Effectiveness of Weekly Teriparatide Injection in Postmenopausal Patients with Hip Fractures.

Lee SY, Seo MS, Yoo JI

Clinics in orthopedic surgery27 Feb 2023Cited by 10 (Europe PMC)

PMID37529188PMCIDPMC10375812DOI10.4055/cios22280PepBankPUB-37529188

Read at source PubMedAsk about this study

Summary

The text of this summary is not shown here, because the article license does not allow reuse. Read it at the source (opens in a new tab)

Text rights: CC BY-NC. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study4

4 results from studies that gave the peptide. 4 results from people.

01HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome
In hip-fracture patients, the difference between CTx and osteocalcin values at 6 months was large in the weekly teriparatide group, while the saline control group showed no difference.
In plain wordsIn hip-fracture patients, bone-marker differences were large at six months with teriparatide, while saline controls showed no difference.
Peptide
Teriparatide (PTH 1-34)
Outcome
Direction not reportedCTx–osteocalcin difference at six months
Study
n = 92
Comparator
Normal saline control
Outcome group
Bone and joint · Musculoskeletal
Studied dose
Dose not stated · Weekly injectionAs given in this study (human).
Source sentences
Summary
The control group did not show a difference between the CTx and OC at 6 months, but the difference between the CTx and OC values was large at 6 months in the experimental group.
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
The purpose of this double-blind randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the influence of weekly teriparatide administration on bone formation in hip fracture patients.
Summary · context
The control group (n = 41) was composed of patients treated with normal saline other than teriparatide, and the teriparatide group (n = 51) consisted of patients who received weekly teriparatide.
Report a problemFND-3752918802
02HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome
In hip-fracture patients, the mean RUSH score at three months was higher with weekly teriparatide than with saline control.
In plain wordsIn hip-fracture patients, the fracture-union score at three months was higher with weekly teriparatide than with saline.
Peptide
Teriparatide (PTH 1-34)
Outcome
IncreaseRUSH score at three months
Study
n = 92
Comparator
Normal saline control
Outcome group
Bone and joint · Musculoskeletal
Studied dose
Dose not stated · Weekly injectionAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
RUSH score
15.476 score
Teriparatide at 3 months
RUSH score
12.105 score
Control at 3 months
Source sentences
Summary
The mean RUSH score was significantly different between the control group and the experimental group: 12.105 and 15.476, respectively (p = 0.004), at 3 months and 18.571 and 22.389, respectively, at 6 months (p = 0.006).
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
The purpose of this double-blind randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the influence of weekly teriparatide administration on bone formation in hip fracture patients.
Summary · context
The control group (n = 41) was composed of patients treated with normal saline other than teriparatide, and the teriparatide group (n = 51) consisted of patients who received weekly teriparatide.
Report a problemFND-3752918803
03HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome
In hip-fracture patients, the mean RUSH score at six months was higher with weekly teriparatide than with saline control.
In plain wordsIn hip-fracture patients, the fracture-union score at six months was higher with weekly teriparatide than with saline.
Peptide
Teriparatide (PTH 1-34)
Outcome
IncreaseRUSH score at six months
Study
n = 92
Comparator
Normal saline control
Outcome group
Bone and joint · Musculoskeletal
Studied dose
Dose not stated · Weekly injectionAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
RUSH score
22.389 score
Teriparatide at 6 months
RUSH score
18.571 score
Control at 6 months
Source sentences
Summary
The mean RUSH score was significantly different between the control group and the experimental group: 12.105 and 15.476, respectively (p = 0.004), at 3 months and 18.571 and 22.389, respectively, at 6 months (p = 0.006).
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
The purpose of this double-blind randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the influence of weekly teriparatide administration on bone formation in hip fracture patients.
Summary · context
The control group (n = 41) was composed of patients treated with normal saline other than teriparatide, and the teriparatide group (n = 51) consisted of patients who received weekly teriparatide.
Report a problemFND-3752918804
04HumanRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome
In postmenopausal hip-fracture patients, lumbar bone mineral density increased by more than 7% over one year in the weekly teriparatide group.
In plain wordsIn postmenopausal hip-fracture patients, lumbar bone density increased by more than 7% over one year with weekly teriparatide.
Peptide
Teriparatide (PTH 1-34)
Outcome
IncreaseLumbar bone mineral density change
Study
n = 51
Outcome group
Bone and joint · Musculoskeletal
Studied dose
Dose not stated · Weekly injectionAs given in this study (human).
Measurements
Lumbar BMD change
> 7%
Weekly teriparatide over one year
Source sentences
Summary
Evaluation of the rate of change in bone mineral density over 1 year showed that the lumber bone mineral density increased by more than 7% in the experimental group.
2 context sentences(design, population, supporting numbers)
Summary · context
The purpose of this double-blind randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the influence of weekly teriparatide administration on bone formation in hip fracture patients.
Summary · context
The control group (n = 41) was composed of patients treated with normal saline other than teriparatide, and the teriparatide group (n = 51) consisted of patients who received weekly teriparatide.
Report a problemFND-3752918801

AI wrote and checked these results. AI can make mistakes, so check important results against the source.

Version history

PepBank keeps every version of the data on this study. Status changes from Retraction Watch, Europe PMC and Crossref are listed with their source.

Version 2Current
22 Oct 2026, 02:26 UTC
Study results updated
Version 1
21 Oct 2026, 18:59 UTC
First added · source update from Europe PMC

Subjects

Terms as the source lists them.

Publication types

MeSH terms

Keywords

PepBank is a research reference. Talk to a doctor before you use any peptide.