Trial reportOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2025
Impact of standard versus cyclic teriparatide and denosumab treatment on trabecular bone score: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The osteoanabolic effects of teriparatide are maximal in the first 6 months of treatment. This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial investigated whether cyclic teriparatide would improve Trabecular Bone Score (TBS) more than standard dosing over 36 months. Results showed similar improvements in TBS with both teriparatide regimens.
introductionThe effects of teriparatide (TPTD) are maximal in the first 6 months when bone formation exceeds resorption to the greatest degree. Cyclic use of TPTD was proposed to try to broaden this anabolic window. Prior results from this study showed that 6-month cycles of TPTD and denosumab did not improve BMD compared to standard dosing with TPTD followed by denosumab. The goal of this study was to determine if there was any difference in trabecular bone score improvement (TBS) with cyclic vs standard therapy.
methods70 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized to TPTD for 18 months followed by denosumab for 18 months (standard; n = 32) or three cycles of 6 months TPTD, each followed by denosumab (cyclic; n = 32). DXA measurements of the lumbar spine (LS) were performed every 6 months and TBS calculated at baseline, 18 and 36 months on the 50 participants who completed the 36-month final study visit. This paper is a post-hoc analysis of a prior clinical trial looking at BMD change at 36 months for cyclic vs. standard dosing.
resultsAt baseline, TBS was similar between the 2 groups with mean level 1.24 ± 0.05, considered partially degraded. In the standard group, TBS increased by 1.1% at 18 months (p = 0.11 vs baseline) and 1.6% at 36 months (p < 0.11 vs baseline). In the cyclic group, TBS increased by 2.4% and 2.6% at 18 and 36 months from baseline, respectively (both p < 0.05 vs. baseline). However, there were no group differences in TBS increments at either 18 or 36 months. At 36 months, 17 total participants had improvement in their TBS category from either degraded to partially degraded or partially degraded to normal, or degraded to normal with 4 deteriorations to a lower category. There was no difference between groups in the TBS category change.
conclusionTBS improved similarly with cyclic and standard treatment regimens of TPTD and denosumab over 36 months, however possible differences may have been masked by inadequate study power.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40974403What 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.