ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2026
Differential efficacy of initial versus sequential combination of denosumab and teriparatide in osteoporosis at high fracture risk.
Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For patients already on denosumab, adding teriparatide is a suboptimal last resort: it offers limited spinal benefit but carries a significant risk of hip bone loss, mandating a site-specific risk-benefit assessment.
backgroundThe management of patients with osteoporosis who exhibit a suboptimal response to denosumab remains clinically challenging. Adding teriparatide to established denosumab therapy is not well defined for high-risk patients in real-world settings.
objectiveThis study aimed to directly compare the 12-month effects on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers between an "initial combination" versus "sequential combination" (adding teriparatide to ongoing denosumab) in a cohort of postmenopausal women at high fracture risk.
methodsIn this 1-year retrospective cohort study, patients were assigned to one of two groups based on treatment history: the initial combination group (n = 54), in which teriparatide was initiated within 6 months of starting denosumab, and the sequential combination group (n = 25), in which teriparatide was added after more than 6 months of continuous denosumab monotherapy. The primary outcome was the percent change in lumbar spine (L1-L4) BMD.
resultsThe mean increase in lumbar spine BMD was significantly greater in the initial combination group (+13.4%; 95% CI 9.9 to 22.5%) compared with the sequential combination group (+8.3%; 95% CI 1.9 to 9.2%; P = 0.030). A critical divergence was observed at the total hip. The initial combination group showed an increase in BMD (+6.0%; 95% CI -0.5 to 12.2%), whereas the sequential combination group experienced a significant decrease (-5.1%; 95% CI -7.1 to -3.9%; P = 0.009). Bone turnover markers (P1NP and CTX) were markedly elevated in the sequential combination group compared to the initial combination group (both P < 0.01). These differential effects were consistent across subgroups, regardless of prior bisphosphonate use or the duration of denosumab pretreatment.
conclusionInitial combination is optimal, while if sequential combination is necessary, it requires caution and may be more suitable for patients with predominant vertebral risk, mandating a site-specific benefit-risk assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42823542What 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.