Teriparatide-treated Patients Research Articles

Assessing the incidence of osteosarcoma among teriparatide-treated patients using linkage of commercial pharmacy and state cancer registry data, contributing to the removal of boxed warning and other labeling changes.

Teriparatide, a recombinant human parathyroid hormone analogue, is associated with increased bone mineral density and a decreased risk of fractures. A dose-dependent increase in the incidence of osteosarcoma was observed in toxicology studies conducted in rats. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the incidence of osteosarcoma over a 10-year period among teriparatide-treated patients versus patients unexposed to teriparatide with osteoporosis and patients in the general population using national pharmacy dispensing data linked with data from participating state cancer registries (SCRs) in the US. Patients aged 18years or older with a dispensed teriparatide prescription formed two different cohorts: Teriparatide-Osteoporosis (Teriparatide-OP) was formed by matching teriparatide patients to unexposed patients with osteoporosis and Teriparatide-General Population (Teriparatide-GP) was formed by matching teriparatide patients to general population patients with a dispensed prescription for a medication other than teriparatide. Matching was performed using select demographics and other variables. Study cohorts were linked to SCR data to ascertain osteosarcoma status. To account for missing outcome data from non-participating SCRs, two analytic approaches were used: the first adjusted the person-time at-risk using a coverage fraction and the second restricted the analyses to patients from states with participating SCRs. There were 18 osteosarcoma cases across four study cohorts: the same three cases in the Teriparatide-OP and Teriparatide-GP cohorts, six cases in the Osteoporosis cohort, and nine cases in the General Population cohort. For the analysis using the coverage fraction the incidence rate ratio (IRR) comparing the Teriparatide-OP and Teriparatide-GP cohorts to the Osteoporosis and General Population cohorts was 1.0 (95% CI: 0.2, 4.5) and 1.3 (95% CI: 0.2, 5.1), respectively. When restricting the analysis to patients from states with participating SCRs, the IRR was 0.6 (95% CI: 0.1, 3.6) and 0.8 (95% CI 0.1, 4.0), respectively. The estimates of association between teriparatide and osteosarcoma were imprecise due to the small number of observed osteosarcoma cases. However, the incidence of osteosarcoma observed in each study cohort was within the expected range given background rates for the US general population. The evidence generated by this study, in conjunction with other real-world studies evaluating the risk of osteosarcoma, was used to support changes to the US teriparatide label (including removal of the black box warning regarding potential risk of osteosarcoma) and expand treatment options for patients with osteoporosis.

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 < 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.
 Keyword: Teriparatide, Calcitonin, Hyaluronic acid, Bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, Postmenopausal, Bone mineral density

Relationship between P1NP, a biochemical marker of bone turnover, and bone mineral density in patients transitioned from alendronate to romosozumab or teriparatide: a post hoc analysis of the STRUCTURE trial

Procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP), a bone formation marker, reportedly predicts bone mineral density (BMD) response to teriparatide treatment in treatment-naive patients with osteoporosis. Results from a randomized, phase 3, open-label, active-controlled trial- STRUCTURE-showed that in patients previously treated with bisphosphonates, romosozumab led to gains in hip BMD, which were not observed with teriparatide. This post hoc analysis investigated the comparative utility of early changes in P1NP in predicting BMD response in patients who participated in the STRUCTURE trial, which enrolled patients who switched treatment from bisphosphonates to romosozumab/teriparatide. Postmenopausal women (aged 55-90years) with osteoporosis who had previously taken bisphosphonates were randomized to receive open-label subcutaneous romosozumab (210mg once monthly; n = 218) or teriparatide (20µg once daily; n = 218) for 12months. BMD was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at the proximal femur and lumbar spine (LS) at baseline and months 6 and 12. To assess the utility of P1NP, the positive predictive value of increase from baseline in P1NP of > 10µg/L at month 1 and achievement of various thresholds of percent change from baseline in BMD at month 12 were evaluated. Overall, 95% (191/202) of patients in the romosozumabgroup and 91% (183/201) in the teriparatide group demonstrated an increase in P1NP of > 10µg/L from baseline at month 1. Among these patients, 18% and 3% of romosozumab-treated patientsversus 60% and 12% of teriparatide-treated patients showed no increase from baseline (i.e., ≤ 0%) in total hip and LS BMD, respectively, at month 12. These data indicate that in patients switching from bisphosphonates to a bone-forming therapy, increases in P1NP do not help predict the hip BMD response. Although most patients treated with either teriparatide or romosozumab showed an increase in P1NP, the majority of patients on romosozumab showed an increase in hip BMD, while more than half of the patients on teriparatide did not. Teriparatide therapy did not increase total hip BMD in the majority of patients who transitioned from bisphosphonates to teriparatide. Thus, increases in P1NP were not predictive of BMD response in the teriparatide group because in approximately 60% of the patients who were administered teriparatide, the hip BMD decreased independent of the change in P1NP levels.

Serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D and the risk of fractures in the teriparatide versus risedronate VERO clinical trial.

Using data from the 2-year, randomized, double-dummy VERO trial, we examined the changes in 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations over time, and whether the fracture risk reduction of teriparatide versus risedronate varies by baseline 25(OH)D sufficiency category. Postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis received subcutaneous daily teriparatide 20μg or oral weekly risedronate 35mg, with concomitant 500-1000mg of elemental calcium and 400-800IU/day of vitamin D supplements. Fracture endpoints were analyzed by predefined subgroups of 25(OH)D insufficient and sufficient patients. Heterogeneity of the treatment effect on fractures was investigated by logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models. At baseline, mean serum 25(OH)D was 31.9ng/mL in the teriparatide group and 31.5ng/mL in the risedronate group, and 16.8% and 17.9% of patients, respectively, were 25(OH)D insufficient. At month 6, the mean serum 25(OH)D concentration decreased in teriparatide-treated patients to 24.5ng/mL (by approximately 23%) but remained relatively constant in risedronate-treated patients (32.2ng/mL) (p < 0.001). Proportions of 25(OH)D insufficient patients at month 6 were 26.7% and 5.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). The risk reduction with teriparatide versus risedronate for any of the fracture endpoints did not significantly differ between subgroups by 25(OH)D sufficiency status at baseline, with nonsignificant (p > 0.1) treatment-by-25(OH)D interactions in all fracture analyses. Serum 25(OH)D concentration decreases during teriparatide treatment. Fracture risk reduction with teriparatide versus risedronate did not significantly differ between the two groups of patients defined by baseline 25(OH)D. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709110 EudraCT Number: 2012-000123-41.

Efficacy of teriparatide in the treatment of nontraumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a retrospective comparative study with alendronate

BackgroundCollapse of the femoral head associated with nontraumatic osteonecrosis (NOFH) is one of the most common causes of disability in young adult patients. Excessive bone resorption by osteoclast coincident with the suppression of osteogenesis are believed to be responsible for collapse progression. Alendronate that inhibits bone resorption by inducing osteoclast apoptosis has been traditionally used for treating NOFH; however, several reports documented serious complications by the use of this drug. On the other hand, teriparatide activates osteoblasts leading to an overall increase in bone volume, and is expected to reduce the progression of femoral head collapse in NOFH. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to examine pharmacological effects of teriparatide on collapse progression of NOFH and to compare these effects with alendronate.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study in our facility for comparing the pharmacological effects of teriparatide and alendronate on 32 NOFH patients diagnosed with osteoporosis. Between 2007 and 2013, patients were treated with daily administration of 20 μg teriparatide (15 patients: 18 hips), or with 35 mg of alendronate once a week (17 patients: 22 hips). The mean period of follow-up was 18.7 months. The progression of collapse was evaluated prior to the administration and later every three months by anteroposterior radiographs. Collapse progression with > 1 mm was defined as advanced collapse, while with < 1 mm was defined as stable radiologic disease. Student’s t-test and the chi-square test was used to do compare the pharmacological effects of the two groups.ResultsTreatment with terparatide had a tendency to reduce the rate of advanced collapse as compared to that with alendronate (p = 0.105). Kaplan-Meier curves related to stable radiologic disease showed that teriparatide-treated patients had better stable states than these treated with alendronate (p = 0.08, log-rank test). Moreover, treatment with teriparatide resulted in a significant reduction in collapse progression as compared to that with alendronate, noted at the end of follow-up period (p = 0.049).ConclusionThe present study suggests that teriparatide has greater pharmacological effects than alendronate for treating NOFH and preventing the collapse of femoral head.Trial registrationThe registration number in UMIN Clinical Trial Registry is UMIN000017582. The date of registration is May 5, 2015.

Hip and other fragility fracture incidence in real-world teriparatide-treated patients in the United States

SummaryThis study demonstrates real-world effectiveness of teriparatide in reducing the risk of hip and other fragility fractures. Fracture incidence significantly decreased as adherence and persistence increased for any clinical, vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures among patients who were observed for 2 years after teriparatide initiation.IntroductionExamine the relationship of treatment adherence and persistence to teriparatide with hip and other fractures.MethodsTruven MarketScan Research Databases, 2004 through 2014, provided teriparatide users ≥18 years old with continuous coverage 12 months pre- and 24 months post-teriparatide prescription. Adherence (medication possession ratio, MPR) groups were defined as high (≥0.80), medium (0.50 ≤ MPR < 0.80), and low (<0.50). Persistence, allowing for ≤90-day gaps between prescriptions, was defined as 1–6, 7–12, 13–18, and 19–24 months. Fracture incidence was summarized and compared by using ANOVA and logistic regression models; the effects of adherence were examined with Cox proportional hazard models with time-dependent covariates for teriparatide exposure.ResultsAmong 14,284 teriparatide subjects, mean age was 68.4 years, 89.8% were female, and 29.6% had a fracture in the previous year; these characteristics were similar across MPR and persistence groups. The effects of adherence and persistence to teriparatide were statistically significant (P < .001) for all fracture types except wrist (P ≥ .125). By logistic regression, high vs low adherence was associated with reduced risk for any (OR = 0.67; P < .001); vertebral (OR = 0.64; P < .001); nonvertebral (OR = 0.71; P < .001); and hip fractures (OR = 0.52; P < .001) and longer (19–24 months) vs shorter persistence (1–6 months) was associated with reduced risk for any (OR = 0.63, P < .001); vertebral (OR = 0.56, P < .001); nonvertebral (OR = 0.69, P < .001); and hip fractures (OR = 0.48, P < .001). Cox models revealed a significantly reduced risk between high and low adherence for any (OR = 0.69, P < .001); vertebral (OR = 0.60, P < .001); nonvertebral (OR = 0.77, P < .001); and hip fractures (OR = 0.55, P < .001).ConclusionFracture incidence significantly decreased as persistence and adherence to teriparatide increased.

Trabecular Bone Score in Patients With Chronic Glucocorticoid Therapy-Induced Osteoporosis Treated With Alendronate or Teriparatide.

To determine the effect of alendronate (ALN) and teriparatide on trabecular bone score (TBS) in patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Patients with chronic glucocorticoid therapy-induced osteoporosis (median 7.5 mg/day prednisone equivalent for ≥90 days) were randomized to receive oral ALN 10 mg/day (n = 214) or subcutaneous teriparatide 20 μg/day (n = 214) for 36 months; 118 patients in the ALN group and 123 patients in the teriparatide group completed treatment. Dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) results for 53 patients receiving ALN and 56 patients receiving teriparatide who had DXA scans with adequate resolution to perform TBS analysis and completed 36 months of therapy were blindly analyzed for TBS at baseline and 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months. In teriparatide-treated patients, TBS was significantly increased at 18 months compared to baseline, and by 36 months had increased 3.7% (P < 0.05). In ALN-treated patients, there was not a significant change in TBS compared to baseline at any time point. Changes in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) measured by DXA in the subgroup with TBS data were similar to BMD results in the overall study population. At 36 months, increases in lumbar spine BMD were 5.5% and 10.3% in patients treated with ALN and teriparatide, respectively. In patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, both ALN and teriparatide increased lumbar spine BMD. However, trabecular bone score significantly increased with teriparatide but did not significantly change with ALN. The pathogenesis of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis is predominantly reduced bone formation. TBS may represent a sensitive measure to discriminate treatment effects of an anabolic versus an antiresorptive drug in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

An observational study to assess back pain in patients with severe osteoporosis treated with teriparatide versus antiresorptives: An Indian subpopulation analysis.

Background:One year, prospective, observational study in an Indian subpopulation to assess back pain in patients with severe osteoporosis treated with teriparatide or antiresorptives in a clinical setting.Materials and Methods:One hundred and nineteen teriparatide-naοve Indian men and postmenopausal women (mean age 68.0 years) with previous osteoporotic vertebral fracture participated. Patients were assessed at baseline, 6-and 12-months to evaluate relative risk (RR) of new/worsening back pain using the Back Pain Questionnaire. The incidence of back pain and changes in back pain severity were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS); Health outcomes were assessed using the euroquol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. All tests were conducted with a two-sided alpha of 0.05.Results:Of 562 overall patients, 57, 60, and 2 Indian patients received teriparatide, antiresorptive, or teriparatide and antiresorptive, respectively. Baseline disease characteristics were slightly worse for antiresorptive-treated patients, whereas teriparatide-treated patients were older with more comorbidities. At 6-months, the incidence of new/worsening back pain was 5.3% for teriparatide-treated patients versus 4.4% for antiresorptive-treated patients (RR: 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.68, 1.48); the incidence of severe back pain was 0% versus 12.5% (P = 0.017); in these treatment groups, respectively. Mean VAS change scores (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) were − 1.9 ± 1.73 versus − 1.4 ± 1.77, and mean EQ-5D change scores were 4.2 ± 27.20 versus 9.9 ± 26.23 at 6-months. At 6 months, more teriparatide-treated patients felt better (89% vs. 61%; P = 0.001) and were at least very satisfied with their treatment (30% vs. 9%; P = 0.011).Conclusion:Teriparatide-treated Indian patients had similar new/worsening back pain risk and minimal risk of severe back pain compared with antiresorptive-treated patients at 6-months.

Back pain in patients with severe osteoporosis on teriparatide or antiresorptives: a prospective observational study in a multiethnic population.

We evaluated reduced back pain in a multiethnic population treated with teriparatide and/or antiresorptives in real-life clinical settings over 12 months. This prospective observational study comprised 562 men and postmenopausal women (mean age 68.8 years) receiving either teriparatide (n = 230), antiresorptives (raloxifene or bisphosphonates; n = 322), or both (n = 10) for severe osteoporosis. The primary endpoint was the relative risk of new/worsening back pain at six months. At baseline, a higher proportion of teriparatide-treated than antiresorptive-treated patients had severe back pain (30.9% vs. 17.7%), extreme pain/discomfort (25.3% vs. 16.8%), extreme anxiety/depression (16.6% vs. 7.8%) and were confined to bed (10.0% vs. 5.3%). Teriparatide-treated patients had higher visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain (5.8 ± 2.42 vs. 5.1 ± 2.58) and lower mean European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores (37.7 ± 29.15 vs. 45.5 ± 31.42) than antiresorptive-treated patients. The incidence of new/worsening back pain at six months for patients on teriparatide and antiresorptives was 9.8% and 10.3% (relative risk 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.23), respectively. The incidence of severe back pain at 12 months was 1.3% and 1.6% in the teriparatide and antiresorptive treatment groups, respectively. Teriparatide-treated patients had lower mean VAS (2.71 ± 2.21 vs. 3.30 ± 2.37) and EQ‑5D (46.1 ± 33.18 vs. 55.4 ± 32.65) scores at 12 months. More teriparatide-treated patients felt better (82.7% vs. 71.0%) and were very satisfied with treatment (49.4% vs. 36.8%) compared to antiresorptive-treated patients. Patients treated with either teriparatide or antiresorptives had similar risk of new/worsening back pain at six months.

Unusual Excessive Callus Formation in the Intertrochanteric Fracture Treated with Teriparatide

Parathyroid hormone (PTH) has long been shown to have anabolic and catabolic effects on the skeleton. At low intermittent doses, PTH administration leads to increased bone formation in rats and humans. Currently, various human trials have demonstrated the anabolic effects of teriparatide (recombinant human PTH [1-34]) in both women and men with osteoporosis and that treatment causes a substantial decline in fracture frequency. Correspondingly, external callus volume, callus mineral content, and callus dimension have been shown to increase significantly from 8-16 weeks of healing in teriparatide-treated patients. We have analyzed the effects of teriparatide (Forteo; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA) on fracture healing in an 85-year-old woman with osteoporosis who sustained a comminuted intertrochanteric fracture (OTA/AO 31A2.2), and found that teriparatide significantly accelerated the amount of callus formation around the fracture site even after completion of teriparatide treatment, which is an unusual phenomenon during a normal fracture healing process.

Efficacy of teriparatide in treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis

The skeletal effects of glucocorticoids include both direct and indirect actions on bone that result early, transient in bone resorption accompanied by a decrease in bone formation, which is maintained for the duration of glucocorticoid therapy. Teriparatide exerts anabolic effects on bone, so it is understandable why teriparatide is thought to be a rational treatment option. The effects of 36 months' treatment with teriparatide and alendronate in women and men with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis were examined in an active-comparator randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. This study confirmed the superiority of teriparatide over alendronate with respect BMD changes in the spine and hip and significantly reduced risk of vertebral fractures in teriparatide-treated patients. However, because teriparatide is significantly more expensive than bisphosphonates and has not been demonstrated in adequately powered studies to be superior in reducing fractures, bisphosphonates remain the first-line treatment option for the majority of glucocorticoid-treated patients at increased risk of fracture.

Bone formation markers in patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis treated with teriparatide or alendronate

Reduced osteoblast function is a primary defect in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO), and is reflected by decreased biochemical markers of bone formation, such as serum osteocalcin (OC) and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (PINP). This analysis compared the effects of teriparatide and alendronate on OC and PINP in patients with GIO. In a double-blind study, women ( N = 159) and men ( N = 38) with GIO were randomized to either teriparatide 20 μg/day by subcutaneous injection or to alendronate 10 mg/day orally. OC and PINP were measured in fasting-state serum samples obtained at baseline and at 1, 6, 18, and 36 months. Baseline bone formation markers were below the reference interval (low) in 33% of patients for OC and in 4% of patients for PINP. On teriparatide therapy, the median OC and PINP levels increased by 92% and 108%, respectively, and this resulted in only 12% and 1% of patients being low at 6 months. On alendronate therapy, the median OC and PINP levels decreased by 40% and 53%, respectively, and this resulted in 68% and 34% of patients being low at 6 months. We conclude that bone formation as determined by surrogate markers was increased in teriparatide-treated patients with GIO and decreased in alendronate-treated patients with GIO.

Response to Comparison of Teriparatide and Strontium Ranelate in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis

Response to Comparison of Teriparatide and Strontium Ranelate in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis

Teriparatide or Alendronate in Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis

Bisphosphonates are, at present, recommended for patients who have-or are at risk of developing-glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Effective treatment, however, remains challenging. One alternative is once-a-day anabolic therapy with teriparatide, recombinant human parathyroid hormone (1-34), which stimulates bone formation, increases bone mass, and lowers the risk of vertebral and other fractures. Teriparatide directly stimulates osteoblastogenesis and inhibits osteoblast apoptosis, both of which are important mechanisms by which glucocorticoids promote bone loss. This 18-month randomized, double-blind, controlled trial compared teriparatide (20 μg once a day) with the bisphosphonate alendronate (10 mg daily) in 428 women and men with osteoporosis who had received glucocorticoids for at least 3 months in a minimal daily prednisone-equivalent dose of 5 mg. The primary outcome was change in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine. When last measured, mean BMD at the lumbar spine had increased more in patients receiving teriparatide than in those receiving alendronate (7.2% versus 3.4%). The difference became statistically significant within 6 months. BMD at the total hip had increased more in the teriparatide group after a year of treatment. New vertebral fractures were less frequent in this group (0.6% versus 6.1%), but there was no significant difference in the frequency of nonvertebral fractures. Semiquantitative grading indicated that preexisting vertebral fractures did not progress during the 18-month study period. Markers of bone formation (N-terminal propeptide of type I collagen) and resorption (C-telopeptide of type I collagen) were increased in patients taking teriparatide but suppressed in those given alendronate. Significantly more teriparatide-treated patients had at least one serum calcium level exceeding 10.5 mg/dL, but no patient in either group had sustained levels of 11 mg/dL or higher. The investigators conclude from these findings that, given what is known of the pathophysiology of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, teriparatide is a valid treatment option for patients with this disorder who are at high risk of fracture.

Actual versus predicted first-year utilization patterns of teriparatide in patients with employer-sponsored health insurance

ABSTRACTObjective: To characterize first-year utilization patterns of teriparatide derived from a claims database analysis versus predictions from an economic model.Research design and methods: Claims data for actual teriparatide utilization were obtained from an integrated administrative database of approximately 3.4 million beneficiaries. A control group included patients with osteoporosis but without the use of teriparatide. An economic model, which relied on first-year market share projections, predicted the utilization of teriparatide from the demographic characteristics of the plan. Predictions were compared to actual utilization for eight health plans within the database.Main outcome measures: Demographic and clinical characteristics, number of teriparatide patients, and days of teriparatide therapy.Results: Less than 1% of patients diagnosed with osteoporosis received teriparatide. Teriparatide-treated patients, compared to other patients with osteoporosis, were older and more likely to have experienced a previous fracture or to have received previous osteoporosis pharmacotherapy. For the combined 505 300 lives in the eight plans used for the comparative analysis, there were 134 teriparatide patients; the model predicted 131. For individual plans, the predictions varied in their accuracy. The greatest under-prediction for one plan was 17 patients (40 predicted vs. 57 actual), while the greatest over-prediction was 18 patients (34 predicted vs. 16 actual). For the other 6 plans, the predictions were within four patients of the actual number of teriparatide users. A similar pattern of differences was observed by comparing actual versus predicted days of teriparatide therapy across the eight plans.Limitations: Some clinical details of the actual patient cohorts, such as bone mineral density results, were not available in the database. The comparisons made between the teriparatide model predictions and actual utilization were based on analyses of a single model and do not speak to the broader issue of the accuracy of predictive economic models in general.Conclusions: Overall, first-year teriparatide utilization was relatively limited, consistent with model predictions. Predictions for individual plans varied in their accuracy.

Change in Lumbar Spine BMD and Vertebral Fracture Risk Reduction in Teriparatide-Treated Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis

Increases in lumbar spine BMD account for 30-41% of the vertebral fracture risk reduction with teriparatide treatment. The remaining fracture risk reduction is caused by improvements in non-BMD determinants of bone strength. Changes in BMD account for a small percentage of the fracture risk reduction seen in patients treated with antiresorptive drugs. The relationship between changes in lumbar spine BMD and vertebral fracture risk reduction with teriparatide treatment has not been assessed. The relationship between spine BMD and the risk of new vertebral fractures after teriparatide treatment was assessed using data from the Fracture Prevention Trial. Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (n = 1637) were randomized to placebo or teriparatide 20 or 40 microg/day for a median of 19 months. Spine BMD was assessed at baseline and 18 months. Vertebrae whose fracture status changed during the trial were removed from the calculation of BMD. Baseline and endpoint lateral spine radiographs were assessed using a visual semiquantitative technique. Both the baseline and change in spine BMD were contributors to vertebral fracture risk. The mean spine BMD increase in teriparatide-treated patients was 0.09 g/cm(2) across tertiles of baseline spine BMD. Compared with placebo, teriparatide significantly reduced the risk of new vertebral fracture for all endpoint BMD values. Teriparatide-mediated increases in spine BMD accounted for 30% (in the low baseline spine BMD tertile) to 41% (in the high baseline spine BMD tertile) of the reduction in vertebral fracture risk. Increases in BMD account for approximately one third of the vertebral fracture risk reduction seen with teriparatide. The majority of the risk reduction, however, results from improvements in non-BMD determinants of bone strength.

Teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and mild or moderate renal impairment

The prevalence of both osteoporosis and renal impairment increases with age. Using data from the Fracture Prevention Trial, the safety and efficacy of teriparatide [rhPTH(1-34)] in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and renal impairment were explored. Patients were required to have serum creatinine concentrations < or =2.0 mg/dl and normal serum parathyroid hormone (PTH) concentrations and were randomized to receive daily subcutaneous injections of placebo or teriparatide 20 or 40 mcg/day. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was estimated using the Cockcroft-Gault equation. Patients were defined from baseline assessments to have normal (GFR > or =80 ml/min), mildly impaired (GFR 50-79 ml/min), or moderately impaired (GFR 30-49 ml/min) renal function for bone mineral density (BMD) and amino-terminal extension peptide of procollagen type 1 (PINP) analyses, and normal (GFR > or =80 ml/min) or impaired (GFR <80 ml/min) renal function for fracture analyses. Compared with patients with normal renal function, patients with renal impairment were older, shorter, weighed less, had been postmenopausal longer, and had lower baseline lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD. Compared with placebo, teriparatide significantly increased PINP and lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD within each renal function subgroup, and there was no evidence that these increases were altered by renal insufficiency (each treatment-by-subgroup interaction p>0.05). Similarly, teriparatide-mediated vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk reductions were similar and did not differ significantly between patients with normal or impaired renal function (treatment-by-subgroup interactions p>0.05). The incidences of treatment-emergent and renal-related adverse events were consistent across treatment assignment in the normal, mildly impaired, and moderately impaired renal function subgroups. Teriparatide induced changes in mean GFR were unaffected by baseline renal function (treatment-by-renal function interaction p>0.05 for normal, mildly impaired, or moderately impaired subgroups). Patients in all renal function categories treated with teriparatide 20 or 40 mcg had an increased incidence of 4-6-h postdose serum calcium >10.6 mg/dl (the upper limit of normal) versus placebo; however, teriparatide 20 mcg/day was not associated with significantly increased incidence of 4-6-h postdose serum calcium >11 mg/dl in any renal function category. Teriparatide therapy was associated with increased incidence of elevated uric acid, with the incidences being highest in patients with moderately impaired renal function and in those receiving teriparatide 40 mcg/day. Even so, adverse event data did not suggest an increased incidence of gout or arthralgia or of nephrolithiasis events in teriparatide-treated patients with normal, mild, or moderate renal impairment.

Reduction in the risk of developing back pain persists at least 30 months after discontinuation of teriparatide treatment: a meta-analysis

Teriparatide [rhPTH (1-34)] reduces fracture risk, and in a published meta-analysis of clinical trials, teriparatide-treated patients had reduced incidence of back pain relative to placebo or to antiresorptive drugs. The aim of this study was to evaluate back pain in teriparatide-treated versus comparator-treated patients during an interval including controlled clinical trials plus 30 months of additional follow-up. A meta-analysis of four completed randomized, double-blinded trials of teriparatide [rhPTH (1-34)] versus comparator was performed. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the heterogeneity of results and to estimate the relative risk of back pain. Patients in the pooled teriparatide group had reduced risk for any back pain [relative risk, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.87)], moderate or severe back pain [0.72 (0.58-0.89)], and severe back pain [0.39 (0.25-0.61)] compared with pooled controls, from initiation of the study drug through the end of follow-up. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results were robust to the removal of each individual trial from the meta-analysis. Separate meta-analyses comparing teriparatide versus placebo or antiresorptive drugs gave similar results. Teriparatide-treated patients had a reduced incidence of back pain versus those receiving a comparator during an observation encompassing clinical trials plus 30 months of posttreatment observation.

Teriparatide Increases Bone Formation in Modeling and Remodeling Osteons and Enhances IGF-II Immunoreactivity in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis

Transiliac bone biopsies were obtained from 55 women treated with teriparatide or placebo for 12-24 months. We report direct evidence that modeling bone formation at quiescent surfaces was present only in teriparatide-treated patients and bone formation at remodeling sites was higher with teriparatide than placebo. Recombinant teriparatide [human PTH(1-34)], a bone formation agent for the treatment of osteoporosis when given once daily subcutaneously, increases biochemical markers of bone turnover and activation frequency in histomorphometry studies. We studied the mechanisms underlying this bone-forming action of teriparatide at the basic multicellular unit by the appearance of cement lines, a method used to directly classify surfaces as modeling or remodeling osteons, and by the immunolocalization of IGF-I and IGF-II. Transiliac bone biopsies were obtained from 55 postmenopausal women treated with teriparatide 20 or 40 microg or placebo for 12-24 months (median, 19.8 months) in the Fracture Prevention Trial. A dose-dependent relationship was observed in modeling and mixed remodeling/modeling trabecular hemiosteons. Trabecular and endosteal hemiosteon mean wall thicknesses were significantly higher in both teriparatide groups than in placebo. There was a dose-dependent relationship in IGF-II immunoreactive staining at all bone envelopes studied. The greater local IGF-II presence after treatment with teriparatide may play a key role in stimulating bone formation. Direct evidence is presented that 12-24 months of teriparatide treatment induced modeling bone formation at quiescent surfaces and resulted in greater bone formation at remodeling sites, relative to placebo.

Sustained Nonvertebral Fragility Fracture Risk Reduction After Discontinuation of Teriparatide Treatment

A follow-up in 1262 women was conducted after the discontinuation of teriparatide. The hazard ratio for combined teriparatide group (20 and 40 microg) for the 50-month period after baseline was 0.57 (p = 0.002), suggesting a sustained effect in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fragility fracture. Treatment with teriparatide [rhPTH(1-34)] 20 and 40 microg once-daily subcutaneous dosing significantly reduced the risk of nonvertebral fragility fractures over a median exposure of 19 months. All participants in the Fracture Prevention Trial were invited to participate in a follow-up study. Prior treatment assignments were revealed, and patients were able to receive osteoporosis treatments without restriction. Approximately 60% of the 1262 patients received an osteoporosis treatment at some time during follow-up, with greater use in the former placebo group than in the combined former teriparatide group (p < 0.05). The hazard ratios for nonvertebral fragility fractures in each teriparatide group relative to placebo were statistically significant for the 50-month period including treatment and follow-up (p < 0.03). In the follow-up period, the hazard ratio was significantly different between the 40 mug and combined groups versus placebo but not for the 20 microg group versus placebo. However, the 20 and 40 microg groups were not different from each other. Kaplan-Meier analysis of time to fracture showed that the fracture incidence in the former placebo and teriparatide groups diverged during the 50-month period including teriparatide treatment and follow-up (p = 0.009). Total hip and femoral neck BMD decreased in teriparatide-treated patients who had no follow-up treatment; BMD remained stable or further increased in patients who received a bisphosphonate after teriparatide treatment. While the study design is observational, the results support a sustained effect of teriparatide in reducing the risk of nonvertebral fragility fractures up to 30 months after discontinuation of treatment.