Percentage of Participants With No Revision Surgery at 12 Months After Internal Fixation of a Low-Trauma Femoral Neck Fracture
| Group | Value (Percentage of participants) |
|---|---|
| Teriparatide | 74 |
| Placebo | 93 |
Trial · Interventional
CompletedPhase 3Results postedRegistry dataUnited States, Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey (Türkiye)
1 trial · 1 completed · 1 with posted results
Text and fields below are the sponsor's entries at ClinicalTrials.gov, shown as posted.
The purpose of this study is to see whether teriparatide, given for 6 months versus placebo, will improve the healing of hip (femoral neck) fractures that are repaired during surgery using certain types of orthopedic screws. The study will enroll men and postmenopausal women at least 50 years of age with a recent hip (femoral neck) fracture caused by low-trauma (for example, fall from standing height or less).
Placebo comparator
Placebo
Administered once daily by subcutaneous (SC) injection for 6 months
Experimental
Teriparatide
20 microgram (µg) administered once daily by SC injection for 6 months
Outcomes the sponsor listed as primary.
Percentage of Participants With No Revision Surgery at 12 Months After Internal Fixation of a Low-Trauma Femoral Neck Fracture
Time frame · 12 months
Revision surgery (re-operation) was defined as any additional surgical intervention performed or recommended at the site of the index procedure, except those that were planned at the time of the index procedure.
Percentage of Participants With Radiographic Evidence of Healing
Time frame · Randomization up to 12 months
The signs of femoral neck fracture healing and healing complications included disappearance of the fracture line on radiographs. If a participant had radiographic evidence of healing at the 12-month visit, that participant was considered to have radiographic evidence of healing. Percentage was calculated as: (number of participants with radiographic evidence of healing / total number of participants analyzed) \* 100.
Percentage of Participants With Pain Control During Ambulation
Time frame · Up to 12 months
The worst pain numeric rating scale (NRS) was used to assess the impact of pain on a participant's life. NRS Item 3 assessed the worst musculoskeletal pain severity during the walking test. Pain was measured by an 11-point Likert scale. The following cut-points were used to categorize the NRS responses: 0 = no pain, 1 to 4 = mild pain, 5 to 6 = moderate pain, and 7 to 10 = severe pain. Higher scores indicated more severe pain. Participants with an NRS score of \<7 and no worsening of NRS scores \>2 from baseline were categorized as having no severe fracture-site pain. Percentage was calculated as: (number of participants with pain control during ambulation / total number of participants analyzed) \* 100.
Percentage of Participants Without Severe Fracture-Site Pain During 24 Hours Prior to Visit
Time frame · Up to 12 months
The NRS was used to assess the impact of pain on a participant's life. Fracture-site pain severity was assessed for pain in the 24 hours preceding a visit. Pain was measured by an 11-point Likert scale. Participants with an NRS score of \<7 in the 24 hours preceding a visit and no worsening of NRS score \>2 from baseline were categorized as having no severe fracture-site pain. Percentage was calculated as: (number of participants with pain control during 24 hours preceding a visit / total number of participants analyzed) \* 100.
Percentage of Participants Without Severe Fracture-Site Pain During Weight Bearing
Time frame · Up to 12 months
The worst pain NRS was used to assess the impact of pain on a participant's life. Fracture-site pain severity was assessed for pain on weight bearing. Pain was measured by an 11-point Likert scale. Participants with an NRS score of \<7 during weight bearing and no worsening of NRS score \>2 from baseline were categorized as having no severe fracture-site pain. Percentage was calculated as: (number of participants with pain control during weight bearing / total number of participants) \* 100.
Percentage of Participants With Functional Evidence of Healing
Time frame · Up to 12 Months
Functional healing was defined as ability to walk with a gait speed ≥ 0.05 meters/second (m/s) with a change from baseline ≥ -0.1 m/s. The walking test involved having the participant walk a distance of 7 meters (m) at a self-selected, comfortable pace. A 4-m portion of the test was timed to determine the participant's gait speed in m/s. Percentage was calculated as: (number of participants with functional evidence of healing / total number of participants analyzed) \* 100.
Percentage of Participants Able to Ambulate
Time frame · Up to 12 months
Ability to ambulate was defined as ambulatory with or without convalescent aid. Percentage was calculated as: (number of participants able to ambulate / total number of participants analyzed) \* 100.
Percentage of Participants Who Regained Their Prefracture Ambulatory Status
Time frame · Up to 12 months
Prefracture ambulatory status was defined as either ambulatory with or without a walking aid. A participant was considered to have regained their prefracture ambulatory status if the participant's postsurgery ambulatory status was returned to or was improved from their pre-surgery ambulatory status. Percentage was calculated as = (number of participants who regained their ambulatory status / total number of participants analyzed) \*100.
Mean Change From Baseline to 6 Months in Worst Fracture-Site Pain
Time frame · Baseline, 6 Months
The worst pain NRS was used to assess the impact of pain on a participant's life. Participants with an NRS score of \<7 were categorized as having no severe fracture-site pain. Least squares (LS) means was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline, treatment group, region, fracture type, and fixation type.
Mean Change From Baseline to 6 Months in Gait Speed
Time frame · Baseline, 6 Months
The walking test involved having the participant walk a distance of 7 m at a self-selected, comfortable pace. A 4-m portion of the test was timed to determine the participant's gait speed in m/s. LS means was calculated using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline, treatment group, region, fracture type, and fixation type
Time to Revision Surgery
Time frame · Baseline to Revision Surgery (up to 14.14 Months)
Time to revision surgery was defined as the time from initial hip fracture surgery to revision surgery, or recommendation for revision surgery if recommended but not performed. Time to revision surgery was censored at the date of the last contact.
Mean Change From Baseline to 6 Months on Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) Scores
Time frame · Baseline, 6 Months
SF-12 is a self-reported questionnaire covering a mental component score (MCS) and a physical component score (PCS), each scoring from a 0 to 100 (worst to best) scale. LS means was calculated using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline, treatment group, region, fracture type, fixation type, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction.
Mean Change From Baseline to 6 Months on Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)
Time frame · Baseline, up to 6 Months
WOMAC: was a self-reported questionnaire that consisted of 24 questions covering 3 health domains: Pain (5 items: during walking, using stairs, in bed, sitting or lying, and standing), Stiffness (2 items: after first waking and later in the day), and Physical Function. Each domain was scored by summing the individual items and transforming the scores into a 0 to 100 (best to worst) scale. Lower scores indicated better health status or functioning. LS means was calculated using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline, treatment group, region, fracture type, fixation type, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction.
Mean Change From Baseline to 6 Months on European Quality of Life Questionnaire (EQ-5D) Overall Health Score
Time frame · Baseline, 6 Months
The EQ-5D is a 5-item, self-reported, generic, multidimensional, health-related, quality-of-life instrument with 5 items. Overall health state score was also self-reported using a visual analogue scale (VAS) marked on a scale scored from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state). Higher scores represented better health state with 0 representing worst imaginable health state and 100 representing best imaginable health state. LS means was calculated using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline, treatment group, region.
Values are shown as posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, with their units. PepBank has not converted, pooled or compared them.
| Group | Value (Percentage of participants) |
|---|---|
| Teriparatide | 74 |
| Placebo | 93 |
| Group | Value (Percentage of participants) |
|---|---|
| Teriparatide | 55.6 |
| Placebo | 65.0 |
| Group | Value (Percentage of participants) |
|---|---|
| Teriparatide | 90.0 |
| Placebo | 100.0 |
| Group | Value (Percentage of participants) |
|---|---|
| Teriparatide | 81.8 |
| Placebo | 92.9 |
| Group | Value (Percentage of participants) |
|---|---|
| Teriparatide | 90.9 |
| Placebo | 84.6 |
| Group | Value (Percentage of participants) |
|---|---|
| Teriparatide | 76.9 |
| Placebo | 66.7 |
| Group | Value (Percentage of participants) |
|---|---|
| Teriparatide | 76.9 |
| Placebo | 93.3 |
| Group | Value (Percentage of participants) |
|---|---|
| Teriparatide | 47.1 |
| Placebo | 62.5 |
| Group | Deaths | Serious events | Other events |
|---|---|---|---|
| PlaceboPlacebo once-daily by SC injection for 6 months. Participants received calcium and vitamin D supplements. | – | 2 / 20 | 5 / 20 |
| TeriparatideTeriparatide 20 µg once-daily by subcutaneous (SC) injection for 6 months. Participants received calcium and vitamin D supplements. | – | 1 / 18 | 3 / 18 |
| Placebo Follow-upFollow-up after placebo once-daily by SC injection for 6 months. Participants received calcium and vitamin D supplements. | – | 3 / 15 | 4 / 15 |
| Teriparatide Follow-upFollow-up after teriparatide 20 µg once-daily by subcutaneous (SC) injection for 6 months. Participants received calcium and vitamin D supplements. | – | 1 / 12 | 3 / 12 |
Each cell reads participants affected / participants at risk, as the registry posted them.
Registry data comes from ClinicalTrials.gov. Study results come from studies, not from the registry. How PepBank works
Studies that cite this trial.
No study cites this trial.
Who could join, as posted.
PepBank is a research reference. Talk to a doctor before you use any peptide.
In PepBank now:147 peptides, 6 blends and 13 other compounds97,577 study results from 17,383 studies8,473 clinical trialsUpdated