___________________________________________________________

TERIPARATIDE (FORTEO) AND ABALOPARATIDE (TYMLOS)

PTH1R anabolic agents | bone formation | fracture prevention

____________________________________________________________

peer-reviewed sources only. all studies cited in full.

[1] Neer RM et al. (2001) N Engl J Med. Teriparatide fracture prevention trial (FPT)

[1] Neer RM et al. (2001) N Engl J Med 344:1434. Teriparatide pivotal fracture prevention trial

[2] Kendler DL et al. (2018) Lancet. VERO trial: teriparatide vs risedronate

[3] Miller PD et al. (2016) J Bone Miner Res. ACTIVE trial: abaloparatide phase 3

[4] Krege JH et al. (2022) JBMR Plus. Teriparatide osteosarcoma risk and black box removal

[5] Reginster JY et al. (2018) Calcif Tissue Int. Abaloparatide NNT vs teriparatide

[6] Bernhardsson M, Aspenberg P. (2018) Acta Orthop. Abaloparatide vs teriparatide fracture healing

[7] Saag KG et al. (2007) N Engl J Med. Teriparatide vs alendronate glucocorticoid-induced OP

[8] StatPearls (2024) Teriparatide. NCBI Bookshelf

[9] StatPearls (2024) Abaloparatide. NCBI Bookshelf

[10] PeptideInsight (2026) Teriparatide: Research Evidence and Safety Profile

[11] PeptideInsight (2026) Abaloparatide: Research Evidence and Safety Profile

____________________________________________________________

CONTENTS

01 what are these drugs and how do they differ

02 the PTH1R receptor why pulsatile matters

03 teriparatide mechanism in detail

04 abaloparatide mechanism and how it differs from teriparatide

05 key clinical trials the evidence base

06 head to head teriparatide vs abaloparatide

07 the osteosarcoma question black box history and current status

08 contraindications and who should not use these drugs

09 sequencing what comes before and after

10 practical considerations dosing cost monitoring

11 where these drugs sit in the full osteoporosis treatment landscape

12 verdict

____________________________________________________________

TERIPARATIDE AND ABALOPARATIDE

Both are injectable anabolic agents for osteoporosis. Both activate

the same receptor. Both build new bone rather than simply slowing

its breakdown. That is where the similarity starts to diverge.

____________________________________________________________

TERIPARATIDE (Forteo, Eli Lilly)

Approved by FDA November 2002

What it is synthetic copy of the first 34 amino acids of human PTH

Also known as PTH(1-34) or rhPTH(1-34)

Dose 20 mcg subcutaneous injection once daily

Approved for postmenopausal women, men with osteoporosis,

glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis

Biosimilars approved yes (Terrosa, Movymia, Bonsity, others)

Black box warning osteosarcoma warning removed November 2020

2-year limit revised in 2020: extension permitted at high fracture risk

List price (2024) approximately $2,800-$3,400 per month (WAC)

____________________________________________________________

ABALOPARATIDE (Tymlos, Radius Health)

Approved by FDA April 2017

What it is synthetic analog of PTHrP(1-34), not PTH itself

34 amino acids with Aib substitution at position 22

Also known as PTHrP analog, second-generation PTH1R agonist

Dose 80 mcg subcutaneous injection once daily

Approved for postmenopausal women (2017), men (January 2023)

Transdermal patch approved as Wearfin for postmenopausal women

International names Eladynos (EU), Ostabaro (Japan)

Black box warning osteosarcoma warning still present as of 2024

FDA and manufacturer in discussions about removal

List price (2024) approximately $2,800-$3,400 per month (WAC)

THE RECEPTOR AND THE PULSATILE EFFECT

Both drugs work by activating PTH1R, the parathyroid hormone receptor

type 1. It is a class B G protein-coupled receptor expressed on

osteoblasts and osteocytes.

PTH1R is the same receptor activated by your own endogenous PTH.

The key to why these drugs build bone rather than destroy it is not

which receptor they hit. It is how long they hit it.

____________________________________________________________

CONTINUOUS VS PULSATILE EXPOSURE

Continuous PTH elevation (as seen in primary hyperparathyroidism):

osteoclast activity dominates, net result is bone resorption and loss

Pulsatile PTH exposure (once-daily injection, peaks then clears):

osteoblast activity dominates, net result is bone formation

This is the entire pharmacological basis of both drugs. The injection

produces a sharp peak in PTH1R activation that clears within hours.

That transient pulse preferentially drives osteoblast proliferation

and survival over osteoclast recruitment.

____________________________________________________________

DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS ON BONE CELLS

osteoblasts stimulated to proliferate, differentiate, and survive longer

bone formation P1NP (procollagen type 1N propeptide) rises steeply

osteoclasts also stimulated but effect is outweighed by osteoblast response

net result bone formation exceeds resorption over the first 12 months

bone architecture trabecular connectivity improves, cortical thickness increases

Unlike antiresorptive drugs (bisphosphonates, denosumab) which slow

breakdown, these drugs create genuinely new bone tissue. This is why

they produce BMD gains that antiresorptives cannot match in magnitude

or speed, particularly in trabecular bone.

TERIPARATIDE PTH(1-34)

Teriparatide is a recombinant copy of the first 34 amino acids of

native human parathyroid hormone. The full PTH molecule is 84 amino

acids but the N-terminal 34 residues contain all the receptor-binding

and biological activity needed for bone anabolism.

____________________________________________________________

MOLECULAR MECHANISM

Teriparatide binds PTH1R on osteoblasts and activates both:

Gs protein pathway adenylyl cyclase activation, cAMP rise, PKA activation

Gq protein pathway phospholipase C activation, PKC activation

The Gs/cAMP pathway is the primary driver of anabolic effects.

cAMP activates PKA which phosphorylates transcription factors

regulating osteoblast differentiation, collagen synthesis, and

mineralisation. It also suppresses sclerostin expression in osteocytes,

freeing Wnt/beta-catenin signalling to further drive bone formation.

Additionally, teriparatide reduces osteoblast apoptosis, extending

the functional lifespan of bone-forming cells at remodelling sites.

____________________________________________________________

EFFECTS ON DIFFERENT BONE COMPARTMENTS

trabecular bone large and rapid gains in BMD and architecture

rod-plate conversion: rods become plates (stronger geometry)

cortical bone periosteal bone formation increases cortical area

endosteal resorption can occur early (partially offsets gains)

forearm BMD can decrease on teriparatide (cortical site):

not a fracture risk concern; reflects redistribution not net loss

____________________________________________________________

BONE MARKERS ON TERIPARATIDE

P1NP (formation) rises sharply within 1 month, peaks at 3-6 months

CTX (resorption) also rises but with a delay of several months

net balance formation exceeds resorption for approximately first 12 months

beyond 12 months resorption catches up, net anabolic window narrows

This is why treatment duration matters. Most of the anabolic benefit

is front-loaded in the first 12-18 months.

ABALOPARATIDE PTHrP ANALOG

Abaloparatide is not a copy of PTH. It is a synthetic analog of

PTH-related protein (PTHrP), a structurally related peptide that

shares the same receptor but has different tissue distribution and

somewhat different signalling properties.

The key structural modification: an alpha-aminoisobutyric acid (Aib)

substitution at position 22, which stabilises the alpha-helical

conformation of the peptide and alters how it interacts with PTH1R.

____________________________________________________________

RECEPTOR CONFORMATION SELECTIVITY

PTH1R exists in at least two conformational states:

R0 state high-affinity conformation, associated with prolonged signalling

RG state lower-affinity conformation, associated with transient signalling

Teriparatide binds both R0 and RG states.

Abaloparatide preferentially binds the RG state.

RG-preferential binding is hypothesised to produce a more transient

receptor activation signal, potentially shifting the anabolic-to-catabolic

ratio further toward bone formation and reducing downstream effects

on calcium (renal reabsorption and intestinal absorption) that drive

hypercalcemia.

____________________________________________________________

PHARMACOKINETIC DIFFERENCES VS TERIPARATIDE

half-life abaloparatide ~1.7 hours vs teriparatide ~1.0 hour

bioavailability abaloparatide ~36% SC vs teriparatide ~95% SC

dose abaloparatide 80 mcg vs teriparatide 20 mcg

the 4:1 dose ratio was chosen for clinical equivalence

cAMP stimulation abaloparatide shows greater cAMP stimulation per receptor

beta-arrestin abaloparatide shows higher beta-arrestin recruitment

(may contribute to distinct receptor trafficking profile)

____________________________________________________________

THE CLAIMED ADVANTAGE OVER TERIPARATIDE

The theoretical basis for abaloparatide being second-generation:

more selective bone anabolism with less calcium mobilisation.

In practice, the ACTIVE trial found hypercalcemia was actually

higher with abaloparatide (10.6%) than teriparatide (3.3%).

This was the opposite of the predicted result and remains unexplained.

What abaloparatide did demonstrate in ACTIVE:

greater nonvertebral fracture reduction vs placebo (43% vs 35%)

superior major osteoporotic fracture reduction vs teriparatide directly

earlier onset of fracture risk reduction on Kaplan-Meier curves

CLINICAL EVIDENCE

____________________________________________________________

TERIPARATIDE FRACTURE PREVENTION TRIAL (FPT) 2001

Neer RM et al. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1434

The pivotal trial. 1,637 postmenopausal women with prior vertebral fractures.

Teriparatide 20 mcg/day vs 40 mcg/day vs placebo for median 21 months.

Trial was terminated early because of rat osteosarcoma findings.

new vertebral fractures 65% reduction vs placebo (20 mcg group)

nonvertebral fractures 53% reduction vs placebo

lumbar spine BMD +9.7% from baseline at 20 mcg

femoral neck BMD +2.8% from baseline

____________________________________________________________

VERO TRIAL 2018 TERIPARATIDE VS RISEDRONATE HEAD TO HEAD

Kendler DL et al. Lancet 2018;391:230

First head-to-head anabolic vs antiresorptive fracture trial.

1,360 postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis and existing fractures.

Teriparatide 20 mcg/day vs risedronate 35 mg/week for 24 months.

new vertebral fractures 56% fewer with teriparatide (4.1% vs 9.4%)

clinical fractures 52% fewer with teriparatide

nonvertebral fractures numerically fewer but not statistically significant

This trial established that an anabolic-first approach produces

superior fracture outcomes vs antiresorptive-first in severe disease.

____________________________________________________________

TERIPARATIDE IN GLUCOCORTICOID-INDUCED OSTEOPOROSIS 2007

Saag KG et al. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2028

428 patients on glucocorticoid therapy. Teriparatide vs alendronate 18 months.

Teriparatide produced greater BMD gains at lumbar spine and femoral neck.

Vertebral fracture rate: 0.6% teriparatide vs 6.1% alendronate.

Established teriparatide as preferred agent in GIO.

____________________________________________________________

ACTIVE TRIAL 2016 ABALOPARATIDE PIVOTAL PHASE 3

Miller PD et al. JAMA 2016;316:722 / J Bone Miner Res 2016

2,463 postmenopausal women. Three arms: abaloparatide 80 mcg,

teriparatide 20 mcg (open-label), placebo. 18 months.

vs placebo (abaloparatide):

new vertebral fractures 86% reduction (0.58% vs 4.22%)

nonvertebral fractures 43% reduction (2.7% vs 4.7%)

major osteoporotic fxs 70% reduction

vs placebo (teriparatide, open-label arm):

new vertebral fractures 80% reduction

nonvertebral fractures 35% reduction

abaloparatide vs teriparatide directly:

major osteoporotic fractures significantly fewer with abaloparatide

vertebral fractures numerically fewer but difference not significant

hypercalcemia 10.6% abaloparatide vs 3.3% teriparatide

____________________________________________________________

ABALOPARATIDE IN MEN 2021

Orwoll ES et al. J Bone Miner Res 2021

222 men with osteoporosis. Abaloparatide 80 mcg vs placebo 12 months.

Lumbar spine BMD: +8.5% abaloparatide vs +0.5% placebo

Femoral neck BMD: +2.7% vs -0.2%

Led to FDA approval expansion to men in January 2023.

____________________________________________________________

FRACTURE HEALING ABALOPARATIDE VS TERIPARATIDE MOUSE MODEL 2018

Bernhardsson M, Aspenberg P. Acta Orthop 2018

Both drugs improve fracture callus density in murine models.

Callus density: control 23%, teriparatide 38%, abaloparatide 47%.

Both significantly superior to control (p<0.01).

Drugs not significantly different from each other.

Potency per mcg: abaloparatide approximately 2.5x teriparatide

(not the 4:1 ratio implied by the clinical dosing comparison).

TERIPARATIDE VS ABALOPARATIDE

____________________________________________________________

Feature Teriparatide (Forteo) / Abaloparatide (Tymlos)

Mechanism

teriparatide PTH(1-34) copy. binds R0 and RG states of PTH1R

abaloparatide PTHrP analog. preferentially binds RG state of PTH1R

Dose

teriparatide 20 mcg SC once daily

abaloparatide 80 mcg SC once daily

Half-life

teriparatide ~1.0 hour

abaloparatide ~1.7 hours

SC bioavailability

teriparatide ~95%

abaloparatide ~36%

FDA approval year

teriparatide 2002

abaloparatide 2017

Approved in men

teriparatide yes (2009)

abaloparatide yes (January 2023)

GIO indication

teriparatide yes

abaloparatide not formally approved

Vertebral fx reduction vs placebo

teriparatide 65-80% across trials

abaloparatide 86% in ACTIVE

Nonvertebral fx reduction

teriparatide 35-53% across trials

abaloparatide 43% in ACTIVE

MOF reduction vs each other

teriparatide reference

abaloparatide significantly fewer MOF vs teriparatide in ACTIVE

Hypercalcemia rate

teriparatide ~3.3% in ACTIVE / ~11% in FPT

abaloparatide ~10.6% in ACTIVE (higher than teriparatide)

Black box (osteosarcoma)

teriparatide REMOVED November 2020

abaloparatide still present as of 2024

2-year limit

teriparatide revised: extension allowed at high risk

abaloparatide still present as of 2024

Biosimilars

teriparatide yes (Terrosa, Movymia, Bonsity, others)

abaloparatide no biosimilars approved

List price/month

teriparatide ~$2,800-3,400 USD (2024 WAC)

abaloparatide ~$2,800-3,400 USD (2024 WAC)

Fracture healing data

teriparatide extensive animal and human case series

abaloparatide mouse model comparable to teriparatide

____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY OF KEY DIFFERENCES

Abaloparatide has a single pivotal trial (ACTIVE) showing superior

major osteoporotic fracture reduction vs teriparatide directly.

That is the strongest head-to-head finding in its favour.

Teriparatide has 20+ years of post-marketing data, the osteosarcoma

black box removed, a removed 2-year lifetime limit, biosimilars

available in some markets, GIO indication, and more fracture type

coverage in label.

Neither drug has demonstrated hip fracture reduction in a pivotal

trial (patient numbers in both trials were insufficient).

THE OSTEOSARCOMA QUESTION

____________________________________________________________

THE RAT DATA THAT STARTED IT

During preclinical development, Fischer 344 rats given teriparatide

at high doses for near-lifetime duration developed dose-dependent

osteosarcoma. This finding caused the phase 3 human trials to be

terminated early. FDA approved the drug in 2002 but required:

a black box warning about osteosarcoma risk

a 2-year lifetime maximum treatment limit

a post-marketing surveillance program (CORE)

____________________________________________________________

WHY THE RAT DATA DOES NOT TRANSLATE TO HUMANS

1. Rats have open growth plates throughout their lives.

Humans close growth plates at skeletal maturity.

Rat bone responds far more exuberantly to PTH stimulation

than adult human bone with closed epiphyses.

2. The doses used in rats were supraphysiological (3-60x human doses)

given for near-lifetime duration (rats live 2-3 years).

3. This is a class effect: all PTH and PTHrP analogs tested in rats

produce osteosarcoma at high doses. It reflects rodent-specific

skeletal biology, not a human carcinogenesis signal.

____________________________________________________________

WHAT THE HUMAN DATA SHOWED

Five real-world post-marketing studies were conducted linking

pharmacy claims data to state cancer registries.

Result across all five studies: no increase in osteosarcoma

incidence in teriparatide-treated patients vs untreated controls

or vs background population incidence rates.

15 years of post-marketing surveillance. No signal.

____________________________________________________________

LABEL CHANGES NOVEMBER 2020 TERIPARATIDE

osteosarcoma black box warning REMOVED

2-year lifetime treatment limit REVISED

extension now permitted for patients

who remain at or return to high fracture risk

osteosarcoma language moved to Warnings and Precautions section

____________________________________________________________

ABALOPARATIDE STATUS

Abaloparatide still carries the osteosarcoma black box as of 2024.

FDA and Radius Health were reported to be in discussions about removal.

Same rat carcinogenicity data exists for abaloparatide (class effect).

No human osteosarcoma signal has been reported for abaloparatide either.

Label change expected to follow the teriparatide precedent.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

____________________________________________________________

ABSOLUTE CONTRAINDICATIONS (BOTH DRUGS)

prior skeletal radiation therapy increased osteosarcoma risk in irradiated bone

bone metastases or skeletal malignancy anabolic stimulation contraindicated

pre-existing hypercalcemia both drugs raise serum calcium

Paget disease of bone abnormal bone remodelling baseline

unexplained elevated alkaline phosphatase may indicate occult bone pathology

open epiphyses (children, young adults) rat data risk: anabolic on open growth plates

hypersensitivity to the drug standard

____________________________________________________________

RELATIVE CONTRAINDICATIONS / USE WITH CAUTION

CKD stages G4-G5D both drugs raise calcium; calcium/phosphate balance critical

off-label in CKD; potential role in adynamic bone disease

hyperuricemia or gout both drugs can raise uric acid

urolithiasis transient hypercalciuria increases stone risk

primary hyperparathyroidism already has continuous PTH excess; not appropriate

pregnancy no safety data; not recommended

____________________________________________________________

MONITORING DURING TREATMENT

serum calcium check before starting; monitor if symptoms

serum uric acid baseline and if gout history

P1NP bone formation marker; confirms response

rise within 1 month confirms pharmacological effect

CTX resorption marker; should lag P1NP by several months

DXA BMD at 12-18 months to confirm response

TREATMENT SEQUENCING

When you use these drugs and what you use before and after

them changes outcomes dramatically.

____________________________________________________________

WHO GETS ANABOLIC THERAPY FIRST

Both drugs are reserved for patients at very high fracture risk.

Current 2022 AACE guidelines place anabolic agents as preferred

first-line in:

T-score below -3.0

multiple prior vertebral fractures

fracture despite antiresorptive therapy

glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (teriparatide specifically)

The VERO trial confirmed anabolic-first outperforms antiresorptive-first

in severe disease. Waiting until antiresorptives fail costs fractures.

____________________________________________________________

THE CRITICAL RULE: MUST FOLLOW WITH ANTIRESORPTIVE

When teriparatide or abaloparatide are stopped without immediately

starting an antiresorptive drug, bone density drops rapidly and

multiple vertebral fractures can occur within months.

Recommended sequence after completing anabolic course:

denosumab produces the largest sustained BMD gains post-anabolic

zoledronic acid IV bisphosphonate, good evidence for maintaining gains

oral bisphosphonate alendronate or risedronate if IV not available

____________________________________________________________

TERIPARATIDE AFTER DENOSUMAB THE REVERSAL PROBLEM

DATA-Switch study (Lancet 2015): patients switching from denosumab

to teriparatide did NOT maintain BMD and did not achieve expected

anabolic response. Teriparatide after denosumab is largely ineffective.

Correct sequence if denosumab was used first:

transition denosumab to bisphosphonate, THEN to anabolic if needed

do not go directly from denosumab to teriparatide or abaloparatide

____________________________________________________________

PRIOR BISPHOSPHONATE USE

Prior bisphosphonate use blunts but does not eliminate the anabolic

response to teriparatide. The suppressed bone turnover from

bisphosphonates slows the P1NP rise in the first months.

Full anabolic response usually develops by 6-12 months.

Longer washout not generally recommended based on available data.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

____________________________________________________________

ADMINISTRATION

both drugs subcutaneous injection, pen device, once daily

injection site thigh or abdomen, rotate sites

timing same time each day preferred; morning often recommended

sit or lie down for 15-30 min after first doses (orthostatic hypotension)

storage refrigerate; do not freeze; use within 28 days of first use

abaloparatide transdermal Wearfin: wearable system applied to abdomen

approved 2023 for postmenopausal women in US

avoids daily injection for patients with compliance concerns

____________________________________________________________

COST AND ACCESS

both drugs cost approximately $2,800-3,400/month list price (2024 WAC)

most commercial insurance covers with prior authorization at high fracture risk

Medicare Part D coverage: typically available with step therapy requirements

teriparatide biosimilars (Terrosa, Movymia) available in EU and other markets

biosimilars significantly reduce cost where available

no US biosimilar for abaloparatide

____________________________________________________________

DURATION

teriparatide labeled for 2 years; extension now permitted at high risk

abaloparatide labeled for 2 years; limit still enforced as of 2024

evidence window most anabolic benefit in first 12-18 months of treatment

beyond 18 months resorption catches up with formation; net gain narrows

____________________________________________________________

SIDE EFFECTS

nausea common, usually transient, worse in first weeks

dizziness orthostatic hypotension especially after first doses

leg cramps reported with both agents

hypercalcemia teriparatide ~3-11% / abaloparatide ~10.6% (ACTIVE)

hypercalciuria transiently increased; monitor in stone formers

hyperuricemia can precipitate gout in susceptible patients

injection site transient redness/swelling common

THE FULL TREATMENT LANDSCAPE

____________________________________________________________

BISPHOSPHONATES (alendronate, zoledronic acid, risedronate)

mechanism antiresorptive only (slow osteoclasts, do not stimulate osteoblasts)

evidence decades of RCT data across all fracture types including hip

advantage cheap, oral or annual IV, extensive safety data, hip fracture evidence

disadvantage no new bone creation; atypical femoral fracture and ONJ risk with long use

verdict first-line for most patients at moderate-high risk. maintain gains post-anabolic

DENOSUMAB (Prolia)

mechanism antiresorptive (RANKL inhibitor, potent osteoclast suppression)

evidence robust fracture data. superior post-anabolic BMD maintenance

advantage largest BMD gains of antiresorptives; SC injection every 6 months

disadvantage rebound vertebral fractures if stopped without transition; not true anabolic

verdict preferred sequential therapy after teriparatide or abaloparatide

TERIPARATIDE (Forteo)

mechanism anabolic (PTH1R agonist, drives osteoblast formation)

evidence VERO trial: superior to risedronate in severe disease. FPT: 65% vertebral fx reduction

advantage builds new bone, not just slows loss; GIO indication; black box removed; biosimilars

disadvantage daily injection; expensive; no hip fracture RCT endpoint; must follow with antiresorptive

verdict preferred first-line in severe osteoporosis. best evidence base of the two anabolics

ABALOPARATIDE (Tymlos)

mechanism anabolic (PTHrP analog, PTH1R agonist with RG-state preference)

evidence ACTIVE trial: 86% vertebral fx reduction vs placebo; superior MOF vs teriparatide

advantage slightly superior fracture reduction in ACTIVE; approved in men; transdermal option

disadvantage black box still present; 2-year limit still enforced; higher hypercalcemia than expected; no biosimilars

verdict reasonable alternative to teriparatide; edge in major osteoporotic fracture reduction

ROMOSOZUMAB (Evenity)

mechanism dual mechanism (sclerostin antibody: anabolic AND antiresorptive simultaneously)

evidence ARCH trial: superior to alendronate in vertebral/nonvertebral/hip fractures

advantage dual action in a monthly injection; strongest BMD gains of any osteoporosis drug

disadvantage cardiovascular safety concern (box warning); 12-month treatment only; very expensive

verdict reserved for very high risk with cardiovascular clearance; strongest single-agent option

VERDICT

____________________________________________________________

TERIPARATIDE

20+ years of clinical use. Osteosarcoma black box removed.

2-year limit revised. Biosimilars available in some markets.

GIO indication. The VERO trial established it beats antiresorptives

in severe osteoporosis head to head on fracture endpoints.

Best studied anabolic agent. Most regulatory flexibility.

best for: severe osteoporosis, GIO, patients failing antiresorptives

not for: patients who just stopped denosumab, patients with hypercalcemia

do not stop without: immediately starting denosumab or bisphosphonate

A-TIER to S-TIER depending on indication

____________________________________________________________

ABALOPARATIDE

Single pivotal trial (ACTIVE). Showed superior major osteoporotic

fracture reduction vs teriparatide directly. Better nonvertebral

fracture reduction vs placebo than teriparatide showed in its trial.

Hypercalcemia higher than expected, black box still present.

Fewer approved indications, no biosimilars.

best for: postmenopausal women and men at high fracture risk,

patients who prefer potentially stronger nonvertebral protection

not for: patients with hypercalcemia, GIO (off-label)

do not stop without: immediately starting denosumab or bisphosphonate

A-TIER strong evidence base but less regulatory flexibility than teriparatide

____________________________________________________________

BOTH DRUGS

These are the only true bone-building agents in routine clinical use

(alongside romosozumab). They do something no antiresorptive can:

create net new bone. In severe osteoporosis that distinction matters.

The evidence for anabolic-first in high-risk patients is now strong

enough that using an antiresorptive first in severe disease is

increasingly difficult to justify on the evidence.

Neither drug has ever been shown to reduce hip fractures in a

properly powered RCT. That gap in the evidence base is real.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

educational reference. all information from peer-reviewed literature.

consult an endocrinologist or rheumatologist for clinical decisions.

these are prescription drugs requiring physician oversight and monitoring.

____________________________________________________________