Efficacy and safety of teriparatide vs. bisphosphonates and denosumab vs. bisphosphonates in osteoporosis not previously treated with bisphosphonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The study found that in osteoporosis patients who had not previously received bisphosphonate treatment and were in a treatment cycle of over 12 months, both teriparatide and denosumab significantly increased bone mineral density compared to bisphosphonates. Additionally, teriparatide was also shown to significantly decrease the risk of fractures. OBJECTIVE: The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare the safety and efficacy of teriparatide vs. bisphosphonates and denosumab vs. bisphosphonates in patients with osteoporosis who had not previously received bisphosphonates. METHODS: We conducted a search of published literature from inception to May 31, 2023, including databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, SinoMed, VIP, and WanFang. The study only included head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared teriparatide and denosumab with bisphosphonates to treat patients with osteoporosis. Fixed-effect model and random-effect model were used due to clinical heterogeneity. Meta-analysis was performed via Stata 17.0. RESULTS: A total of 6680 patients were enrolled across 23 eligible trials. The results of the meta-analysis showed that teriparatide was superior to bisphosphonates in decreasing the risk of fracture (risk ratio (RR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.51, 0.74), P < 0.001). Denosumab showed no benefit compared to bisphosphonates in reducing the risk of fracture in treating osteoporosis (RR 0.99, 95% CI (0.62, 1.57), P = 0.96). Compared with bisphosphonates, teriparatide and denosumab could significantly improve femoral neck, total hip, and lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) (P < 0.05). Furthermore, teriparatide and denosumab did not increase the incidence of adverse events (teriparatide vs. bisphosphonates, RR 0.92, 95% CI (0.79, 1.08), P = 0.32; denosumab vs. bisphosphonates, RR 0.98, 95% CI (0.95, 1.02), P = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Teriparatide is superior to bisphosphonates in decreasing the risk of fracture in patients with osteoporosis. In addition, teriparatide and denosumab were more efficacious than bisphosphonates in increasing the percentage change in BMD at the femoral neck, total hip, and lumbar spine.

Teriparatida para o tratamento de osteoporose secundária a glicocorticoides, pacientes do sexo masculino e pacientes que apresentaram infarto do miocárdio ou acidente vascular cerebral no ano anterior / Teriparatide for the treatment of osteoporosis secondary to glucocorticoids in male patients and patients who have had myocardial infarction or stroke in the previous year

INTRODUÇÃO: A osteoporose é uma enfermidade que aumenta a fragilidade óssea e suscetibilidade à fratura. No mundo, afeta aproximadamente 200 milhões de pessoas. Sua prevalência no Brasil varia de 6% a 33%. O tratamento indicado inclui estratégias não medicamentosas e medicamentosas, entre as quais encontram-se o carbonato de cálcio e a vitamina D como parte de todos os esquemas terapêuticos; os agentes anti reabsortivos (bifosfonatos - alendronato, risedronato, pamidronato e ácido zoledrônico); o modulador seletivo dos receptores de estrogênio (raloxifeno); os estrógenos conjugados; calcitonina e o agente anabólico (teriparatida). Estas são opções disponíveis no Protocolo Clínico de Diretrizes Terapêuticas (PCDT) de Osteoporose do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Em caso de falha terapêutica, que pode acompanhar 25% dos pacientes, as diretrizes clínicas nacionais e internacionais de sociedades médicas recomendam o uso de denosumabe, teriparatida ou romosozumabe, dependendo da população. O objetivo do presente relatório é analisar as evidências econômicas do uso da teriparatida para o tratamento da falha terapêutica em: (a) homens; (b) pacientes com osteoporose severa por uso de glicocorticoides (GC); (c) pacientes com acidente vascular cerebral (AVC); e d) pacientes com infarto agudo do miocárdio (IAM) no ano anterior. PERGUNTA: A teriparatida é custo-efetiva no tratamento de: (a) homens com osteoporose, (b) pacientes com osteoporose severa por uso de GC, (c) pacientes com AVC ou IAM no ano anterior, como alternativa aos bifosfonatos? AVALIAÇÃO ECONÔMICA: A avaliação de custo-efetividade não demonstrou a superioridade da teriparatida quando comparada ao alendronato e ao risedronato no tratamento de homens ou pacientes utilizando ou com AVC ou IAM. Para pacientes com uso de glicocorticoides, a razão de custo-efetividade incremental se situou em torno do limiar de R$ 40.000,00/QALY. ANÁLISE DE IMPACTO ORÇAMENTÁRIO: O impacto orçamentário, dependendo do market share, foi de 117 milhões para a população masculina, 17 milhões para pacientes usando glicocorticoides, 9,3 milhões com AVC e 10,3 milhões com IAM. O uso integral da teriparatida elevaria esse gasto para 187 milhões, 71 milhões, 37 milhões e 41 milhões, respectivamente. Deve-se observar que nesses valores pode haver dupla contagem, uma vez que as estimativas feitas para os homens não excluíram as comorbidades. EXPERIÊNCIAS INTERNACIONAIS/RECOMENDAÇÕES DE OUTRAS AGÊNCIAS DE ATS: Quanto ao uso da teriparatida em homens, o National Health System (NHS) a recomenda como alternativa de tratamento para a osteoporose secundária e prevenção de fraturas por fragilidade osteoporótica em homens intolerantes ao alendronato e risedronato ou com "resposta insatisfatória. É financiada pelo NHS England Specialized Commissioning. Na Nova Zelândia, a Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC) sugere o financiamento da teriparatida como tratamento de última linha para a osteoporose, restringindo-a aos pacientes com evidência de fraturas contínuas e/ou T-escore <-3, após tentarem todos os tratamentos financiados para a osteoporose. Este uso está condicionado a uma redução significativa dos preços. A Austrália, por meio do The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), incorporou a teriparatida para o tratamento de osteoporose grave em pacientes com risco alto de fratura com critérios muito bem estabelecidos. Deve ser a única terapia subsidiada pela PBS para esta condição, não excedendo um máximo de 18 meses. O informe de posicionamento terapêutico da teriparatida junto a Agência Espanhola de Medicamentos e Produtos Sanitários (AEMPS) indica seu uso para o tratamento de osteoporose em homens com aumento do risco de fratura. A Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) não recomenda seu uso. A Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) do Japão não se posiciona quanto ao uso deste medicamento em homens com alto risco de fratura. O informe de posicionamento terapêutico para a teriparatida junto à AEMPS e à PMDA indicam seu uso para o tratamento de osteoporose associada à terapia sistêmica com GC, em homens e mulheres com incremento de risco de fratura. Não se encontrou posicionamento relacionado o seu uso em pacientes em uso de GC no sítio do NICE. O CADTH recomendou, em julho de 2009, a não incorporação do Forteo® para pessoas em uso de GC. Não se encontrou informe de posicionamento terapêutico para a teriparatida no tratamento de indivíduos com AVC ou IAM prévios, na PMDA, NICE, NHS, AEMPS ou PMDA. CONSIDERAÇÕES FINAIS: Na maioria dos cenários analisados, o uso dos bifosfonatos produz economia de recursos em relação à teriparatida no tratamento de homens ou com AVC ou IAM no ano anterior. A teriparatida não se mostrou custo-efetiva em nenhuma situação. A única alternativa em que ela mostrou possibilidades de ser custo efetiva foi em pacientes utilizando glicocorticóides. O impacto orçamentário de acordo com o market share variou de 9 milhões com AVC e 117 milhões para homens com ostorporose e falha terapêutica. RECOMENDAÇÃO PRELIMINAR DA CONITEC: Embora a teriparatida só se mostre custo-efetiva para pacientes usando glicocorticóides e não haja economia de recursos, os membros do Comitê de Medicamentos, na 129ª reunião ordinária da Conitec, realizada no dia 8 de maio de 2024, deliberaram, por unanimidade, que a matéria fosse disponibilizada em consulta pública com recomendação preliminar favorável à restrição do uso da teriparatida para o tratamento no SUS da osteoporose em falha terapêutica para: (a) homens; (b) pacientes com osteoporose severa por uso de glicocorticoides (GC); (c) pacientes com acidente vascular cerebral (AVC) no ano anterior; e d) pacientes com infarto agudo do miocárdio (IAM) no ano anterior, haja vista que esses pacientes não são atendidos com as opções terapêuticas disponíveis no SUS. CONSULTA PÚBLICA: A Consulta Pública nº 040 foi realizada entre os dias 26/06/2024 e 15/07/2024. Foram recebidas 6 contribuições, todas de cunho técnico-científico. No total, 1 não concordou e não discordou da recomendação inicial da Conitec, 1 concordou e 4 discordaram. Embora as evidências clínicas não fossem objeto da análise do relatório da consulta pública, todos os participantes que discordaram da restrição do uso da teriparatida relataram a necessidade do uso do medicamento em pacientes com osteoporose grave. Nenhuma das contribuições sobre avaliação econômica apresentou argumentos, indicando apenas uma bibliografia genérica sobre a eficácia do teriparatida. A empresa argumentou que existe evidências da segurança, eficácia e efetividade nos ensaios clínicos e que houve uma autorização de aumento de 4,5% pela CMED que não foi repassado aos preços. Confirmou o preço da última proposta de R$ 12.282,06 para o fornecimento da teriparatida se as restrições fossem aprovadas As das contribuições recebidas na Consulta Pública não trouxeram novos fundamentos na parte econômica que justificassem a alteração da decisão preliminar. As evidências clínicas não estavam em avaliação e não foram objeto de análise. RECOMENDAÇÃO FINAL DA CONITEC: Através do registro de deliberação nº 918/2024, os membros do Comitê de Medicamentos, presentes na 132ª Reunião ordinária da Conitec, realizada no dia 07 de agosto de 2024, deliberaram por maioria pela recomendação FAVORÁVEL pela exclusão da teriparatida para o tratamento de osteoporose grave. O Comitê considerou que a terapia não era custo-efetiva nos cenários apresentados e uma alternativa mais econômica e conveniente estaria disponível em um horizonte tecnológico curto. DECISÃO: excluir, no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS, a teriparatida para o tratamento da osteoporose grave e falha terapêutica aos medicamentos disponíveis no SUS, publicada no Diário Oficial da União, número 183, Seção 1, página 147, em 20 de setembro de 2024.

Impact of Teriparatide and Denosumab on Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes in Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures.

Background and Objectives: Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) are prevalent among the elderly, often leading to significant pain, morbidity, and mortality. Effective management of underlying osteoporosis is essential to prevent subsequent fractures. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of teriparatide and denosumab treatments in patients with OVCFs to determine their relative effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 78 patients diagnosed with an acute thoracolumbar OVCF who received either teriparatide (35 patients) or denosumab (43 patients) within three months of a fracture. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and EQ-5D quality of life scores at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Bone mineral density (BMD) and radiographic outcomes were evaluated initially and at 12 months post-treatment. Results: Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS, ODI, and EQ-5D scores over 12 months. No significant differences were observed between the teriparatide and denosumab groups in terms of clinical outcomes or radiographic measurements at any time point. Fracture union and BMD improvements were similarly observed in both groups. The teriparatide group had a lower baseline BMD, but this did not affect the overall outcomes. Conclusions: Both teriparatide and denosumab are effective in improving clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients with OVCFs. Despite concerns about denosumab's potential to hinder fracture healing, our study found no significant differences between the two treatments. These findings support the use of denosumab for early treatment of OVCFs to prevent subsequent fractures without compromising fracture healing. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

Shoring Up Osteoporosis Management: A Fresh Start?

Anabolic bone agents, such as parathyroid hormone receptor agonists (teriparatide and abaloparatide) and sclerostin-inhibiting monoclonal antibody (romosozumab), are superior at preventing clinically significant fractures and/or vertebral fractures in women with and without severe osteoporosis compared with bisphosphonates.

Recommendations for the optimal use of bone forming agents in osteoporosis.

Bone forming agents, also known as anabolic therapies, are essential in managing osteoporosis, particularly for patients at very high-risk of fractures. Identifying candidates who will benefit the most from these treatments is crucial. For example, this group might include individuals with severe osteoporosis, multiple vertebral fractures, a recent fragility fracture or those unresponsive to antiresorptive treatments. Definitions of patients with a very high fracture risk vary across nations, are often based on fracture history, bone mineral density (BMD), and/or fracture risk calculated by FRAX® or other algorithms. However, for very high-risk patients, anabolic agents such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, or romosozumab are commonly recommended as first-line therapies due to their ability to stimulate new bone formation and improve bone microarchitecture, offering significant benefits in rapid fracture reduction over antiresorptive therapies. The cost-effectiveness of these agents is a critical consideration for decision-makers. Despite their higher costs, their effectiveness in significantly reducing fracture risk and improving quality of life can justify the investment, especially when long-term savings from reduced fracture rates and associated healthcare costs are considered. Additionally, after completing a course of anabolic therapy, transitioning to antiresorptive agents like bisphosphonates or denosumab is crucial to maintain the gains in bone density and minimize subsequent fracture risks. This sequential treatment approach ensures sustained protection and optimal resource utilization. In summary, the effective use of bone forming agents in osteoporosis requires a comprehensive strategy that includes accurate patient identification, consideration of cost-effectiveness, and implementation of appropriate sequential treatments, ultimately maximizing patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

The comparative effect of teriparatide and denosumab on activins, follistatins, and inhibins in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.

The activins-follistatins-inhibins (AFI) hormonal system affects bone metabolism. Treatments that alter bone metabolism may also alter the AFI molecules. In this non-randomized, open-label, head-to-head comparative study, circulating levels of the AFI system were evaluated in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated for 12 mo with either teriparatide (n = 23) or denosumab (n = 22). Τeriparatide treatment increased activin B (P=.01) and activin AB (P=.004) and the ratios activin A/follistatin (P=.006), activin B/follistatin (P=.007), activin AB/follistatin (P<.001), and activin AB/ follistatin-like 3 (FSTL3) (P=.034). The significant P for trend in group × time interactions of activins B and AB and of the ratio activin AB/FSTL3 remained robust after adjustment for BMI and LS BMD but it was lost for activin B after adjustment for previous antiresorptive treatment. The effect of teriparatide on BMD was attenuated when it was adjusted for baseline activins levels or their 12-mo changes. No changes were observed after denosumab treatment. In conclusion, activins B and AB, as well as the ratios of all activins to follistatin and of activin AB to FSTL3 increased with teriparatide treatment, possibly in a compensatory manner. Future studies are needed to study the potentially important role activins may play in bone biology and any associations with the effect of teriparatide on BMD. Clinical Trials identifier: NCT04206618. ClinicalTrials.gov  https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=NCT04206618.

Bone and the muscle comprise 2 tissues that are considered to interact with each other, not only through mechanical but also through endocrine signals. Several components of the activins­follistatins­inhibins (AFI) hormonal system have been shown to be secreted by the muscle and affect the bone possibly contributing to this interplay. We have previously investigated the levels of the AFI molecules in case­control studies and reported differences between osteoporotic vs osteopenic vs postmenopausal and premenopausal women with normal BMD. In this 12-mo, non-randomized, open-labeled, head-to-head comparative study, we prospectively compared the effect of antiosteoporotic agents with opposite effect on bone metabolism, that is, teriparatide vs denosumab, on the circulating concentrations of all known molecules of the AFI system in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. We observed increases of activins after teriparatide treatment, but no effect after denosumab treatment on any of the AFI molecules studied. Since activins are mainly acting in an autocrine way and since activin B and AB have not been extensively studied, further studies in the basic research, preclinical, and clinical research fields are required to expand these observations and fully elucidate physiology and any therapeutic potential.

Change in spinal bone mineral density as estimated by Hounsfield units following osteoporosis treatment with romosozumab, teriparatide, denosumab, and alendronate: an analysis of 318 patients.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of osteoporosis medications on opportunistic CT-based Hounsfield units (HU). METHODS: Spine and nonspine surgery patients were retrospectively identified who had been treated with romosozumab for 3 to 12 months, teriparatide for 3 to 12 months, teriparatide for > 12 months, denosumab for > 12 months, or alendronate for > 12 months. HU were measured in the L1-4 vertebral bodies. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean change in HU among the five treatment regimens. RESULTS: In total, 318 patients (70% women) were included, with a mean age of 69 years and mean BMI of 27 kg/m2. There was a significant difference in mean HU improvement (p < 0.001) following treatment with romosozumab for 3 to 12 months (n = 32), teriparatide for 3 to 12 months (n = 30), teriparatide for > 12 months (n = 44), denosumab for > 12 months (n = 123), and alendronate for > 12 months (n = 100). Treatment with romosozumab for a mean of 10.5 months significantly increased the mean HU by 26%, from a baseline of 85 to 107 (p = 0.012). Patients treated with teriparatide for > 12 months (mean 23 months) experienced a mean HU improvement of 25%, from 106 to 132 (p = 0.039). Compared with the mean baseline HU, there was no significant difference after treatment with teriparatide for 3 to 12 months (110 to 119, p = 0.48), denosumab for > 12 months (105 to 107, p = 0.68), or alendronate for > 12 months (111 to 113, p = 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with romosozumab for a mean of 10.5 months and teriparatide for a mean of 23 months experienced improved spinal bone mineral density as estimated by CT-based opportunistic HU. Given the shorter duration of effective treatment, romosozumab may be the preferred medication for optimization of osteoporotic patients in preparation for elective spine fusion surgery.

Utility of a bone health clinic in bridging the osteoporosis care gap: Prescribing habit review at an academic institution.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze osteoporosis medication prescribing trends across specialties in the context of a Bone Health Clinic. INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis affects over 10 million adults in the US, taking a significant toll on patients and the healthcare system. Although screening methods and treatments are improving, the disease remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. This study aims to evaluate the prescribing trends of osteoporosis medication among department specialties to delineate the benefits of a bone health clinic. METHODS: Retrospective data collection identified and analyzed patients within the Penn State Health system prescribed one of the following osteoporosis medications: Bisphosphonate, denosumab, romosozumab, teriparatide, abaloparatide, or raloxifene. Date range: 4/18/2016 to 4/14/2021. Data collection identified the specialty origin of prescriptions for osteoporosis medications across various medical specialties (e.g., orthopaedics, family medicine, and internal medicine). RESULTS: 10,736 prescription orders were issued to patients with an average age of 68 years. Non-Hispanic Caucasian patients received 88.6% of prescriptions, followed by Asian (3.4%) and African American (2.2%). Female patients accounted for 87.8% of all prescriptions. The Bone Health Clinic under two orthopaedic providers wrote 3,619 prescriptions, averaging 361.9 prescriptions per provider per year-marking the highest rate among specialties. The clinic prescriptions constituted 33.7% of all prescriptions across specialties. Orthopaedic surgery prescribed the most denosumab, romosozumab, teriparatide, and abaloparatide prescriptions, and had the highest number of male osteoporosis patients compared to other specialties (15.6%), consequently prescribing the most male prescriptions (578). CONCLUSION: Establishing a bone health clinic dedicated to osteoporosis management leads to significantly higher prescription rates per provider, increased utilization of anabolic therapies compared to other specialties, and more male patients being treated-an often-neglected population in osteoporosis.

Effects of daily teriparatide, weekly high-dose teriparatide, or bisphosphonate on cortical and trabecular bone of vertebra and proximal femur in postmenopausal women with fragility fracture: Sub-analysis by quantitative computed tomography from the TERABIT study.

PURPOSE: The effects of daily teriparatide (D-PTH, 20 µg/day), weekly high-dose teriparatide (W-PTH, 56.5 µg/week), or bisphosphonate (BP) on the vertebra and proximal femur were investigated using quantitative computed tomography (QCT). METHODS: A total of 131 postmenopausal women with a history of fragility fractures were randomized to receive D-PTH, W-PTH, or bisphosphonate (oral alendronate or risedronate). QCT were evaluated at baseline and after 18 months of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 86 participants were evaluated by QCT (Spine: D-PTH: 25, W-PTH: 21, BP: 29. Hip: PTH: 22, W-PTH: 21, BP: 32. Dropout rate: 30.5 %). QCT of the vertebra showed that D-PTH, W-PTH, and BP increased total vBMD (+34.8 %, +18.2 %, +11.1 %), trabecular vBMD (+50.8 %, +20.8 %, +12.2 %), and marginal vBMD (+20.0 %, +14.0 %, +11.5 %). The increase in trabecular vBMD was greater in the D-PTH group than in the W-PTH and BP groups. QCT of the proximal femur showed that D-PTH, W-PTH, and BP increased total vBMD (+2.8 %, +3.6 %, +3.2 %) and trabecular vBMD (+7.7 %, +5.1 %, +3.4 %), while only W-PTH and BP significantly increased cortical vBMD (-0.1 %, +1.5 %, +1.6 %). Although there was no significant increase in cortical vBMD in the D-PTH group, cortical bone volume (BV) increased in all three treatment groups (+2.1 %, +3.6 %, +3.1 %). CONCLUSIONS: D-PTH had a strong effect on trabecular bone of vertebra. Although D-PTH did not increase cortical BMD of proximal femur, it increased cortical BV. W-PTH had a moderate effect on trabecular bone of vertebra, while it increased both cortical BMD and BV of proximal femur. Although BP had a limited effect on trabecular bone of vertebra compared to teriparatide, it increased both cortical BMD and BV of proximal femur.

A crossover comparison of patient satisfaction with two teriparatide regimens: primary results of the Japanese Osteoporosis Intervention Trial 06 (JOINT-06).

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare treatment satisfaction with two dosing regimens (two teriparatide [TPTD] self-injection systems) in osteoporosis patients at high risk of fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open-label crossover randomized trial comparing self-injected once-daily (1/D)-TPTD with self-injected twice-weekly (2/W)-TPTD, three satisfaction variables were evaluated by questionnaire for 2 years. The primary endpoint was overall satisfaction and secondary endpoints were satisfaction with treatment effectiveness and with utility of the self-injection device. Changes in quality of life (QOL) assessed by EuroQol-5 Dimension, pain assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS), and anthropometric parameters were also analyzed. Safety was evaluated based on the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The 1/D-TPTD and 2/W-TPTD groups consisted of 180 (75.9 ± 7.3 years) and 179 (age: 75.5 ± 6.9 years) patients, respectively. After 26 weeks of treatment, no significant between-group difference in the persistence rate (79.4% vs 72.6% in the 1/D-TPTD and 2/W-TPTD groups, respectively), distributions of overall satisfaction scores, and satisfaction with treatment (p > 0.05) were observed. However, several items of satisfaction with the utility of the injection device were significantly higher in the 2/W-TPTD group (p < 0.05). Statistical improvements from baseline values were observed in QOL and pain VAS in both groups (p < 0.05). No serious AEs were reported. CONCLUSION: The between-group similarity of overall treatment satisfaction and effectiveness scores and between-group difference in satisfaction with the utility of the self-injection device was useful information for real-world treatment of osteoporosis. Both medication regimens were well tolerated.

Teriparatide alone versus vertebroplasty on pain control and radiographic outcomes after osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture.

PURPOSE: To investigate efficacy of 3-month teriparatide(TPD) and compare this treatment with vertebroplasty in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes after osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs). METHODS: This is a retrospective matched cohort study. Patients who received conservative treatment with at least 3-month TPD treatment for acute OVCF with at least 6 months follow-up were included. Each enrolled TPD case was matched with 2 vertebroplasty cases using age and gender. 30 TPD cases and 60 vertebroplasty cases were enrolled. Patient-reported pain scores were obtained at diagnosis and 1, 3, 6 months after diagnosis. Radiographic parameters including middle body height, posterior body height, wedge angle and kyphotic angle were measured at diagnosis and 6 months after diagnosis. Fracture non-union and subsequent vertebral fracture were evaluated. RESULTS: TPD treatment showed inferior pain relief to vertebroplasty group at 1 month, but did not show difference at 3 and 6 months after diagnosis. In TPD cases, progression of vertebral body collapse was noted in terms of middle body height and wedge angle at final follow up. Instead, both middle body height and wedge angle increased significantly after operation in the vertebroplasty group. Fracture non-union was confirmed via MRI and 4 TPD patients were diagnosed with non-union (4/30, 13.3%). Subsequent compression fracture within 6 months was significant higher in vertebroplasty group (12/60, 20%) than in TPD group (1/30, 3.3%). CONCLUSION: In acute OVCFs, 3-month TPD treatment alone showed comparable pain improvement and less subsequent spine fracture than vertebroplasty.

The Effects of Longer Use of Teriparatide on Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes after Spinal Fusion in Geriatric Patients.

Background: Teriparatide is an anabolic agent for osteoporosis and is believed to improve the bone healing process. Previous studies showed that teriparatide could enhance not only fracture healing but also spine fusion. It has been reported that use of teriparatide could promote the spine fusion process and decrease mechanical complications. However, there was no consensus regarding optimal treatment duration. The purpose of this study was to compare surgical outcomes between short-duration and long-duration teriparatide treatment after lumbar fusion surgery in elderly patients. Materials and Methods: All consecutive patients older than 60 years who underwent 1-level lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative diseases between January 2015 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Based on the duration of teriparatide treatment (daily subcutaneous injection of 20 µg teriparatide), patients were subdivided into two groups: a short-duration (SD) group (<6 months) and a long-duration (LD) group (≥6 months). Mechanical complications, such as screw loosening, cage subsidence, and adjacent vertebral fractures, were investigated. Postoperative 1-year union rate was also evaluated on computed tomography. Clinical outcomes were recorded using visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Between-group differences for these radiographic and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Results: Ninety-one patients were reviewed in this study, including sixty patients in the SD group and thirty-one patients in the LD group. Their mean age was 72.3 ± 6.2 years, and 79 patients were female. Mean T-score was -3.3 ± 0.8. Cage subsidence (6.7% vs. 3.2%), screw loosening (28.3% vs. 35.5%), and adjacent vertebral fracture (6.7% vs. 9.7%) were not significantly different between the SD and LD groups. Union rate at 1-year postoperative was 65.0% in the SD group and 87.1% in the LD group (p = 0.028). Both groups showed improvement in VAS and ODI after surgery. However, the differences of VAS from preoperative to 6 months and 1 year postoperative were significantly higher in the LD group. Conclusions: Longer teriparatide treatment after lumbar fusion surgery resulted in a higher union rate at 1-year postoperative than the shorter treatment. Also, it could be more beneficial for clinical outcomes.

Romosozumab versus parathyroid hormone receptor agonists: which osteoanabolic to choose and when?

Osteoanabolic agents are used as a first line treatment in patients at high fracture risk. The PTH receptor 1 (PTH1R) agonists teriparatide (TPTD) and abaloparatide (ABL) increase bone formation, bone mineral density (BMD), and bone strength by activating PTH receptors on osteoblasts. Romosozumab (ROMO), a humanized monoclonal antibody against sclerostin, dramatically but transiently stimulates bone formation and persistently reduces bone resorption. Osteoanabolic agents increase BMD and bone strength while being more effective than antiresorptives in reducing fracture risk in postmenopausal women. However, direct comparisons of the antifracture benefits of osteoanabolic therapies are limited. In a direct comparison of TPTD and ABL, the latter resulted in greater BMD increases at the hip. While no differences in vertebral or non-vertebral fracture risk were observed between the two drugs, ABL led to a greater reduction of major osteoporotic fractures. Adverse event profiles were similar between the two agents except for hypercalcemia, which occurred more often with TPTD. No direct comparisons of fracture risk reduction between ROMO and the PTH1R agonists exist. Individual studies have shown greater increases in BMD and bone strength with ROMO compared with TPTD in treatment-naive women and in women previously treated with bisphosphonates. Some safety aspects, such as a history of tumor precluding the use of PTH1R agonists, and a history of major cardiovascular events precluding the use of ROMO, should also be considered when choosing between these agents. Finally, convenience of administration, reimbursement by national health systems and length of clinical experience may influence patient choice.

Teriparatide Does not Have Beneficial Effects on Bone Healing in Complete Atypical Femur Fractures.

Teriparatide is an anabolic drug sometimes administered to patients who have atypical femoral fracture (AFF). However, whether teriparatide has beneficial effects on bone healing remains uncertain. The present study aimed to analyze the association between teriparatide and bone healing in complete AFF. A total of 59 consecutive cases (58 patients) who underwent intramedullary nailing for complete AFF were categorized based on postoperative use of teriparatide into the non-teriparatide (non-TPTD, n = 34) and teriparatide groups (TPTD, n = 25). Time-to-bone union was evaluated and compared between the two groups. Additionally, multiple regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors affecting time-to-bone union. All participants were women, with a mean age of 77.6 years (range: 62-92). No significant difference in time-to-bone union was found between the non-TPTD and TPTD groups (5.5 months vs. 5.8 months, p = 0.359). Two patients in the non-TPTD group underwent reoperation (p = 0.503) due to failure caused by inadequate fixation, and both achieved bone healing after additional fixation with blocking screws. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the anterior gap of the fracture site postoperatively was a factor affecting time-to-bone union (p = 0.014). The beneficial effect of teriparatide on bone healing in complete AFF could not be confirmed. Additional randomized controlled trials are required. Nonetheless, appropriate techniques, including efforts to reduce the gap on the tensile side during the surgery, are important for reliable bone healing.

Expert opinion on the management of patients with osteoporosis with anabolic drugs in Italy.

OBJECTIVE: Fragility fractures (FF) resulting from osteoporosis pose a significant public health challenge in Italy, with considerable socio-health and economic implications. Despite the availability of safe and effective drugs, osteoporosis remains underdiagnosed and undertreated, leaving over 2 million high-risk Italian women without treatment. This paper aims to identify and propose key improvements in the management of osteoporosis, focusing particularly on the critical issues related to the use of anabolic drugs in secondary prevention, according to the current Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) Note 79. METHODS: The Expert Panel, composed of nine recognized Italian experts in rheumatology, analyzed current practices, prescribing criteria, and the most recent literature. Three main reasons for revising the indications on pharmacological treatment of osteoporosis were identified: inadequate treatment of osteoporosis, new evidence regarding frontline placement of anabolics in high-risk conditions, and emerging sequential or combined strategies. RESULTS: The proposed improvements include the adoption of the Derived Fracture Risk Assessment algorithm for accurate fracture risk assessment, revision of AIFA Note 79 to reflect current evidence, improved prescribing appropriateness, broader access to anabolic agents, and the provision of sequential therapies with antiresorptives for teriparatide. These changes aim to enhance patient outcomes, streamline healthcare processes, and address the high percentage of undertreated individuals. CONCLUSIONS: This expert opinion emphasizes the importance of the appropriate use of anabolic drugs to reduce FF and associated costs while ensuring the sustainability of the National Health Service. The proposed recommendations are in line with the latest scientific evidence, providing a comprehensive strategy to optimize the management of osteoporosis in Italy. On behalf of the Study Group on Osteoporosis and Skeletal Metabolic Diseases of the Italian Society of Rheumatology.

The Combined Therapy of Teriparatide and Raloxifene Improves Osseointegration of Dental Implants in the Osteoporotic Rabbit Model.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of combined therapy of teriparatide and raloxifene on the osseointegration of titanium dental implants in a rabbit model of osteoporotic bone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty female rabbits were randomly divided into six groups. The sham ovariectomy group (control) consisted of animals that received no medication. Animals in the ovariectomy group (OVX) underwent ovariectomy and received no medication. The combined group consisted of ovariectomized animals that received combined teriparatide (10 mg/kg) for 12 weeks and raloxifene (10 mg/kg) for 12 weeks. The sequential group (SEQ) consisted of ovariectomized animals that received teriparatide (10 mg/kg) for the first 6 weeks and raloxifene therapy (10 mg/kg) for the following 6 weeks sequentially. The parathormone (PTH) and raloxifene (RAL) groups consisted of ovariectomized animals that received only teriparatide (10 mg/kg) for 12 weeks or raloxifene (10 mg/kg) for 12 weeks, respectively. Dental implants (Bilimplant) were placed in the proximal metaphysis of both tibias in all rabbits. Histomorphometric and microCT studies were performed on the specimens obtained from the right tibia bone. Removal torque (RTQ) and implant stability quotient (ISQ) tests were performed on the specimens obtained from the left tibia bone. The results were compared and evaluated statistically. RESULTS: RTQ analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between the mean values of the combined group (93.01 ± 27.19 Ncm) and the OVX group (49.6 ± 12.5 Ncm) (P = .015). The highest mean T0 (implantation day) value was obtained in the control group (67.1 ± 3.4 Ncm), and the lowest mean value was obtained in the OVX group (61.4 ± 3.8 Ncm). The highest T1 mean (3 months after implantation) was obtained by the combined group (76.6 ± 3.8 Ncm), and the lowest mean was obtained by the OVX group (68.9 ± 6.2 Ncm). Histomorphometric analyses showed that the mean percentage of bone-to-implant contact (BIC%) of the combined group (51.2%) was significantly higher than that of the OVX group (28.6%) (P =.006). In the microCT examinations, it was found that the mean BIC% value of the combined group (41.1%) was significantly higher than that of the OVX group (24.1%) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of the current study, combined therapy of teriparatide and raloxifene improves the BIC and osseointegration of titanium dental implants in osteoporotic bone compared with sequential or independent therapy with these agents.

Achieving osteoporosis treat-to-target goals with teriparatide or alendronate: sub-analysis of Japanese Osteoporosis Intervention Trial-05 (JOINT-05).

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether bone mineral density (BMD) ≥ -2.5 SD could be used as the treat-to-target (T2T) goal when treating osteoporosis with teriparatide (TPTD) and alendronate (ALN), and to investigate the relationship with incident vertebral fracture by re-analyzing data from a randomized, controlled trial (JOINT-05) involving postmenopausal Japanese women at high fracture risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants received sequential therapy with once-weekly TPTD for 72 weeks, followed by ALN for 48 weeks (TPTD-ALN group) or ALN monotherapy for 120 weeks (ALN group). BMDs were measured at the lumbar spine (L2-4), total hip, and femoral neck at 0, 24, 48, 72, and 120 weeks by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The T2T goal was BMD ≥ -2.5 SD, and the endpoint was the proportion of participants with baseline BMD < -2.5 SD in three measurement sites achieving BMD ≥ -2.5 SD. RESULTS: A total of 559 participants were selected. BMD ≥ -2.5 SD at 120 weeks in the L2-4, total hip, and femoral neck sites was achieved in 20.5%, 23.1%, and 5.9%, respectively, in the TPTD-ALN group and 22.2%, 11.7%, and 7.3%, respectively, in the ALN group. Incident vertebral fractures occurred in areas of both lower and high BMD. CONCLUSION: During the 1.5-year treatment period, more than 20% of participants achieved BMD ≥ -2.5 SD as a T2T goal at L2-4. Since the achievement level differed depending on the BMD measurement site, the appropriate site should be selected according to the baseline BMD level.

Effectiveness of teriparatide in in improving healing rates and bone-turnover markers of osteoporotic hip fracture: a meta-analysis.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of subcutaneous teriparatide therapy on fracture healing rate and change in bone mass density in osteoporotic hip fractures. METHODS: The meta-analysis was done from September to December 2022, and comprised literature search on Wanfang, CNKI, VIP, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from the establishment of the respective database till December 2022. The relevant journals of the library of Macao University of Science and Technology, China, were manually searched for randomised controlled trials of teriparatide in the treatment of osteoporotic hip fractures. The shortlisted studies were subjectd to Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Jadad Rating Scale. Meta-analysis was done using the RevMan 5.4 software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration Network. Fracture healing rate and bone mineral density were the primary outcome measures, while mortality, adverse events, malformations, complications, subsequent fractures, timed-up-and-go test, visual analogue scale score, and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide were the secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: Of the 1,094 articles retrieved, 8(0.7%) randomised controlled trials were analysed. There were 744 patients; 372(50%) in the teriparatide group and 372(50%) in the control group. Fracture healing rate was not significantly different (p=0.82), while bone mineral density was significantly different between the groups (p<0.001). Mortality, adverse events, deformity, and complications were not significantly different (p>0.05), while subsequent fractures, timed-up-and-go score, visual analogue scale score and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide were significantly different between the groups (p<0.05). Conclusion: The literature did not support teriparatide's ability to improve the healing rate of osteoporotic hip fractures, or to reduce mortality, adverse events, malformations, and complications. In addition, teriparatide could increase bone mineral density of osteoporotic hip fractures and the procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide value, alleviate hip pain, and reduce subsequent fracture rates. This trial is registered with PROSPERO with registration number CRD42022379832.

The use of anabolic agents in the treatment of osteoporosis: a clinical update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Anabolic therapies have revolutionized the management of patients with osteoporosis, especially those at very high fracture risk. The current review offers valuable insights into the latest evidence and guidelines on the use of anabolic agents, focusing on their comparative efficacy, safety profiles, and optimal implementation in clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Romosozumab, abaloparatide, and teriparatide have shown superior efficacy when compared to antiresorptive therapies in increasing bone mineral density and reducing fracture risk. Notably, sequential treatment strategies, commencing with an anabolic agent followed by an antiresorptive, has emerged as an effective approach for both rapid and sustained reduction of fracture risk in patients at high risk. Additionally, anabolics have shown potential in improving outcomes for patients who have a suboptimal response to antiresorptives. Careful patient selection and vigilant monitoring are essential to optimize therapeutic benefits while mitigating the potential risks. As we gain more clinical experience with these agents, we will better understand how to use them effectively, as part of long term, sequential treatment strategies. Ongoing research into novel anabolic therapies and innovative treatment sequences holds promise for expanding our toolkit against fragility fractures. SUMMARY: Integrating anabolic agents into personalized treatment plans has the potential to significantly improve outcomes and quality of life for patients with severe osteoporosis, highlighting the importance of this therapeutic class in the management of this chronic condition.

[Chinese expert consensus on treatment of osteoporotic fractures with teriparatide (2024 edition)].

Osteoporotic fracture is the most serious complication of osteoporosis, which is a special type of pathologic fracture of the skeleton that occurs because of osteoporosis. It is characterized by delayed fracture healing, high risk of re-fracture, high rate of disability and death, difficulty in treatment and long treatment time, and re-fracture has a"cascade effect". Guidelines in different countries recommend that patients with osteoporotic fractures and those at very high risk of fracture should consider anabolic agents as first treatment choice. Teriparatide is the only anabolic agent approved by National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), and it has the clinical efficacy of improving fracture healing, reducing the risk of re-fracture, and improving bone microstructure in the treatment of osteoporotic fracture. Due to deficiencies in the current standardization of clinical use of teriparatide, Committee of Accelerated Rehabilitation After Osteoporotic Fractures of China Association of Rehabilitation Technology Transformation and Promotion, Bone and Joint Group of Chinese Society of Osteoporosis and Bone Mineral Research and Osteoporosis Working Committee of Chinese Association of Orthopedic Surgeons developed this consensus. The development of this consensus follows the modified Delphi method and forms 8 evidence-based medical recommendations, aiming to propose methods and precautions for standardizing the application of teriparatide, and to emphasize the importance of teriparatide application for the treatment of patients with osteoporotic fracture.