end-point studies and additional studies investigating specific subpopulations (pediatric, premenopausal, or elderly patients) would strengthen the evidence base and facilitate the development of intervention thresholds and treatment guidelines.

Implications for fracture healing of current and new osteoporosis treatments: an ESCEO consensus paper.

Osteoporotic fracture healing is critical to clinical outcome in terms of functional recovery, morbidity, and quality of life. Osteoporosis treatments may affect bone repair, so insights into their impact on fracture healing are important. We reviewed the current evidence for an impact of osteoporosis treatments on bone repair. Treatment with bisphosphonate in experimental models is associated with increased callus size and mineralization, reduced callus remodeling, and improved mechanical strength. Local and systemic bisphosphonate treatment may improve implant fixation. No negative impact on fracture healing has been observed, even after major surgery or when administered immediately after fracture. Experimental data for denosumab and raloxifene suggest no negative implications for bone repair. The extensive experimental results for teriparatide indicate increased callus formation, improved biomechanical strength, and greater external callus volume and total bone mineral content and density. Case reports and a randomized trial have produced mixed results but are consistent with a positive impact of teriparatide on clinical fracture healing. Studies with strontium ranelate in models of fracture healing indicate that it is associated with improved bone microstructure, callus volume, and biomechanical properties. Finally, there is experimental evidence for a beneficial effect of some of the agents currently being developed for osteoporosis, notably sclerostin antibody and DKK1 antibody. There is currently no evidence that osteoporosis treatments are detrimental for bone repair and some promising experimental evidence for positive effects on healing, notably for agents with a bone-forming mode of action, which may translate into therapeutic applications.

Frailty and sarcopenia: definitions and outcome parameters.

An operational definition of musculoskeletal decline in older people is needed to allow development of interventions for prevention or treatment, as was developed for the treatment of osteoporosis. Frailty and sarcopenia are linked, but distinct, correlates of musculoskeletal aging that have many causes, including age-related changes in body composition, inflammation, and hormonal imbalance. With the emergence of a number of exciting candidate therapies to retard the loss of muscle mass with aging, the derivation of a consensual definition of sarcopenia and physical frailty becomes an urgent priority. Although several consensual definitions have been proposed, these require clinical validation. An operational definition, which might provide a threshold for treatment/trial inclusion, should incorporate a loss of muscle mass as well as evidence of a decrease in muscle strength and/or physical activity. Evidence is required for a link between improvements in the measures of muscle strength and/or physical activity and clinical outcomes to allow development of interventions to improve clinical outcomes in frail older patients.

The effect of teriparatide compared with risedronate on reduction of back pain in postmenopausal women with osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

UNLABELLED: The effect of teriparatide and risedronate on back pain was tested, and there was no difference in the proportion of patients experiencing a reduction in back pain between groups after 6 or 18 months. Patients receiving teriparatide had greater increases in bone mineral density and had fewer vertebral fractures. INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to understand the effect of teriparatide in reducing back pain in patients with prevalent back pain and vertebral fracture compared to risedronate. METHODS: In an 18-month randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial, we investigated the effects of teriparatide (20 µg/day) vs. risedronate (35 mg/week) in postmenopausal women with back pain likely due to vertebral fracture. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of subjects reporting ≥30% reduction in worst back pain severity from baseline to 6 months as assessed by a numeric rating scale in each treatment group. Pre-specified secondary and exploratory outcomes included assessments of average and worst back pain at additional time points, disability and quality of life, bone mineral density, incidence of fractures, and safety. RESULTS: At 6 months, 59% of teriparatide and 57% of risedronate patients reported ≥30% reduction in worst back pain and there were no differences between groups in the proportion of patients experiencing reduction in worst or average back pain at any time point, disability, or quality of life. There was a greater increase from baseline in bone mineral density at the lumbar spine (p = 0.001) and femoral neck (p = 0.02) with teriparatide compared to risedronate and a lower incidence of vertebral fractures at 18 months (4% teriparatide and 9% risedronate; p = 0.01). Vertebral fractures were less severe (p = 0.04) in the teriparatide group. There was no difference in the overall incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no differences in back pain-related endpoints, patients receiving teriparatide had greater skeletal benefit than those receiving risedronate.

Biomarkers and personalised medicine in rheumatoid arthritis: a proposal for interactions between academia, industry and regulatory bodies.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most appropriate conditions for the application of personalised medicine as a high degree of heterogeneity has been recognised, which remains to be explained. Such heterogeneity is also reflected in the large number of treatment targets and options. A growing number of biologics as well as small molecules are already in use and there are promising new drugs in development. In order to make the best use of treatment options, both targeted and non-targeted biomarkers have to be identified and validated. To this aim, new rules are needed for the interaction between academia and industry under regulatory control. Setting up multi-centre biosample collections with clear definition of access, organising early, possibly non-committing discussions with regulatory authorities, and defining a clear route for the validation, qualification and registration of the biomarker-drug combination are some of the more critical areas where effective collaboration between the drug industry, academia and regulators is needed.

The need for a transparent, ethical, and successful relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry: a view of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES).

UNLABELLED: This paper provides recommendations for fair and unbiased relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry. INTRODUCTION: Real or perceived problems in the relationship between academics and the industry have been the subject of much recent debate. It has been suggested that academic clinicians should sever all links with the industry-a view that is rarely challenged. METHODS: Academic experts and members of the pharmaceutical industry were invited to an expert consensus meeting to debate this topic. This meeting was organized by the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science. Conflict of interest, competing interest, right and duties of academic scientist, authorship, and staff and student education were discussed. RESULTS: Guidelines for a transparent, ethical, strong, and successful partnership between the academic scientist and the pharmaceutical industry have been provided. CONCLUSIONS: The Group support interactions between the industry and clinicians provided that it is transparent and ethical.

Evaluation of vertebral fracture assessment by dual X-ray absorptiometry in a multicenter setting.

SUMMARY: The utility of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) by DXA to detect prevalent vertebral fracture in a multicenter setting was investigated by comparison to conventional radiography. While limited by lower image quality, overall performance of VFA was good but had a tendency to miss mild prevalent fractures. INTRODUCTION: In osteoporosis clinical trials standardized spine radiographs are used to detect vertebral fractures as a study endpoint. Lateral spine imaging with dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanners, known as vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) by DXA, presents a potential alternative to conventional radiography with lower radiation dose and greater patient convenience. METHODS: We investigated in a multicenter setting the ability of VFA to detect fractures in comparison with conventional radiography. The study examined 203 postmenopausal women who had imaging of the spine by DXA and radiography. Three radiologists experienced in vertebral fracture assessment independently read the VFA scans and radiographs using the Genant semiquantitative method on two occasions. CONCLUSIONS: Analyzing the data from all readable vertebrae, the kappa statistic, sensitivity, and specificity ranged from 0.64-0.77, 0.65-0.84, and 0.97-0.98, respectively. Considering only moderate and severe fractures improved the kappa statistic (0.80-0.91) and sensitivity (0.70-0.86). While image quality of VFA is inferior to radiography, the detection of vertebral fractures using visual scoring is feasible. However, VFA underperformed due to unreadable vertebrae and reduced sensitivity for mild fractures. Nevertheless, VFA correctly identified most moderate and severe vertebral fractures. Despite this limitation, VFA by DXA provides an important tool for clinical research.

Adherence to treatment of osteoporosis: a need for study.

UNLABELLED: Adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications is currently low and is associated with poor anti-fracture efficacy. This manuscript reviews the potential design of clinical studies that aim to demonstrate improved adherence, with new chemical entities to be used in the management of osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: Several medications have been unequivocally shown to decrease fracture rates in clinical trials. However, in real life settings, long-term persistence and compliance to anti-osteoporosis medication is poor, hence decreasing the clinical benefits for patients. METHODS: An extensive search of Medline from 1985 to 2006 retrieved all trials including the keywords osteoporosis, compliance, persistence or adherence followed by a critical appraisal of the data obtained through a consensus expert meeting. RESULTS: The impact of non-adherence on the clinical development of interventions is reviewed, so that clinicians, regulatory agencies and reimbursement agencies might be better informed of the problem, in order to stimulate the necessary research to document adherence. CONCLUSION: Adherence to therapy is a major problem in the treatment of osteoporosis. Both patients and medication factors are involved. Adherence studies are an important aspect of outcomes studies, but study methodologies are not well developed at the moment and should be improved. Performing adherence studies will be stimulated when registration authorities accept the result of these studies and include the relevant information in Sect. 5.1 of the summary of product characteristics. Reimbursement authorities might also consider such studies as important information for decisions on reimbursement.

Beyond hip: importance of other nonspinal fractures.

It is widely accepted that hip and spine fractures are associated with substantial morbidity, but there is growing awareness that other fractures are under-recognized. The incidence of nonspinal, nonhip fractures is higher than for hip fractures because they occur at an earlier age. Furthermore, the incidence of nonspinal, nonhip fractures exceeds that of hip fractures in men and women >80 years old. Nonspinal, nonhip fractures are associated with considerable morbidity. On average, women with humeral, ankle, distal forearm, and foot fractures experience substantial numbers of limited activity days, and nonspinal, nonhip fractures account for almost a third of health care expenditures attributable to osteoporotic fractures. Nonspinal, nonhip fractures are associated with low bone mineral density, thus it may be possible to identify those at risk. Because these fractures also are indicative of increased risk at other sites, those susceptible might benefit from assessments including these other fracture types. It is the clinician's responsibility to attend to and recognize that nonspinal, nonhip fractures are usually associated with osteoporosis and should be treated.

Effectiveness of instant vertebral assessment to detect prevalent vertebral fracture.

INTRODUCTION: Vertebral fracture is currently underdiagnosed, despite its common severity and its value to predict further osteoporotic fracture. Morphometry using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) [vertebral fracture assessment (VFA)] is a new technique that may facilitate detection of many vertebral fractures, as images are obtained at the same time as bone mineral density (BMD) measurement, and would also allow avoiding spine radiographs. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the diagnostic value of Instant Vertebral Assessment (IVA), which is a morphometry scan using the Hologic Delphi densitometer, to detect prevalent vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women. Interobserver precision was assessed, then IVA scans were compared with lateral spine radiographs, considered the gold standard, to test diagnostic agreement between the two techniques. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated, as well as the likelihood ratio of the positive test, using sensitivity and specificity at each vertebral level. RESULTS: Among 85 patients of whom 50% had at least one vertebral fracture identified with radiographs, we found that interobserver precision was moderate, with frequent difficulties in discerning upper thoracic vertebrae. On a per-vertebra basis, sensitivity was around 70% from L4 to T11 and lower above T11 whereas specificity was above 90% for all vertebrae, and the negative predictive value remained above 80% from L4 to T7 and decreased above T7. On a per-patient basis, sensitivity was 0.69, specificity 0.74, positive predictive value equalled 0.72 and negative predictive value 0.71. When only grades 2 and 3 fractures were considered, results were comparable, with slightly improved specificity. Then, with the likelihood ratios calculated in our sample, we obtained posttest probabilities using the prevalence of vertebral fracture at lumbar and thoracic levels in a large sample of postmenopausal women with osteopenia and osteoporosis with and without vertebral fracture [baseline data in women of the Multiple Outcomes on Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial]. At levels where fractures were most common, likelihood ratios of the positive test were good or excellent, associated with sizeable posttest probabilities. CONCLUSION: IVA allowed diagnosis of vertebral fracture at levels where vertebral fracture were most common, i.e., the lumbar and mid and lower thoracic levels, but its value was weaker at the upper thoracic levels.

Fracture risk reduction during treatment with teriparatide is independent of pretreatment bone turnover.

INTRODUCTION: Teriparatide is a bone formation agent that increases bone turnover and mass, resulting in an increase in bone strength and a decrease in fracture risk. METHODS: The primary purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the association between pretreatment bone turnover marker (BTM) concentrations and the absolute and relative fracture risks after adjusting for baseline femoral neck BMD, number of prevalent vertebral fractures, and age. Because femoral neck BMD is commonly attained in the assessment of patients at risk for osteoporosis, we examined the ability of a multivariate assessment including pretreatment BTM concentration and femoral neck BMD to predict future fracture risk after adjusting for the number of prevalent vertebral fractures. We examined data from the Fracture Prevention Trial, a study designed to determine the effect of teriparatide 20 mcg/day and teriparatide 40 mcg/day on vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. BTM were analyzed in two subsets of women within the Fracture Prevention Trial, and included serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP), serum carboxy-terminal extension peptide of procollagen type I (PICP), serum amino-terminal extension peptide of procollagen type I (PINP), urinary free deoxypyridinoline (DPD), and urinary N-terminal telopeptide (NTX). RESULTS: Teriparatide significantly reduced the risk of fracture [four BTM subset (n = 520), placebo = 14.3%, teriparatide = 5.8%, P < 0.05; PINP subset (n = 771), placebo = 17.7%, teriparatide = 5.5%, P < 0.05]. Subjects with the highest pretreatment BTM concentrations had the greatest fracture risk. Teriparatide-mediated absolute risk reduction was greatest for women with high pretreatment bone turnover; however, the relative fracture risk reduction was independent of pretreatment bone turnover. After adjusting for pretreatment BTM and number of prevalent vertebral fractures, baseline femoral neck BMD was not a significant predictor of fracture risk. CONCLUSION: Teriparatide-mediated relative fracture risk reduction was independent of pretreatment bone turnover, demonstrating that this therapy offers clinical benefit to patients across a range of disease severity.

Teriparatide effects on vertebral fractures and bone mineral density in men with osteoporosis: treatment and discontinuation of therapy.

Teriparatide (rhPTH[1-34]), a bone-forming agent for the treatment of osteoporosis, increases bone mineral density in men and women, and reduces the risk of fractures in women with osteoporosis. However, fracture efficacy has not yet been confirmed in men. Further, there is limited information on the effect of withdrawal of teriparatide. The purpose of this manuscript is to report on bone mineral density and vertebral fracture incidence during a 42-month observation period, from the baseline of the previously reported treatment study in men [1] through 30 months of posttreatment follow-up. Three hundred fifty-five men who were treated with once-daily self-injections of either placebo or 20 or 40 microg of teriparatide participated in the follow-up study. Bone mineral density gradually decreased following discontinuation of teriparatide therapy. However, the lumbar spine and total hip values remained significantly higher than baseline after 30 months of follow-up (p< or =0.001). Antiresorptive treatment prevented the decline and tended to further increase bone mineral density. Lateral thoracic lumbar radiographs obtained at baseline and 18 months after discontinuation of teriparatide were available for 279 men. Of these men, 11.7% assigned to placebo, 5.4% treated with teriparatide 20 microg, and 6.0% treated with teriparatide 40 microg had an incident vertebral fracture. In the combined teriparatide treated groups vs placebo, the risk of vertebral fracture was reduced 51% (nonsignificant, p=0.07). The incidence of moderate or severe fractures was significantly reduced by 83% (p=0.01). In conclusion, men who received teriparatide and who may have received follow-up antiresorptive therapy had a decreased risk of moderate and severe vertebral fractures.

Effect of parathyroid hormone (1-34) on fractures and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Once-daily injections of parathyroid hormone or its amino-terminal fragments increase bone formation and bone mass without causing hypercalcemia, but their effects on fractures are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1637 postmenopausal women with prior vertebral fractures to receive 20 or 40 microg of parathyroid hormone (1-34) or placebo, administered subcutaneously by the women daily. We obtained vertebral radiographs at base line and at the end of the study (median duration of observation, 21 months) and performed serial measurements of bone mass by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. RESULTS: New vertebral fractures occurred in 14 percent of the women in the placebo group and in 5 percent and 4 percent, respectively, of the women in the 20-microg and 40-microg parathyroid hormone groups; the respective relative risks of fracture in the 20-microg and 40-microg groups, as compared with the placebo group, were 0.35 and 0.31 (95 percent confidence intervals, 0.22 to 0.55 and 0.19 to 0.50). New nonvertebral fragility fractures occurred in 6 percent of the women in the placebo group and in 3 percent of those in each parathyroid hormone group (relative risk, 0.47 and 0.46, respectively [95 percent confidence intervals, 0.25 to 0.88 and 0.25 to 0.861). As compared with placebo, the 20-microg and 40-microg doses of parathyroid hormone increased bone mineral density by 9 and 13 more percentage points in the lumbar spine and by 3 and 6 more percentage points in the femoral neck; the 40-microg dose decreased bone mineral density at the shaft of the radius by 2 more percentage points. Both doses increased total-body bone mineral by 2 to 4 more percentage points than did placebo. Parathyroid hormone had only minor side effects (occasional nausea and headache). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with parathyroid hormone (1-34) decreases the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures; increases vertebral, femoral, and total-body bone mineral density; and is well tolerated. The 40-microg dose increased bone mineral density more than the 20-microg dose but had similar effects on the risk of fracture and was more likely to have side effects.