4.6 Article

Administration of teriparatide for four years cyclically compared to two years daily in treatment Naive and alendronate treated women

期刊

BONE
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 246-253

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2018.10.020

关键词

Anabolic; Teriparatide; Alendronate; Combination therapy; Cyclic therapy; Antiresorptive

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AR056651]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We evaluated if equivalent doses of TPTD given cyclically over 4-years could increase BMD > 2-years of daily TPTD in 2 cohorts of women; previously untreated (Rx-Naive) and women previously treated with ALN (ALN-Rx). Methods: In Rx-Naive, women were randomized to daily TPTD for 24 months (Daily; n = 23) or cyclic TPTD for 48 months (3 months on, 3 months off; Cyclic; n = 25). In ALN-Rx, women were randomized to continued ALN plus daily TPTD for 24 months, followed by ALN alone for 24 months (Daily; n = 21) or TPTD for 48 months (3 months on, 3 months off) while ALN was continued (Cyclic; n = 20). BMD (DXA) was measured at spine (LS), total hip (TH) and femoral neck (FN). The primary analysis compared 4 years of cyclic therapy to 2 years of daily therapy in RX-naive and ALN-RX cohorts. Results: In Rx-Naive, BMD changes at 24 months after Daily TPTD vs. 48 months after Cyclic TPTD were: LS 8.6% vs. 6.9%; TH 2.5% vs. 2.6%, and FN 1.6% vs. 2.2%. None of the BMD changes differed significantly between groups but all changes were significant over time within each group (p < 0.01 except for FN where p = 0.17 Daily; p = 0.09 Cyclic). In ALN-Rx, BMD changes at 24 months after Daily TPTD vs. 48 months after Cyclic TPTD were: IS 7.5% vs. 7.2%; TH 3.8% vs. 4.1%, and FN 3.2% vs. 2.5%. There were no differences between groups but all changes were significant within each group (p < 0.01). Conclusion: The same cumulative dose of TPTD given cyclically for 4-years, does not increase BMD more than standard daily TPTD over 2-years in either Rx-Naive or ALN-Rx women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据