UNLABELLED: The effect of teriparatide and risedronate on back pain was tested, and there was no difference in the proportion of patients experiencing a reduction in back pain between groups after 6 or 18 months. Patients receiving teriparatide had greater increases in bone mineral density and had fewer vertebral fractures. INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to understand the effect of teriparatide in reducing back pain in patients with prevalent back pain and vertebral fracture compared torisedronate. METHODS: In an 18-month randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial, we investigated the effects of teriparatide (20 μg/day) vs. risedronate (35 mg/week) in postmenopausal women with back pain likely due to vertebral fracture. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of subjects reporting ≥30% reduction in worst back pain severity from baseline to 6 months as assessed by a numeric rating scale in each treatment group. Pre-specified secondary and exploratory outcomes included assessments of average and worst back pain at additional time points, disability and quality of life, bone mineral density, incidence of fractures, and safety. RESULTS: At 6 months, 59% of teriparatide and 57% of risedronate patients reported ≥30% reduction in worst back pain and there were no differences between groups in the proportion of patients experiencing reduction in worst or average back pain at any time point, disability, or quality of life. There was a greater increase from baseline in bone mineral density at the lumbar spine (p = 0.001) and femoral neck (p = 0.02) with teriparatide compared to risedronate and a lower incidence of vertebral fractures at 18 months (4% teriparatide and 9% risedronate; p = 0.01). Vertebral fractures were less severe (p = 0.04) in the teriparatide group. There was no difference in the overall incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no differences in back pain-related endpoints, patients receiving teriparatide had greater skeletal benefit than those receiving risedronate.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: The effect of teriparatide and risedronate on back pain was tested, and there was no difference in the proportion of patients experiencing a reduction in back pain between groups after 6 or 18 months. Patients receiving teriparatide had greater increases in bone mineral density and had fewer vertebral fractures. INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to understand the effect of teriparatide in reducing back pain in patients with prevalent back pain and vertebral fracture compared to risedronate. METHODS: In an 18-month randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial, we investigated the effects of teriparatide (20 μg/day) vs. risedronate (35 mg/week) in postmenopausal women with back pain likely due to vertebral fracture. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of subjects reporting ≥30% reduction in worst back pain severity from baseline to 6 months as assessed by a numeric rating scale in each treatment group. Pre-specified secondary and exploratory outcomes included assessments of average and worst back pain at additional time points, disability and quality of life, bone mineral density, incidence of fractures, and safety. RESULTS: At 6 months, 59% of teriparatide and 57% of risedronatepatients reported ≥30% reduction in worst back pain and there were no differences between groups in the proportion of patients experiencing reduction in worst or average back pain at any time point, disability, or quality of life. There was a greater increase from baseline in bone mineral density at the lumbar spine (p = 0.001) and femoral neck (p = 0.02) with teriparatide compared to risedronate and a lower incidence of vertebral fractures at 18 months (4% teriparatide and 9% risedronate; p = 0.01). Vertebral fractures were less severe (p = 0.04) in the teriparatide group. There was no difference in the overall incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no differences in back pain-related endpoints, patients receiving teriparatide had greater skeletal benefit than those receiving risedronate.
Authors: P Lips; C Cooper; D Agnusdei; F Caulin; P Egger; O Johnell; J A Kanis; S Kellingray; A Leplege; U A Liberman; E McCloskey; H Minne; J Reeve; J Y Reginster; M Scholz; C Todd; M C de Vernejoul; I Wiklund Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 1999 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: R Norman Harden; Stephan R Weinland; Thomas A Remble; Timothy T Houle; Sean Colio; Susan Steedman; William G Kee Journal: J Pain Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Paul D Miller; William J Shergy; Jean-Jacques Body; Peiqi Chen; Mark E Rohe; John H Krege Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Helmut Minne; Maurice Audran; Maria E Simões; Barbara Obermayer-Pietsch; Gunnar Sigurðsson; Fernando Marín; Gail P Dalsky; Thomas Nickelsen Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: A Fahrleitner-Pammer; B L Langdahl; F Marin; F Jakob; D Karras; A Barrett; Ö Ljunggren; J B Walsh; G Rajzbaum; C Barker; W F Lems Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2010-11-27 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Thawee Songpatanasilp; Malik Mumtaz; Harvinder Chhabra; Maria Yu; Sebastian Sorsaburu Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: Sarah Davis; Emma Simpson; Jean Hamilton; Marrissa Martyn-St James; Andrew Rawdin; Ruth Wong; Edward Goka; Neil Gittoes; Peter Selby Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.014