What is the difference between Prolia (denosumab) and Forteo (teriparatide)? What are some things to consider if you want to transition from Prolia to Forteo?

Comment by InpharmD Researcher

Guidelines for management of osteoporosis refrain from recommending one agent over another for initial treatment, though state that denosumab is effective for reduction of hip, nonvertebral, and spine fractures. In general, denosumab is recommended to be used in patients at high risk of fracture who prefer every 6-month subcutaneous administration, while parathyroid hormone analogs (e.g., teriparatide) are recommended for patients at very high risk of fracture. Of note, most studies included observed surrogate laboratory markers of bone mineral density instead of the clinical status of reduction in fractures. Limited data describe possible bone loss when switching from denosumab to teriparatide versus increased bone mineral density when switching from teriparatide to denosumab, though these findings require further studies to corroborate.

Background

The Endocrine Society published a 2019 and an updated 2020 guideline for the pharmacological management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. The guidelines include a meta-analysis accessing each individual agent's effect on vertebral fracture, non-vertebral fracture, and hip fracture. When compared to placebo treatment, a significant reduction in vertebral fractures was observed with abaloparatide, alendronate, zoledronic acid, denosumab, and teriparatide. A significant reduction in hip fractures was also observed for alendronate, zoledronic acid, and denosumab, but not abaloparatide or teriparatide; a clearly superior agent was not identified. Choice of therapy is recommended based on availability, cost, tolerability, and patient preference for postmenopausal women with a high risk of fracture. While a difference in effect may have been observed between agents in the meta-analysis, the clinical impact may not be substantial. Therefore, numerical differences may be misleading in regard to the prevention of the three fractures. [1], [2], [3]

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology published 2020 guidelines for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. For pharmacologic treatment, the guidelines consider alendronate, zoledronate, and denosumab to have broad-spectrum anti-fracture efficacy and should be considered as first-line options. If patients are at very high-risk of fracture, then abaloparatide, teriparatide, denosumab, and zoledronate may be considered. The evidence of fracture risk reduction was judged on a binary yes/no response based on chosen evidence. [4]

As discussed before, the primary measurement of efficacy with pharmacologic agents for osteoporosis is the prevention of fractures. This outcome can be interpreted as the response rate, but the results also vary between individual studies and meta-analyses, making it difficult to present a numerical result. Highlighted clinical trials from review articles report percent reduction rates of fracture which will be summarized. The efficacy of denosumab was reported in the FREEDOM trial enrolling 7,868 postmenopausal women, which reported a reduction in the relative risk of new radiographic vertebral fractures, clinically diagnosed vertebral fractures, and multiple new vertebral fractures of 68%, 69%, and 61%, respectively. For teriparatide, a 21-month randomized study reported that the relative risk of vertebral fracture in the 20 mcg and 40 mcg group compared to placebo was 0.35 and 0.31, respectively, which is converted as 65% and 69% reduced risk. The converted non-vertebral fracture rate was 53% and 54% for 20 and 40 mcg, respectively. These examples are only snapshot comparisons between landmark clinical trials which may vary depending on the inclusion of other studies and emerging evidence. [5], [6], [7]

A 2012 systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluated the comparative effectiveness of various pharmacological agents in preventing fragility fractures. This analysis incorporated data from 116 randomized controlled trials, involving a total of 139,647 participants, predominantly postmenopausal women. The study focused on a comparative analysis of bisphosphonates, teriparatide, selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), denosumab, and the combination of calcium and vitamin D. Of the agents, teriparatide demonstrated the highest probability of effectiveness in reducing the risk of hip, vertebral, and nonvertebral fractures, although the differences from denosumab and various bisphosphonates like zoledronate and alendronate were not statistically significant. The study found calcium and vitamin D, when administered separately, to be ineffective but effective in combination for reducing hip fracture risk. Overall, the analysis underscored that while teriparatide, bisphosphonates, and denosumab are highly effective in reducing fracture risk, the differences in efficacy among these agents are marginal. Consequently, the decision-making process should also consider the potential harms and costs associated with these treatments. [8]

References: [1] Shoback D, Rosen CJ, Black DM, Cheung AM, Murad MH, Eastell R. Pharmacological Management of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women: An Endocrine Society Guideline Update. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(3):dgaa048. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgaa048
[2] Eastell R, Rosen CJ, Black DM, Cheung AM, Murad MH, Shoback D. Pharmacological Management of Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women: An Endocrine Society* Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(5):1595-1622. doi:10.1210/jc.2019-00221
[3] Barrionuevo P, Kapoor E, Asi N, et al. Efficacy of Pharmacological Therapies for the Prevention of Fractures in Postmenopausal Women: A Network Meta-Analysis [published correction appears in J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021 Mar 8;106(3):e1494]. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(5):1623-1630. doi:10.1210/jc.2019-00192
[4] Camacho PM, Petak SM, Binkley N, et al. American association of clinical endocrinologists/american college of endocrinology clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis-2020 update. Endocr Pract. 2020;26(Suppl 1):1-46. doi:10.4158/GL-2020-0524SUPPL
[5] Tu KN, Lie JD, Wan CKV, et al. Osteoporosis: A Review of Treatment Options. P T. 2018;43(2):92-104.
[6] Pavone V, Testa G, Giardina SMC, Vescio A, Restivo DA, Sessa G. Pharmacological Therapy of Osteoporosis: A Systematic Current Review of Literature. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:803. Published 2017 Nov 7. doi:10.3389/fphar.2017.00803
[7] Reid IR, Billington EO. Drug therapy for osteoporosis in older adults [published correction appears in Lancet. 2022 Sep 3;400(10354):732]. Lancet. 2022;399(10329):1080-1092. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02646-5
[8] Murad MH, Drake MT, Mullan RJ, et al. Clinical review. Comparative effectiveness of drug treatments to prevent fragility fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(6):1871-1880. doi:10.1210/jc.2011-3060
Literature Review

A search of the published medical literature revealed 5 studies investigating the researchable question:

What is the difference between Prolia (denosumab) and Forteo (teriparatide)? What are some things to consider if you want to transition from Prolia to Forteo?

Level of evidence

C - Multiple studies with limitations or conflicting results  Read more→



Please see Tables 1-5 for your response.


Comparative Effectiveness of Denosumab, Teriparatide, and Zoledronic Acid among Frail Older Adults: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Design

Retrospective cohort study

N= 2,019

Objective

To examine the comparative effectiveness of zoledronic acid (ZA), denosumab, and teriparatide for hip fracture prevention among older nursing home residents

Study Groups

Teriparatide (n= 578)

Zoledronic acid (n= 395)

Denosumab (n= 1,046)

Inclusion Criteria

Nursing home residents age ≥ 65 years old

Exclusion Criteria

Dispensing of any of the three osteoporosis drug classes of interest in the 365 days before the index date, less than 365 days of continuous enrollment in fee-for-service Medicare Parts A, B, and D, evidence of probable cancer

Methods

Long-stay nursing home residents (> 100 days) who were within the index date and dispensed any of the three osteoporosis drugs had their information analyzed. Probably cancer was defined as direct documentation of any cancer, prior chemotherapy, or if the dose or frequency of denosumab or zoledronic acid were consistent with cancer-related indications.

Duration

January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016

Outcome Measures

Number of hip fractures

Baseline Characteristics

 

Teriparatide (n= 578)

Zoledronic acid (n= 395)

Denosumab (n= 1,046)

Age, years

84.2 ± 8.1 84.4 ± 8.0 85.3 ± 7.7

Female

518 (89.6%) 329 (83.3%) 967 (92.4%)

White

463 (80.1%)  301 (76.2) 855 (81.7%) 

Fall (prior six months)

118 (20.4%) 33 (8.4%)  102 (9.8%)

Prior osteoporosis medicaiton use

Selective estrogen receptor modulator

Estrogen hormone replacement

Calcitonin intranasal spray

Oral bisphosphonate

 

17 (2.9%)

26 (4.5%)

41 (7.1%)

120 (20.8%) 

 

13 (3.3%)

19 (4.8%)

23 (5.8%)

53 (13.4%)

 

42 (4.0%)

48 (4.6%)

85 (8.1%)

357 (34.1%)

Results

Endpoint

Teriparatide (n= 578)

Zoledronic acid (n= 395)

Denosumab (n= 1,046)

Number of hip fracture

26 15 31
Incidence rate (95% confidence interval [CI]) per 1000 person-years

29.4 (20.0 to 43.2)

23.3 (14.1 to 38.7) 20.1 (14.5 to 29.3)
Hazard ratio (95% CI)

1.00 (reference)

0.70 (0.26 to 1.85) 0.54 (0.29 to 1.00)

Adverse Events

N/A

Study Author Conclusions

Denosumab and Zoledronic acid may be as effective as teriparatide for hip fracture prevention in frail older adults. Given their lower cost and easier administration, denosumab and zoledronic acid are likely preferable non-oral treatments for many frail, older adults, especially those residing long-term in nursing homes.

InpharmD Researcher Critique

The severity of osteoporosis and use of calcium and vitamin were not recorded. Most prior trials of osteoporosis treatments have excluded long-term nursing home residents because of difficulties recruiting them and their disparity in baseline characteristics and co-morbidity measures.

 

References:
[1] [1] Zullo AR, Lee Y, Lary C, Daiello LA, Kiel DP, Berry SD. Comparative effectiveness of denosumab, teriparatide, and zoledronic acid among frail older adults: a retrospective cohort study. Osteoporos Int. 2021;32(3):565-573. doi:10.1007/s00198-020-05732-2
Effects of Teriparatide, Denosumab, or Both on Spine Trabecular Microarchitecture in DATA-Switch: a randomized controlled trial
Design

Randomized controlled trial

N= 94

Objective To assess the effect of combination denosumab and teriparatide, as well as the transition from denosumab-to-teriparatide and teriparatide-to-denosumab, on skeletal microarchitecture of the spine
Study Groups

Teriparatide (n= 31)

Denosumab (n= 31)

Combination (n= 32)

Inclusion Criteria Postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture defined as having a spine or hip T-score of −2.5 or less or −2.0 or less with at least one risk factor (fracture after age 50yo, parental hip fracture after age 50yo, previous hyperthyroidism, inability to get up from a chair with arms raised, or current smoking) or a T-score of −1.0 or less with a history of an adult fragility fracture
Exclusion Criteria Use of glucocorticoids or oral bisphosphonates within 6 months of enrollment, use of estrogen, selective estrogen receptor modulators, or calcitonin within 3 months of enrollment; or any prior use of intravenous bisphosphonates, PTH or strontium ranelate
Methods Subjects were randomized to receive either teriparatide 20-mcg daily, denosumab 60-mg subcutaneously every 6 months, or both for 2 years. After 2 years, subjects who received teriparatide were switched to denosumab, subjects who received denosumab were switched to teriparatide, and subjects who received both were continued on denosumab alone. Trabecular bone score (TBS) was measured using DXA spine scans at 0, 12, 24, 30, 36, and 48 months.
Duration 48 months
Outcome Measures

Primary: Changes in spine trabecular bone score (TBS)

Secondary: Changes in bone mineral density (BMD)

Baseline Characteristics   Teriparatide (n= 31) Denosumab (n= 31) Combination (n= 32)
Age, years 65.2 ± 6.8 66.1 ± 7.1 65.8 ± 6.9
T-score, spine -2.7 ± 0.5 -2.6 ± 0.6 -2.5 ± 0.5
Previous adult fracture 16 (52%) 14 (45%) 18 (56%)
Results   Teriparatide (n= 31) Denosumab (n= 31) Combination (n= 32) p-value
TBS change at 24 months, % 2.7 ± 4.7 1.8 ± 5.0 4.5 ± 6.7 NS
TBS change at 48 months, % 5.1 ± 5.8 3.6 ± 4.2 6.1 ± 4.7 NS
Adverse Events Not specifically detailed
Study Author Conclusions Spine trabecular microarchitecture, as assessed by TBS, increased significantly in all treatment groups after 48 months. Switching from denosumab to teriparatide resulted in transient decreases in TBS, suggesting that initial use of teriparatide may be preferable when using these medications sequentially.
Critique The study provides valuable insights into the effects of teriparatide and denosumab on spine microarchitecture, but the small sample size limits the ability to draw conclusions about fracture risk reduction. The study was powered for aBMD outcomes, not TBS, which may affect the interpretation of between-group differences.

 

References:
[1] Tsai JN, Jiang LA, Lee H, Hans D, Leder BZ. Effects of Teriparatide, Denosumab, or Both on Spine Trabecular Microarchitecture in DATA-Switch: a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Densitom. 2017;20(4):507-512. doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2017.05.007

Differential Effects of Teriparatide and Denosumab on Intact PTH and Bone Formation Indices: AVA Osteoporosis Study
Design

Open-label, randomized study with quadruple labeling

N= 69

Objective To evaluate whether denosumab-induced changes of intact PTH result in early anabolic effects according to histomorphometry and bone turnover markers compared with teriparatide
Study Groups

Teriparatide (n= 33)

Denosumab (n= 36)

Inclusion Criteria Postmenopausal women aged 55 to 89 years with osteoporosis, BMD T-score ≤ -2.5 or ≤ -1.5 with a prevalent fracture, and laboratory values within reference ranges for serum calcium, PTH, and alkaline phosphatase
Exclusion Criteria Conditions specified in the teriparatide boxed warning, contraindications for teriparatide or denosumab, 25-hydroxyvitamin D ≤ 10 ng/mL, treatments affecting bone metabolism, history of malignancy in the past five years, impaired hepatic or renal function, recent glucocorticoid use, prior or current use of teriparatide, PTH, PTH analog, denosumab, or IV bisphosphonates
Methods Quadruple labeling of bone before/after treatment with transiliac bone biopsy at 3 months. Teriparatide (20 µg/day) for 6 months; denosumab (60 mg once). Measurements of cancellous mineralizing surface/bone surface, histomorphometric indices in 4 bone envelopes, BTMs, and iPTH at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months
Duration 6 months
Outcome Measures

Primary: Change from baseline to month 3 in cancellous mineralizing surface/bone surface (MS/BS)

Secondary: Histomorphometric indices in 4 bone envelopes, BTM and iPTH at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months

Baseline Characteristics   Teriparatide (n= 33) Denosumab (n= 36)
Age, years (mean [SD]) 61.6 (5.8) 65.2 (8.3)
Race - White 31 (93.9%) 31 (86.1%)
Body Mass Index, kg/m2 (mean [SD]) 24.7 (4.6) 24.0 (3.5)
Previous Osteoporosis Therapy, n (% Yes) 11 (33.3%) 14 (38.9%)
Prevalent Clinical Fracture, n (% Yes) 17 (51.5%) 16 (44.4%)
Lumbar Spine T-Score, mean (SD) -2.58 (0.91) -2.45 (0.93)
Femoral Neck T-Score, mean (SD) -2.24 (0.92) -2.39 (0.63)
Total Hip T-Score, mean (SD) -1.68 (0.93) -1.92 (0.76)
Serum P1NP Strata - ≥50 ng/mL 20 (60.6%) 20 (55.6%)
Results   Teriparatide (n= 31) Denosumab (n= 35) p-value
Cancellous MS/BS at 3 months, % 18.73 0.96 <0.001
Change in MS/BS from baseline to 3 months, % 12.4 -2.5 <0.001
BFR/BS at 3 months, mm3/mm2/yr 0.0366 0.0014 <0.001
MAR at 3 months, µm/day 0.57 0.41 <0.001
Adverse Events Common Adverse Events: Teriparatide - contusion (30.3%), arthralgia (15.2%), nausea, fatigue, headache (12.1% each); Denosumab - constipation, contusion, postprocedural discomfort (11.1% each). Serious Adverse Events: Teriparatide - chest pain, lung adenocarcinoma; Denosumab - appendicitis, deep vein thrombosis
Study Author Conclusions Denosumab treatment increased iPTH but inhibited bone formation indices. In contrast, teriparatide treatment decreased iPTH but stimulated bone formation indices. These findings are not consistent with the hypothesis of early indirect anabolic effect with denosumab.
Critique The study's strengths include the use of quadruple labeling for a detailed assessment of bone metabolism and a comprehensive evaluation of histomorphometric indices across multiple bone envelopes. However, the study was limited by its short duration and the small sample size, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the study did not assess serum calcium levels throughout the study period, which could have provided further insights into the compensatory mechanisms of PTH elevation with denosumab treatment.
References:
[1] [1] Dempster DW, Zhou H, Recker RR, et al. Differential Effects of Teriparatide and Denosumab on Intact PTH and Bone Formation Indices: AVA Osteoporosis Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(4):1353-1363. doi:10.1210/jc.2015-4181

 

Denosumab and Teriparatide Transitions in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis (The DATA-Switch Study): a Randomised Controlled Trial
Design

Randomised controlled trial extension

N= 94

Objective To test the hypothesis that transitioning from teriparatide or combined teriparatide/denosumab to denosumab monotherapy and transitioning from denosumab to teriparatide monotherapy will further increase BMD in postmenopausal osteoporotic women
Study Groups

Teriparatide (n=27)

Denosumab (n=27)

Combination (n=23)

Inclusion Criteria Postmenopausal women aged 45 or older, at least 36 months since last menses, high fracture risk defined by BMD T score ≤ −2.5 at spine, hip, or femoral neck, or T score ≤ −2.0 with at least one BMD-independent risk factor
Exclusion Criteria Evidence of hyperparathyroidism, vitamin D deficiency, other congenital or acquired bone disease, history of malignancy, significant cardiopulmonary, liver, or renal disease, major psychiatric disease, excessive alcohol intake, prior use of parenteral bisphosphonates, teriparatide, or strontium ranelate
Methods Participants were randomized to receive teriparatide 20-μg daily, denosumab 60-mg every 6 months, or both. After 24 months, those on teriparatide switched to denosumab, those on denosumab switched to teriparatide, and those on both continued with denosumab alone. BMD was measured at the hip, spine, and wrist at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after transitions
Duration 24-months initial treatment, followed by 24-months post-transition observation
Outcome Measures

Primary: Percent change in PA spine BMD over four years

Secondary: Percent change in total hip, femoral neck, and radius shaft BMD, percent change in serum osteocalcin and CTX

Baseline Characteristics   Teriparatide (N=27) Denosumab (N=27) Combination (N=23) P value
Age (year) 66.1 ± 7.9 65.1 ± 6.2 65.3 ± 8.0 0.88
Body mass index (kg/m2) 25.5 ± 3.7 23.8 ± 4.1 25.9 ± 5.2 0.20
Percent White, non-Hispanic(no, %) 27 (100%) 24 (89%) 20 (87%) 0.17
Clinical fracture at age >45 (no, %) 14 (52%) 10 (37%) 8 (35%) 0.40
Previous oral bisphosphonate use (no, %) 12 (44%) 9 (33%) 9 (39%) 0.70
Duration of use (months) 45 ± 23 45 ± 26 25 ± 21 0.15
Time since discontinuation (months) 27 ± 20 35 ± 24 41 ± 18 0.31
Results   TPTD→DMAB DMAB→TPTD COMBO→DMAB
Lumbar Spine BMD 0-48 months 18.3 (14.9-21.8) 14.0 (10.9- 17.2) 16.0 (14.0- 18.0)
Femoral Neck BMD 0-48 months 8.3 (6.1- 10.5) 4.9 (2.2- 7.5) 9.1 (6.1- 12.0)
Total Hip BMD 0-48 months 6.6 (5.3- 7.9) 2.8 (1.3- 4.2) 8.6 (7.1- 10.0)
Distal Radius BMD 0-48 months 0.0 (−1.3- 1.4) −1.8 (−5.0- 1.3) 2.8 (1.2- 4.4)
Lumbar Spine BMD 24-48 months 8.6 (6.6- 10.6) 4.8 (2.2- 7.4) 3.4 (1.7- 5.2)
Femoral Neck BMD 24-48 months 5.6 (3.9- 7.2) 1.2 (−1.0- 3.4) 2.1 (−0.2- 4.5)
Total Hip BMD 24-48 months 4.7 (3.7- 5.8) −0.7 (−2.0- 0.7) 2.2 (1.3- 3.1)
Distal Radius BMD 24-48 months 2.3 (0.5- 4.1) −5.0 (−7.5- −2.6) 0.5 (−0.6- 1.6)
Adverse Events Significant hypercalcemia was identified in one patient in the denosumab-to-teriparatide group. Serious adverse events included ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, syncope, COPD exacerbation, elective cervical laminectomy, fundoplication procedure, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, appendicitis, laryngitis/pharyngitis, nephrolithiasis without hypercalcemia, anemia due to a gastric ulcer, breast cancer, atrial fibrillation, and atrial fibrillation with stroke. Nephrolithiasis was possibly related to teriparatide.
Study Author Conclusions In postmenopausal osteoporotic women, switching from teriparatide to denosumab further increases BMD, whereas switching from denosumab to teriparatide results in transient or progressive bone loss. Combination therapy followed by denosumab alone results in the largest BMD increases at the hip and wrist. These findings should guide the sequential use of these therapies in clinical practice.
Critique The study provides valuable insights into the sequential use of teriparatide and denosumab, highlighting the importance of treatment order. However, the study's small sample size limits the ability to assess safety and fracture efficacy comprehensively. The open-label design may introduce bias, although blinding of DXA measurements and bone marker assays mitigates this risk. The study population's lower fracture risk suggests the need for further trials with fracture-reduction endpoints to confirm these findings.
References:
[1] [1] Leder BZ, Tsai JN, Uihlein AV, et al. Denosumab and teriparatide transitions in postmenopausal osteoporosis (the DATA-Switch study): extension of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386(9999):1147-1155. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61120-5

Response to Therapy With Teriparatide, Denosumab, or Both in Postmenopausal Women in the DATA (Denosumab and Teriparatide Administration) Study
Design Randomized Controlled Trial N= 94
Objective To determine if the individual rates of BMD response were greater among women treated with both denosumab and teriparatide compared to each drug alone
Study Groups

Teriparatide (n= 28)

Denosumab (n= 30)

Combination (n= 24)

Inclusion Criteria Postmenopausal women aged 45 or older, at least 36 months since last menses, high fracture risk defined by BMD T-score ≤−2.5 or T-score ≤−2.0 with risk factors, or T-score ≤−1.0 with a history of fragility fracture
Exclusion Criteria Evidence of hyperparathyroidism, vitamin D deficiency, other bone diseases, history of malignancy, significant cardiopulmonary, liver, or renal disease, major psychiatric disease, excessive alcohol intake, prior use of certain osteoporosis medications
Methods Subjects were randomized to receive denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months, teriparatide 20 μg subcutaneously daily, or both for 24 months. BMD was assessed by DXA at the total hip, femoral neck, lumbar spine, and distal 1/3 radius. Responders were defined as experiencing BMD increases of >3%
Duration 24 months
Outcome Measures

Primary: BMD response rates at total hip (TH), femoral neck (FN), and lumbar spine (LS)

Baseline Characteristics   Teriparatide (N = 28) Denosumab (N = 30) Combination (N = 24)
Age (years) 65.6 ± 8.3 65.1 ± 6.2 65.1 ± 7.9
Body mass index (kg/m2) 25.5 ± 3.6 24.0 ± 3.9 25.6 ± 5.3
Percent White, non-Hispanic (%) 100 90 88
History of fracture (%) 50 33 33
Previous BP use (%) 39 33 38
25-hydroxy vitamin D (ng/mL) 31.8 ± 8.7 35.4 ± 10.6 35.1 ± 12.6
Results   Teriparatide (N = 28) Denosumab (N = 30) Combination (N = 24) p-value
TH BMD increase >3% 36% 53% 92% <0.001
TH BMD increase >6% 11% 17% 50% 0.002
FN BMD increase >3% 46% 57% 83% 0.006
FN BMD increase >6% 21% 27% 50% 0.031
LS BMD increase >3% 85% 93% 100% NS
LS BMD increase >6% 63% 78% 100% 0.001
Adverse Events N/A
Study Author Conclusions More women treated with combined denosumab and teriparatide achieved significant BMD response at the hip and femoral neck than those treated with either drug alone. All women treated with both agents experienced an excellent response at the lumbar spine. These results support further investigation of combined therapy for fracture reduction in postmenopausal osteoporotic women.
Critique The study demonstrates significant findings regarding the efficacy of combination therapy in increasing BMD, but it is limited by its relatively small sample size and the post hoc nature of the analysis. The lack of correction for multiple comparisons and the reliance on BMD as a surrogate marker rather than direct fracture outcomes are additional limitations. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and assess fracture reduction benefits.
References:
[1] [1] Leder BZ, Tsai JN, Neer RM, Uihlein AV, Wallace PM, Burnett-Bowie SA. Response to Therapy With Teriparatide, Denosumab, or Both in Postmenopausal Women in the DATA (Denosumab and Teriparatide Administration) Study Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Densitom. 2016;19(3):346-351. doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2016.01.004