Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40047881›Full record

SynthesisOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2025

PTH1 receptor agonists for fracture risk: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Charlotte Beaudart, Nicola Veronese, Jonathan Douxfils, Jotheeswaran Amuthavalli Thiyagarajan, Francesco Bolzetta, Paolo Albanese, Gianpaolo Voltan, Majed Alokail, Nicholas C Harvey, Nicholas R Fuggle and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. [Interpretation of 2024 United Kingdom National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) Clinical Guidelines: Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Charlotte BeaudartWorld Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Epidemiology of Musculoskeletal Health and Ageing, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium. charlotte.beaudart@unamur.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0827-5303
Nicola VeroneseWorld Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Epidemiology of Musculoskeletal Health and Ageing, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Jonathan DouxfilsResearch Unit in Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology (URPC), Namur Research Institute for Life Sciences (NARILIS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Namur, Namur, Belgium.
Jotheeswaran Amuthavalli ThiyagarajanAgeing and Health Unit, Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Francesco BolzettaAzienda ULSS (Unità Locale Socio Sanitaria) 3 "Serenissima", 30174, Venice, Italy.
Paolo AlbaneseAzienda ULSS (Unità Locale Socio Sanitaria) 3 "Serenissima", 30174, Venice, Italy.
Gianpaolo VoltanAzienda ULSS (Unità Locale Socio Sanitaria) 3 "Serenissima", 30174, Venice, Italy.
Majed AlokailProtein Research Chair, Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Nicholas C HarveyWorld Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Epidemiology of Musculoskeletal Health and Ageing, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Nicholas R FuggleWorld Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Epidemiology of Musculoskeletal Health and Ageing, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Olivier BruyèreWorld Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Epidemiology of Musculoskeletal Health and Ageing, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
René RizzoliWorld Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Epidemiology of Musculoskeletal Health and Ageing, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Jean-Yves ReginsterWorld Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Epidemiology of Musculoskeletal Health and Ageing, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteoporosis, defined by reduced bone mineral density and macro- and micro-architectural degradation, leads to increased fracture risk, particularly in aging populations. While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrate that PTH1 receptor agonists, teriparatide and abaloparatide, are effective at reducing fracture risk, real-world evidence (RWE) remains sparse. This study reviews and compares the anti-fracture efficacy of these agents, against each other and against other osteoporosis treatments using both RCTs and RWE. We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane up to May 2024, focusing on RCTs and RWE studies reporting reduction in vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, or all fractures as primary endpoint. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted, first through pairwise meta-analyses of teriparatide versus abaloparatide, then a Bayesian NMA comparing each to other treatments. Safety assessments included adverse events classified by MedDRA, with a particular attention to hypercalcemia and cardiac events. Seventeen studies (11 RCTs, 6 RWE) met inclusion criteria. Teriparatide and abaloparatide were effective in reducing vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in all pairwise meta-analyses versus placebo. Abaloparatide showed an advantage over teriparatide for non-vertebral fractures (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.80-0.95) and hip fractures (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.71-0.93). In the NMA model, teriparatide and abaloparatide were superior to placebo, raloxifene, and calcitonin in reducing vertebral fracture while teriparatide was further superior to denosumab and risedronate. For non-vertebral fracture, abaloparatide was better than any other treatment while teriparatide was only superior to alendronate or placebo. PTH1 analogs were better than placebo at reducing all fractures while no difference was observed for the risk of hip fracture. Both abaloparatide and teriparatide demonstrate comparable safety to other osteoporosis treatments, with no increased cardiovascular risk. This review highlights that PTH1 receptor agonists effectively reduce fracture risk, with abaloparatide offering enhanced benefits for non-vertebral and hip fractures compared to teriparatide. Both agents exhibit acceptable safety profiles, suggesting their valuable role in managing osteoporosis, particularly for high-risk patients.

Indexed as

Bone Density Conservation AgentsOsteoporotic FracturesReceptor, Parathyroid Hormone, Type 1HumansOsteoporosisParathyroid Hormone-Related ProteinRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTeriparatideabaloparatideBone Density Conservation AgentsParathyroid Hormone-Related ProteinReceptor, Parathyroid Hormone, Type 1TeriparatideAbaloparatideFracturesMACENetwork meta-analysisOsteoporosisPTH-1 receptor agonistsRandomized controlled trialsReal-world evidence studiesSafetyTeriparatide

Identifiers

PMID40047881
PMCPMC12122650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.