Safety Of Teriparatide Research Articles

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

SummaryThe 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsTeriparatide 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.

Clinical efficacy of denosumab, teriparatide, and oral bisphosphonates in the prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundContinuous use of glucocorticoids (GCs) has become the primary cause of secondary osteoporosis. Bisphosphonate drugs were given priority over denosumab and teriparatide in the 2017 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines but have a series of shortcomings. This study aims to explore the efficacy and safety of teriparatide and denosumab compared with those of oral bisphosphonate drugs.MethodsWe systematically searched studies included in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane library databases and included randomized controlled trials that compared denosumab or teriparatide with oral bisphosphonates. Risk estimates were pooled using both fixed and random effects models.ResultsWe included 10 studies involving 2923 patients who received GCs for meta-analysis, including two drug base analyses and four sensitivity analyses. Teriparatide and denosumab were superior to bisphosphonates in increasing the bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar vertebrae [teriparatide: mean difference [MD] 3.98%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.61–4.175%, P = 0.00001; denosumab: MD 2.07%, 95% CI 0.97–3.17%, P = 0.0002]. Teriparatide was superior to bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures and increasing hip BMD [MD 2.39%, 95% CI 1.47–3.32, P < 0.00001]. There was no statistically significant difference between serious adverse events, adverse events, and nonvertebral fracture prevention drugs.ConclusionsTeriparatide and denosumab exhibited similar or even superior characteristics to bisphosphonates in our study, and we believe that they have the potential to become first-line GC-induced osteoporosis treatments, especially for patients who have previously received other anti-osteoporotic drugs with poor efficacy.

Efficacy and Safety of Teriparatide in Improving Fracture Healing and Callus Formation: A Systematic Review.

Fracture nonunion remains a great challenge for orthopedic surgeons. Some bone fractures don't heal promptly, resulting in delayed unions and nonunions, and there is a need for an additional surgical procedure. Previous research has shown that teriparatide, a type of synthetic parathyroid hormone, can promote the formation of callus and lead to healing in individuals with delayed or non-healing bone fractures. Limited systematic reviews exist that examine the use of teriparatide in cases of delayed healing or non-healing bone fractures, which have their limitations. In this review, we overcome those limitations by including prospective studies, retrospective studies, case reports, and case series together. A systematic search of theliterature was conducted in both PubMed and Google Scholar up to September of the year 2022. The studies included in our research included adult patients (over the age of 16) diagnosed with delayed union or nonunion of any bone in the body (flat bone, long bone, short bone, or irregular bone). The studies were limited to those written in English. The outcomes that were tracked and recorded include the healing of the fracture and any negative side effects or adverse events. The initial search yielded 504 abstracts and titles. After reviewing these, 32 articles were selected for further analysis, which included 19 case reports, five case series, two retrospective studies, and six prospective studies. Studies included daily (20 micrograms) or weekly (56.5 micrograms) subcutaneous administration of teriparatide. The duration of follow-up for these studies varied from three to 24 months. Based on the available research, it appears that administering teriparatide subcutaneously is a safe treatment option for delayed healing and non-healing bone fractures, with very few to no reported negative side effects. Using teriparatide for induction of callus formation and treating delayed and nonunions is highly safe and effective.

Efficacy and Safety of Teriparatide in Beta-Thalassemia Major Associated Osteoporosis: A Real-Life Experience

Osteoporosis represents a relevant cause of morbidity in adult Thalassemia Major (TM) population. Antiresorptive drugs such as bisphosphonates were demonstrated effective in preventing bone loss. Teriparatide (TP) is an anabolic agent approved for osteoporosis management in the general population, but its use has been very limited in TM patients so far. We evaluated TP efficacy and safety in TM-associated osteoporosis in real-life clinical practice. Retrospective evaluation of 11 TM patients (6 males, 5 females; mean age = 45 ± 4.38 years) with severe osteoporosis and multiple fractures under TP treatment. Mean TP treatment duration was 19 ± 7 months. TP withdrawal was due to poor compliance and side effects (fever and osteo-muscular pain) in two and three patients, respectively. After 12 and 24 months, BMD significantly increased at lumbar (+ 19% and 22%) and femoral sites (+ 13% and 13%). Osteocalcin and cross-laps levels increased after 12 and 24 months (+ 225 and + 54.2%; + 159 and 141%, respectively). No new fractures were detected during TP treatment. Baseline VAS score values (3 ± 3) did not significantly change after 12 and 24 months (3 ± 3 and 2 ± 3, respectively). Five out of eleven patients developed side effects. TP might be an effective treatment for TM-associated osteoporosis since it improves BMD, especially at the lumbar spine, and prevents fragility fractures. TM patients may have a higher frequency of side effects, especially muscle and bone pain under TP treatment, as compared to no TM population. Further studies are needed.

Comparative efficacy and safety of alendronate and teriparatide in bone loss reduction and prevention of vertebral fracture in osteoporotic Chinese patients

Purpose: To compare the effect of teriparatide and alendronate (bisphosphonate, BPP) among Chinese patients with osteoporosis (OoP).Method: Chinese subjects aged &gt; 40 years with a history of vertebral/non-vertebral osteoporotic fragility/fractures were enrolled, and administered either teriparatide (TPT 20 μg/day) subcutaneously or alendronate (BPP)10 mg orally once daily for 12 months. Bone mineral density (BMD), measured using x-ray techniques, and bone formation biomarkers such as osteocalcin [OTC] and bone alkaline phosphatase, were assessed at baseline, and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. The proportion of patients with fractures as well as fracture rate were also recorded. The safety of the drugs was evaluated based treatment emergent adverse events.Result: In Chinese men with OoP, substantially greater improvement in BMD was observed in TPT group, compared to BPP group. TPT demonstrated substantially greater improvement in OTC and, bone alkaline phosphatase than in BPP. Also, patients treated with TPT had significantly lower incidence of new fracture than BPP group during the study period, irrespective of gender distribution (relative risk reduction at 6 and 12 months was 45 and 47 % respectively). The results showed that TPT was superior to BPP in increasing BMD and bone formation biomarkers and reducing new fractures in both male and female patients with osteoporosis.Conclusion: Teriparatide is effective and safe in reducing bone loss and preventing vertebral fractures in Chinese patients with osteoporosis. Furthermore, the results show that there is no gender difference in the efficacy and safety of teriparatide in osteoporosis.

A Phase IV Study of the Safety and Efficacy of CinnoPar® in Iranian Patients with Osteoporosis.

The safety of teriparatide has been studied in various phase III and phase IV trials. However, a postmarketing study of the biosimilar of teriparatide, CinnoPar®, has not been conducted on Iranian patients. This was a phase IV study conducted on osteoporotic patients who received an Iranian teriparatide biosimilar with a dose of 20 μg daily. The primary outcome of this study was to monitor for adverse events (AEs). Effectiveness as the secondary outcome was measured using the EQ-5D quality-of-life questionnaire and back pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score. Among 193 analyzed patients between September 2015 and March 2019, the most common AEs were hypercalcemia (4%), nausea, and pain (3%). No deaths, serious AEs, or other significant AEs occurred in this study. The mean EQ-5D scores decreased after the course of the treatment from 2.3 ± 0.66 at the baseline to 2 ± 0.66. The mean back pain VAS scores also decreased from 4.9 ± 3.6 at baseline to 1.8 ± 2.1 at the end of the study. Both changes were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Consistent with the findings of previous studies and the drug monograph, no new safety concern was observed with this biosimilar teriparatide, and the drug was effective based on the VAS score and EQ-5D in osteoporotic patients.

Chronic hypoparathyroidism and treatment with teriparatide

PurposeChronic hypoparathyroidism is usually treated with calcium and active vitamin D metabolites or analogs, despite the fact that their chronic use can lead to long-term complications. The use of hormone replacement therapy with PTH peptides [teriparatide and rhPTH (1–84)] has therefore been proposed. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of teriparatide dose at 20 µg once or twice daily, in order to maintain normocalcemia reducing standard treatment, in adult patients with chronic hypoparathyroidism not well controlled with conventional treatment.MethodsThe study was a Phase III, open-label, non-comparative, clinical investigation (study period: 3 months), at a tertiary care clinical research center. Thirty patients with chronic hypoparathyroidism were screened, and 12 started teriparatide. After the optimization phase (0–4 weeks), calcium and calcitriol supplements were progressively reduced, while teriparatide 20 µg once daily was administered (5–7 weeks), and then could be titrated up to 20 µg twice daily (7–17 weeks). The main outcome measures included serum and urinary biochemical exams and Rand 36-Item Short Form Health Survey.ResultsThis study showed that teriparatide 20 µg once daily was insufficient to discontinue calcium and calcitriol supplements to maintain normal serum calcium concentrations. Conversely, for more than half of patients treated with teriparatide 20 µg twice daily, calcium and calcitriol administration was avoidable, but in some cases at the expense of serum calcium and phosphate oscillations.ConclusionsSince intervention trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of teriparatide in hypoparathyroid patients are not yet available, the routine use of this molecule poses some doubts.

Effects of Teriparatide versus Salmon Calcitonin Therapy for the Treatment of Osteoporosis in Asia: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of teriparatide versus salmon calcitonin for the treatment of osteoporosis in Asian patients and to investigate whether the results of global studies could be applicable to Asian patients. PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE up to December 2018 were searched. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared teriparatide versus salmon calcitonin in Asian osteoporosis population were included. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for data synthesis, and Cochrane Collaboration software Review Manager 5.3 was used to analyze the pooled data. Three RCTs involving 529 patients were included (mean age 68.7 yr; 93.4% females; mean follow-up 6 months); outcome measures included bone mineral density (BMD) of the femoral neck, total hip and lumbar spine; bone markers and adverse events. We found that the period of 6-months of teriparatide treatment was helpful for the improvement of the BMD of lumbar vertebra, however, the improvement of BMD was not significant in the femoral neck and total hip joint. There was a positive correlation between bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) and osteocalcin (OCN) and the response of Asian patients to subcutaneous injection of 20 micrograms per day of teriparatide. The proportion of the occurrence of adverse effects was more obvious in the teriparatide group compared with salmon calcitonin, but there was no significant difference. Results suggested that the use of teriparatide could improve the lumbar BMD by shortterm (six months) application in Asian osteoporosis patients, which is beneficial to the patients who cannot tolerate adverse events of long-term treatment. The BSAP and OCN bone markers could be useful to monitor the responses of Asian osteoporosis patients to teriparatide treatment. Finally, both of teriparatide and salmon calcitonin were well tolerated by Asian patients.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of teriparatide and hyaluronic acid - calcitonin combination treatments in Chinese osteoporotic patients with risk of bone fracture: A preliminary investigation

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of teriparatide and hyaluronic-calcitonin combination treatment in Chinese osteoporotic patients with risk of bone fracture.Methods: Osteoporotic patients aged 30 to 80 years, with at least one vertebral fracture and immediate risk of new vertebral fractures, were recruited from Hangzhou First People's Hospital. They were randomly assigned to two groups (50/group) treated with either teriparatide (20 μg/day) or hyaluronic acid + calcitonin (1:1 ratio, 200 IU daily) for 12 months. The patients were followed up every 3 months. Bone mineral density (BMD) was evaluated using x-ray absorptiometry. The proportion of patients with new fractures was recorded. Changes in serum osteocalcin and serum bone alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) from baseline to endpoint were also measured.Results: Treatment with teriparatide at a dose of 20 μg/day resulted in a significant reduction in the proportion of patients with new fractures (p &lt; 0.05), when compared to patients treated with a combination of hyaluronic acid + calcitonin (200 IU daily). Teriparatide treatment for 12 months resulted in significant increase in lumbar BMD. Significant increases in spine BMD were evident after 3 months of treatment. There were significantly greater increases in serum osteocalcin and BSAP levels in teriparatide-treated patients than in those given hyaluronic acid + calcitonin. The most common treatment adverse event reported by both sexes was dizziness.Conclusion: These results demonstrate that teriparatide is efficacious and well tolerated in Chinese men and post-menopausal women with osteoporosis, when compared to the combination of hyaluronic acid and calcitonin. The efficacy of teriparatide is not associated with gender differences.&#x0D; Keyword: Teriparatide, Calcitonin, Hyaluronic acid, Bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, Postmenopausal, Bone mineral density

Comparison between teriparatide and bisphosphonates for improving bone mineral density in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients: A meta-analysis.

Background:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of teriparatide and bisphosphonates in managing postmenopausal osteoporosis.Methods:PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials that were published before April 2018 and compared teriparatide and bisphosphonates in treating postmenopausal osteoporosis. Stata 12.0 was used for the meta-analysis. The pooled risk ratio (RR) or weighted mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a fixed effects or random effects meta-analysis.Results:A total of 14 randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. The teriparatide group was associated with a lower total occurrence of vertebral fractures (RR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.40–0.77; P = .001) and nonvertebral fractures (RR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.46–0.90; P = .009) than the bisphosphonate group. Moreover, compared with the bisphosphonate group, the teriparatide group had improved bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and femoral neck at the final follow-up (P < .05). There was no significant difference between the teriparatide and bisphosphonate groups in terms of complications (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.90, 1.22, P = .516).Conclusions:Teriparatide significantly reduced the occurrence of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in osteoporosis patients. More studies should focus on the quality of life of patients using these 2 drugs.

Design of a randomized trial of teriparatide followed by alendronate: Japanese Osteoporosis Intervention Trial-05 (JOINT-05).

Despite advances in drug treatment, the optimal treatment strategy for severe osteoporosis remains uncertain. This article reports the design and rationale for the Japanese Osteoporosis Intervention Trial-05 (JOINT-05), a randomized, controlled trial that compares the efficacy and safety of teriparatide followed by alendronate with alendronate monotherapy for severe osteoporosis. Postmenopausal women aged at least 75years were eligible for the study if they were at high risk of fracture. Patients were recruited from 113institutions in Japan between October 2014 and December 2017. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the sequential therapy arm (once-weekly subcutaneous injections of teriparatide 56.5μg for 72weeks followed by alendronate for 48weeks) or monotherapy arm (alendronate for 120weeks). The regimens for alendronate are 5mg (orally administered once daily), 35mg (orally administered once weekly), or 900μg (intravenously administered once every 4weeks). The primary endpoint is the incidence of morphometric vertebral fracture at 72weeks. The secondary endpoints include the incidence of morphometric vertebral fracture at 120weeks; incidence of morphometric vertebral or non-vertebral fractures at 72 and 120weeks; incidence of clinical vertebral fracture at 72 and 120weeks; changes in bone mineral density, quality of life scores (EuroQol 5 Dimensions and the Japanese Osteoporosis Quality of Life Questionnaire short form), and a visual analog scale for back pain; and adverse events. We reported the design and rationale for the JOINT-05. The trial is registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs031180235) and the University Hospital Medical Information Network-Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000015573).

Head-to-head comparisons of bisphosphonates and teriparatide in osteoporosis: a meta-analysis.

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of teriparatide vs. bisphosphonates in the management of osteoporosis. A total of 1,967 patients from eight randomized controlled trials were analyzed; outcomes included bone mineral density (BMD) of the femoral neck, total hip and lumbar spine, vertebral and nonvertebral fractures and any adverse event. A subgroup analysis of treatment effectiveness was performed according to the etiology of osteoporosis; i.e., glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) vs. post-menopausal osteoporosis (PO). Teriparatide increased the BMD of the lumbar spine, femoral neck and total hip to a greater extent than bisphosphonates. Patients treated with teriparatide also had a lower risk of vertebral fractures compared with bisphosphonates; however, no difference in risk of nonvertebral fractures (or adverse events) was found. GIO subgroups showed larger increases in BMD of the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck in patients treated with teriparatide compared with bisphosphonates. The PO subgroup showed larger increases in BMD of the lumbar spine in patients treated with teriparatide compared with bisphosphonates. Patients in the GIO subgroup (but not the PO subgroup) were less likely to suffer a vertebral fracture on teriparatide as compared with bisphosphonates. In contrast, no significant difference in the percentage of nonvertebral fractures was noted between the two types of treatment for either subgroup. Teriparatide significantly increased the BMD of lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck, particularly in GIO-induced osteoporosis. Teriparatide did not lower the risk of nonvertebral fractures when compared with bisphosphonates.

Safety and Efficacy of Teriparatide in Elderly Women with Established Osteoporosis: Bone Anabolic Therapy from a Geriatric Perspective

To assess the safety and efficacy of teriparatide in patients aged 75 and older and compare these findings with those of women younger than 75 using data from the Fracture Prevention Trial (FPT). The FPT was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The FPT multicenter international study. Postmenopausal women aged 42 to 86 were randomized to placebo (N=544) or teriparatide 20 mug (N=541) by daily self-injection for a median of 19 months. Patients received daily oral supplements of 1,000 mg calcium and 400 to 1,200 IU vitamin D. For this analysis, subgroups were defined according to patient age younger than 75 (N=841) and 75 and older (N=244). The effects of teriparatide on bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine and femoral neck; the incidence of new vertebral and new nonvertebral fragility fractures; bone turnover markers, including bone-specific alkaline phosphatase; and urinary deoxypyridinoline corrected for creatinine clearance, as well as the safety of teriparatide, were investigated. There were no significant treatment-by-age interactions for the bone turnover markers, femoral neck BMD, vertebral fractures, nonvertebral fragility fractures, height loss, hyperuricemia, or hypercalcemia. A significant treatment-by-age interaction for lumbar spine BMD (P=.08) was due to an increase in BMD observed in the placebo group aged 75 and older. There were no treatment-by-age interactions for important treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including back pain, nausea, leg cramps, and dizziness. The most important TEAEs in women aged 80 and older (23 patients from the placebo group and 25 patients from the teriparatide group) were also reviewed; no unexpected TEAEs were found in the patients treated with teriparatide. These results indicate that the clinical effects of teriparatide were consistent in the older and younger women. Age does not affect the safety and efficacy of teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.