Trial reportJournal of bone and mineral metabolism2024
A crossover comparison of patient satisfaction with two teriparatide regimens: primary results of the Japanese Osteoporosis Intervention Trial 06 (JOINT-06).
Trial report in Journal of bone and mineral metabolism, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized crossover comparison of two teriparatide self-injection regimens for primary osteoporosis: final report of the Japanese Osteoporosis Intervention Trial 06 (JOINT-06).Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2025Trial
- Randomized crossover comparison of two teriparatide self-injection regimens for primary osteoporosis: Interim report (end of 52-week treatment) of the Japanese Osteoporosis Intervention Trial 06 (JOINT-06).Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2025Trial
- Author's response to letter to the editor: Re: Randomized crossover comparison of two teriparatide self-injection regimens for primary osteoporosis: interim report of JOINT-06.Journal of bone and mineral metabolism · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis 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
methodsIn 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).
resultsThe 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.
conclusionThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.