This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Teriparatide does in the body
Severe bone thinning, where the aim is to build new bone rather than only slow its loss
Parathyroid hormone is the signal that pulls calcium out of bone when blood calcium falls. If it is present all the time, bone is lost. If it arrives as one short daily spike, the effect reverses: the cells that build bone survive longer and work harder, and the demolition response never has time to get going. The drug is a fragment of that hormone, injected once a day to produce exactly that spike.
What happened in people
New vertebral fracture 5% against 14% over a median 21 months in 1637 women, relative risk 0.35 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.55)
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.
The boxed warning for osteosarcoma and the two-year cumulative limit were removed in 2020; the current label states an increased risk has not been observed in observational studies
Where it acts
The osteoblast and its precursor on the bone surface, and the kidney tubule where the same receptor handles calcium and phosphate
Kind of result
The kind of result is not recorded
Supervision
Professional supervision is normally required. It is a prescription or clinician-administered medicine where it is approved.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as protein.
FDA substance registry · 10T9CSU89I · read 2026-08-29
Where each sentence above came from
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The four opening statements run to 117 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Stand-in result
A stand-in result is a number measured because the real result takes too long.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like judging a journey by the speedometer rather than by arriving.
Where that stops being true. Speed does predict arrival. Many stand-in results do not predict the real one.
What people get wrong. A stand-in result is often reported as the result itself.
A surrogate endpoint substituted for a clinical endpoint, valid only where the substitution has been shown to hold.
Randomisation
Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.
Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.
What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.
Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.
Confidence interval
A confidence interval is the range the true answer is likely to sit in.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a weather forecast giving a range rather than one number.
Where that stops being true. A forecast range covers tomorrow. This one covers what the study could resolve.
What people get wrong. The middle number is read as the answer. A range crossing zero means no change is still possible.
An interval estimate that would contain the true parameter in a stated proportion of repeated studies.
Pathway
A pathway is a chain of steps inside a cell, each one setting off the next.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A pathway is like a row of dominoes.
Where that stops being true. Dominoes fall one way. Pathways loop back and can switch themselves off.
What people get wrong. Changing one step is read as changing the outcome. Other steps often absorb it.
An ordered series of molecular interactions producing a defined cellular change.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What was measured, goal by goal
One row for each goal a registered study measured something for. One column for each kind of thing that could be measured.
Registered studies list 40 outcome measures that RNAWiki could read. A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. 0 of the matched studies tested this substance, and 0 posted a result.
There is no single score. A strong test result and a weak life result are different facts.
Goals down the side, kinds of measurement across the top. Each cell says what kind of thing was registered, not what was found.
Goal
Life outcome
What a body can do
How a person feels
A test result
A step in the body
Harms
How long
Who was studied
Energy
…Waiting for a reviewer1 registered study measure of this kind. No reviewed result yet.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.
∅Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.
—Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.
—Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.
…Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Which registered measures put each goal on this table
Energy
healing of a fracture from a low energy fall
Sorted by fixed word lists, version v1. A name the rules do not recognise stays unsorted rather than moving to the nearest column.
What each mark on this table means
… Waiting for a reviewer
1 registered study measure of this kind. No reviewed result yet.
∅ Nothing in the sources checked
No registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.
— Not recorded
Harms were not a registered measure for this goal.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
New vertebral fracture by radiograph, median observation 21 months
5% at 20 micrograms against 14% on placebo; relative risk 0.35 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.55)
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. The trial was stopped early when the rat osteosarcoma findings emerged, which is why the median observation is 21 months rather than the planned duration. That truncation is rarely mentioned alongside the result.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Subcutaneous injection, 20 micrograms once daily from a refrigerated multidose pen
Interval reported. 95% CI 0
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
5.4% against 12.0%; risk ratio 0.44 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.68), P<0.0001. Clinical fracture hazard ratio 0.48 (0.32 to 0.74), P=0.0009
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. Non-vertebral fragility fracture, a gated secondary outcome, did not reach significance: hazard ratio 0.66 (0.39 to 1.10), P=0.10. The trial was funded by the manufacturer of the winning drug.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Subcutaneous injection, 20 micrograms once daily from a refrigerated multidose pen
Interval reported. 95% CI 0
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Prospective voluntary registry linked to 42 state cancer registries
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Zero incident cases in 361,763 person-years; crude rate 0 (95% CI 0 to 10.2) per million person-years, standardised incidence ratio 0 (95% CI 0 to 3.0)
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. The authors state that follow-up time was smaller than expected and that no cases were identified, which limits the conclusions. An upper bound of 3.0 on the standardised incidence ratio does not exclude a threefold excess.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Subcutaneous injection, 20 micrograms once daily from a refrigerated multidose pen
Interval reported. 95% CI 0 to 10
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 3 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How close this is to real life
The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.
■Living longer, or avoiding a major eventEvidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.2 registered measures of this kind. No reviewed result.
□What a body can do day to dayNo evidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.No registered study measures this.
□Measured performanceNo evidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.No registered study measures this.
□Symptoms and quality of lifeNo evidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.No registered study measures this.
■A number that stands in for healthEvidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.13 registered measures of this kind.
■A step measured inside a personEvidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
■AnimalsEvidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.Stored records in Rat. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
□Cells in a dishNo evidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.No cell or bench record is stored.
□A guess from softwareNo evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.
Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Teriparatide
What a person takes: Subcutaneous injection, 20 micrograms once daily from a refrigerated multidose pen.
The measurement behind this step
Self-injected into thigh or abdomen. The daily schedule is pharmacological rather than practical: continuous exposure to this hormone causes bone loss, and the therapeutic effect depends on the signal being brief.
Getting in
Injected once a day under the skin
A small daily injection from a pen kept in the fridge. The daily rhythm is not a convenience choice — it is the mechanism.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Subcutaneous 20 micrograms of recombinant human PTH(1-34) produces a short, high peak and rapid clearance. The pharmacokinetic profile is the therapeutic principle: a sustained-release version of this molecule would be a different and worse drug.
It binds the parathyroid hormone receptor on bone-building cells
The fragment carries all the parts of the hormone the receptor reads. It docks on the cells that build bone and on their precursors.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
PTH(1-34) contains essentially all the receptor-activating information of the 84-residue hormone. It binds PTH1R, a class B G-protein-coupled receptor, on osteoblasts, osteocytes and bone marrow stromal precursors, and in the renal tubule where the same receptor governs calcium reabsorption and phosphate excretion.
The signal is over before the demolition response starts
A brief pulse tells the building cells to survive and get to work. The instruction that would summon the demolition cells needs sustained signalling, and the pulse ends first.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Receptor activation raises cyclic AMP and activates protein kinase A, driving CREB-dependent transcription that suppresses osteoblast apoptosis and recruits lining cells and precursors into active osteoblasts. Sustained signalling raises RANKL and lowers osteoprotegerin in the same cells, which is the resorptive arm; an intermittent pulse dissipates before that arm dominates.
Bone is added, including in places nothing was being remodelled
For a period the building runs ahead of the demolition. New bone is laid down on existing surfaces as well as at sites being rebuilt, which is what no antiresorptive drug can do.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Formation markers such as P1NP rise within weeks and precede the rise in resorption markers, defining the anabolic window. Both remodelling-based and modelling-based formation occur, the latter adding bone on quiescent surfaces without a preceding resorption pit.
Spine gains most; the cortical shaft of the forearm can lose a little
The gain is not even across the skeleton. Spinal density rose sharply, while the shaft of the forearm at the higher dose lost a small amount.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
In the pivotal trial lumbar spine density rose 9 and 13 percentage points above placebo at 20 and 40 micrograms and femoral neck 3 and 6, while the 40 microgram dose reduced radial shaft density by 2 percentage points more than placebo. Total-body bone mineral rose 2 to 4 percentage points. The pattern reflects the higher trabecular surface-to-volume ratio in the spine and the increased cortical remodelling the hormone also drives.
Fewer fractures, and the gain has to be locked in afterwards
Spinal fractures fell by about two-thirds against placebo, and by more than half against risedronate. Bone gained this way is lost again unless a bone-preserving drug follows.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Neer: vertebral fracture relative risk 0.35 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.55). VERO: 5.4% against 12.0% on risedronate, risk ratio 0.44 (0.29 to 0.68). Because the newly formed bone is remodelled at the prevailing rate once the anabolic stimulus stops, sequential therapy is the standard approach — which makes this a course rather than a maintenance drug.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 6 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Felt, measured, or meaningful
Three different things that get called the same word. Registered studies measured all three, and mixing them is how a blood test becomes a health claim.
Felt
Things a person could notice without a test.
No registered study measured anything of this kind.
Measured
Things only a test, a scale or a device shows.
spine bone mineral density
at 18 month endpoint in lumbar spine bone mineral density
bone mineral density
bone mineral density at lumbar spine
lumbar spine bone mineral density at week 52
lumbar spine bone mineral density baseline to week 24
bone mineral density total spine
lumbar spine bone mineral density
lumbar spine areal bone mineral density
lumbar spine bone mineral density at 12 months
and 3 more.
Meaningful
Things that change how a life goes, not only a number.
healing of a fracture from a low energy fall
fracture healing
A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. A number moving is not the same as a life going better. The two are shown apart here.
Felt, but not shown to help. A person notices a change. No study showed it leads anywhere good.
Measured, but not felt. A number moves. The person notices nothing. Both can be true.
Measured, but not shown to matter. A number moves in the good direction. Nobody showed that lives went better.
Matters, but takes years. The result that counts may take longer than anyone would keep watching.
Names that fit none of the three (25)
time to radiographic healing
lumbar spine bmd after 24 months
time to neutrophil engraftment
hypercalcemia
withdrew due to hypercalcemia
electrocardiogram findings reported as adverse event
height
weight
requirements for calcium supplementation
marker of bone metabolism pinp
surface to curve in the distal radius at month 18 endpoint
success
bone density
radiological evaluation of healing
bmd at left total hip
procallagen 1 amino terminal peptide
carboxy terminal telopeptides of collagen 1
at month 12 in bmd at the lumbar spine
spine bone density from baseline to 2 years
migration as measured by rsa maximal total motion
These are harms, study-process measures, or names the rules did not recognise. They are shown rather than dropped.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
People with severe osteoporosis at high fracture risk, particularly those who have already fractured on an antiresorptive drug or cannot take one.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What the label states about particular groups
On pediatric, the label states: “The safety and effectiveness of teriparatide have not been established in pediatric patients.”
US prescribing information · 2d0c89a2-3849-adf6-007d-aeca21cf417c · read 2026-08-30
On older people, the label states: “Of the patients who received teriparatide in the osteoporosis trial of 1637 postmenopausal women, 75% were 65 years of age and older and 23% were 75 years of age and older.”
US prescribing information · 2d0c89a2-3849-adf6-007d-aeca21cf417c · read 2026-08-30
On people who are pregnant, the label states: “Risk Summary There are no available data on BONSITY use in pregnant women to evaluate for drug-associated risk of major birth defects, miscarriage, or adverse maternal or fetal outcomes.”
US prescribing information · 2d0c89a2-3849-adf6-007d-aeca21cf417c · read 2026-08-30
On people who are breastfeeding, the label states: “Risk Summary It is not known whether teriparatide is excreted in human milk, affects human milk production, or has effects on the breast fed infant.”
US prescribing information · 2d0c89a2-3849-adf6-007d-aeca21cf417c · read 2026-08-30
On people with reduced liver function, the label states: “No studies have been performed in patients with hepatic impairment [see Clinical Pharmacology ( 12.3 )] .”
US prescribing information · 2d0c89a2-3849-adf6-007d-aeca21cf417c · read 2026-08-30
On people with reduced kidney function, the label states: “In 5 patients with severe renal impairment (CrCl <30 mL/minute), the AUC and T 1/2 of teriparatide were increased by 73% and 77%, respectively.”
US prescribing information · 2d0c89a2-3849-adf6-007d-aeca21cf417c · read 2026-08-30
Where the result stopped carrying
The pivotal trial was stopped early because of the rat carcinogenicity findings, truncating observation to a median of 21 months
A boxed warning and a two-year lifetime limit constrained the drug for eighteen years on animal data the original authors said was probably not predictive
Non-vertebral fracture reduction was not demonstrated against an active comparator
The 40 microgram dose lowered radial shaft bone density and caused more side effects without improving fracture outcomes over 20 micrograms
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely.
On this record: Some registered studies measured things that match no goal on this page.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (10)
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Varies by country
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Subcutaneous injection, 20 micrograms once daily from a refrigerated multidose pen
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Professional supervision is normally required. It is a prescription or clinician-administered medicine where it is approved.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
A register records the withdrawal of an approval.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
Self-injected into thigh or abdomen. The daily schedule is pharmacological rather than practical: continuous exposure to this hormone causes bone loss, and the therapeutic effect depends on the signal being brief.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
No boxed warning since 2020. Labelled warnings cover osteosarcoma — with instruction to avoid use in people at increased baseline risk, including open epiphyses, Paget disease, bone metastases, prior skeletal radiation and hereditary predisposition — together with hypercalcaemia and cutaneous calcification, exacerbation of urolithiasis, and transient orthostatic hypotension with initial doses. In the pivotal trial side effects were described as minor, chiefly occasional nausea and headache. The label notes limited data on osteosarcoma risk beyond two years of use.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction.
Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing.
The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete.
News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report.
A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Teriparatide appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 8421 reaction mentions were counted. One report can name several reactions.
open-targets-adr · recorded 2026-06-24 · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Subcutaneous injection, 20 micrograms once daily from a refrigerated multidose pen
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
The daily schedule is pharmacological rather than practical: continuous exposure to this hormone causes bone loss, and the therapeutic effect depends on the signal being brief.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
24 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 24 of them contain it and nothing else.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 63557-0021 · read 2026-08-29
They are sold as injection, injection, solution, liquid and powder, taken subcutaneous.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 63557-0021 · read 2026-08-29
The regulator's established pharmacologic class for it is parathyroid hormone analog [epc] and parathyroid hormone [cs].
FDA National Drug Code directory · 63557-0021 · read 2026-08-29
8 published labels name it as an active ingredient. 8 of them describe this substance alone, which is where its own label text on this page comes from.
US prescribing information · 2d0c89a2-3849-adf6-007d-aeca21cf417c · read 2026-08-29
Those labels are classed as human prescription drug.
US prescribing information · 2d0c89a2-3849-adf6-007d-aeca21cf417c · read 2026-08-29
Bonsity is subcutaneous at 3 DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS Injection: 560 mcg/2.24 mL (250 mcg/mL) Colorless solution in a single-patient-use prefilled pen intended to deliver 28 daily doses of 20 mcg., recorded as fda label in effect 2025-06-01 in the United States.
US prescribing information · 2d0c89a2-3849-adf6-007d-aeca21cf417c · read 2026-08-30
Recorded price in US: 494.80502 USD per one millilitre, across 7 priced products whose strengths and pack forms differ, as of 2026-08-26, paid by retail pharmacies buying the product, as surveyed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It is not a list price, an insurance price, or what anyone pays at a counter..
Recorded source · 2026-08-26 · read 2026-08-28
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
Self-experiment planning is not offered for a prescription or clinician-supervised medicine, withdrawn medicine. The questions below are for a clinician or pharmacist.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Teriparatide studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the rat tumour finding predicted human risk — the study authors argued against that reading in the paper that reported it
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That zero cases in the registry demonstrates no risk, when the upper confidence bound on the standardised incidence ratio is 3.0
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That it beats risedronate on non-vertebral fracture, where the head-to-head result was hazard ratio 0.66 with P=0.10
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the bone gained persists after stopping — it is remodelled away without a following antiresorptive, which is why sequential therapy is standard
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Teriparatide are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
It cut spinal fractures by two-thirds and non-spinal fractures by half
In plain words
In 1637 women who had already fractured a vertebra, fourteen in a hundred on placebo had a new spinal fracture over a median of 21 months, against five in a hundred on the drug. Fractures outside the spine halved as well.
What was measured
New vertebral fracture 5% against 14%, relative risk 0.35 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.55); non-vertebral fragility fracture 3% against 6%, RR 0.47 (0.25 to 0.88)
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Neer and colleagues randomised 1637 postmenopausal women with prior vertebral fractures to 20 or 40 micrograms of PTH(1-34) or placebo by daily self-injection, with a median observation of 21 months. New vertebral fractures occurred in 14% on placebo, 5% at 20 micrograms and 4% at 40 micrograms; relative risks 0.35 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.55) and 0.31 (0.19 to 0.50). New non-vertebral fragility fractures occurred in 6% on placebo and 3% in each active group, relative risks 0.47 (0.25 to 0.88) and 0.46 (0.25 to 0.86). Lumbar spine bone density rose 9 and 13 percentage points more than placebo and femoral neck 3 and 6; the 40 microgram dose decreased radial shaft density by 2 percentage points more than placebo.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The first trial to compare two osteoporosis drugs on fracture, and it won
In plain words
Until 2018 no trial had compared two osteoporosis drugs with fractures as the main thing being counted. VERO did, against risedronate, and spinal fractures were less than half as common on teriparatide.
What was measured
New vertebral fracture at 24 months, 5.4% against 12.0%, risk ratio 0.44 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.68)
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
VERO enrolled 680 women per group with at least two moderate or one severe vertebral fracture and a T-score of -1.50 or lower, randomised double-blind and double-dummy to teriparatide 20 micrograms daily or risedronate 35 mg weekly for 24 months. New radiographic vertebral fractures, the primary outcome, occurred in 28 of 680 (5.4%) on teriparatide against 64 of 680 (12.0%) on risedronate, risk ratio 0.44 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.68, P<0.0001). Clinical fractures occurred in 30 (4.8%) against 61 (9.8%), hazard ratio 0.48 (0.32 to 0.74, P=0.0009). Non-vertebral fragility fractures were 25 (4.0%) against 38 (6.1%), hazard ratio 0.66 (0.39 to 1.10, P=0.10) — not significant. The trial was funded by Lilly.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The osteosarcoma warning: from rats, to a boxed warning, to its removal in 2020
In plain words
Rats given the drug for two years developed bone tumours at high rates, and the drug carried the strongest possible warning for eighteen years. Human surveillance never found the same thing, and the boxed warning and the two-year limit were removed in 2020.
What was measured
That a rat carcinogenicity signal at up to 75 micrograms per kilogram for a rat’s whole adult life predicts human risk at 20 micrograms a day for two years — an inference the study authors disputed at the time and that eighteen years of human surveillance did not support
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Fischer 344 rats, 60 per sex per group, given daily PTH(1-34) for two years at 5, 30 or 75 micrograms per kilogram developed osteosarcoma in 3, 21 and 31 males and 4, 12 and 23 females respectively. The authors themselves concluded that the lesions reflected the long treatment duration relative to the rat lifespan and the exaggerated response of the growing rat skeleton, and were likely not predictive for skeletally mature adults treated for a limited period. Regulators nonetheless required a boxed warning and a lifetime limit of two years. The Forteo Patient Registry then followed 75,247 enrolled United States patients over 361,763 person-years, linked annually to 42 state cancer registries covering 93% of the population, and found no incident osteosarcoma: crude incidence rate 0 (95% CI 0 to 10.2) per million person-years, standardised incidence ratio 0 (95% CI 0 to 3.0). The registry authors are explicit that follow-up time was smaller than expected and that no cases were found, which limits what can be concluded. The current label carries no boxed warning and states that an increased risk of osteosarcoma has not been observed in observational studies in humans, while noting limited data beyond two years of use.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
A registry that found zero cases is weaker evidence than zero suggests
In plain words
The safety study found no cases of bone cancer at all. That sounds conclusive, but the researchers say the amount of follow-up was smaller than planned, and finding nothing in a short window is not the same as showing there is nothing.
What was measured
That zero observed cases proves no risk — the upper confidence bound on the standardised incidence ratio is 3.0, and the study was funded by the manufacturer with voluntary enrolment and self-reported exposure
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The Forteo Patient Registry accumulated 361,763 person-years across 75,247 enrolled patients. Against a background osteosarcoma rate of about 3 per million person-years, that person-time predicts roughly one expected case, so observing zero yields a confidence interval on the incidence rate of 0 to 10.2 per million person-years and a standardised incidence ratio interval of 0 to 3.0. An upper bound of 3 means a threefold excess would not have been excluded. Enrolment was voluntary and exposure self-reported, which introduces a second limitation the authors state directly in their conclusion. The finding is genuinely reassuring and it is not a demonstration of no effect.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The same hormone destroys bone if it is present continuously
In plain words
People whose parathyroid glands are overactive lose bone, because the hormone is always there. Given as one spike a day, the identical molecule builds bone. The difference is entirely in the timing.
What was measured
Lumbar spine density +9 and +13 percentage points against placebo; radial shaft density -2 percentage points at 40 micrograms
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Continuous elevation of parathyroid hormone, as in primary hyperparathyroidism or a continuous infusion, raises osteoblast RANKL expression and lowers osteoprotegerin, driving osteoclast recruitment and net bone loss, particularly cortical. Intermittent once-daily exposure produces a transient receptor signal that favours osteoblast survival and differentiation before the resorptive programme is engaged, giving a period of uncoupled formation known as the anabolic window. The clinical signature of that asymmetry is visible in the pivotal trial: lumbar spine density rose 9 to 13 percentage points above placebo while the 40 microgram dose lowered density at the radial shaft, a predominantly cortical site, by 2 percentage points.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The head-to-head trial did not reduce non-vertebral fractures significantly
In plain words
In the comparison against risedronate, spinal and clinical fractures were clearly fewer. Fractures outside the spine were fewer too, but not by enough to be sure the difference was real.
What was measured
Non-vertebral fragility fracture, teriparatide against risedronate: hazard ratio 0.66 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.10), P=0.10
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
In VERO, non-vertebral fragility fractures occurred in 25 of 680 (4.0%) on teriparatide against 38 of 680 (6.1%) on risedronate, hazard ratio 0.66 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.10, P=0.10). It was a gated secondary outcome, and the gating sequence means the result should be read as descriptive. The pivotal placebo-controlled trial did reduce non-vertebral fragility fracture, 3% against 6% with a relative risk of 0.47, so the finding is that teriparatide beats placebo on this endpoint and has not been shown to beat risedronate on it. The two statements are compatible and are routinely merged.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
4 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
The first 34 amino acids of parathyroid hormone, injected once daily so the receptor is pulsed rather than saturated, which cut new spinal fractures from 14% to 5% and non-vertebral fragility fractures from 6% to 3% in 1637 women, and which carried a boxed warning for osteosarcoma from 2002 until 2020 on the strength of a rat study that human surveillance has not reproduced.
Recorded evidence blocks (11)
Q1
What did Teriparatide's largest trial (22054 people) and its longest (23 years) measure?
22054 people in Teriparatide's largest registered study, 23 years in its longest registered window, measuring Measure: Effects of treatment on bone biomarkers. Measure levels of PINP, CTX-1, and serum calcium levels, serum phosphate, P1CP, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, osteocalcin. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
44 phase4, 38 phase2, 32 phase3, 15 phase1, 14 na, 11 na or unstated; NCT01155232; 2028-01. Last human test completed 2026, NCT07242612.
Interpretation These counts include studies where Teriparatide was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.
Show the evidence
phase4
44
phase2
38
phase3
32
phase1
15
na
14
na or unstated
11
1 more recorded row
Last recorded human testNCT07242612
2026-04-15
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q2
From rat to human: where has Teriparatide shown biomarker?
Measure: Effects of treatment on bone biomarkers. Measure levels of PINP, CTX-1, and serum calcium levels, serum phosphate, P1CP, bone-specific alkaline… — the recorded outcome words.
Show the evidence
rat
mechanism-only
humanNCT01224717
biomarker; Measure: Effects of treatment on bone biomarkers. Measure levels of PINP, CTX-1, and serum calcium levels, serum phosphate, P1CP, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, osteocalcin.; 150
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q3
12 of Teriparatide's trials stopped: safety, futility/efficacy, accrual/recruitment, funding/business, other?
safety (1), futility/efficacy (1), accrual/recruitment (4), funding/business (4) and other (2): Teriparatide's stop wording, clustered. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
"Study stopped because of toxicity concerns."; 12 of 150 registered studies
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00393380
terminated; "Study stopped because of toxicity concerns."
NCT00446589
terminated; "due to financial problems"
NCT00471237
terminated; "Terminated for futility by sponsor after a pre-planned interim review of data"
NCT00594906
terminated; "The study was terminated due to poor enrollment."
NCT00623974
terminated; "Terminated due to slow accrual."
NCT01171690
terminated; "Funding problems"
6 further recorded trials
NCT01279187
terminated; "Study was terminated due to patient complications unrelated to study drugs"
NCT01656629
terminated; "Inability to analyze collected samples due to no funds."
NCT01679080
terminated; "Eli Lilly has withdrawn support to the study of teriparatide and placebo pens. The study was not able to continue as a randomized study without the supply of placebo pens."
NCT01734824
suspended; "no patients randomized"
NCT02091492
withdrawn; "no participants"
NCT04669782
terminated; "Logistics/management problems at the recruiting center"
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q4
Human studies of Teriparatide used Teriparatide 20 mcg — over how long?
Could one person measure Teriparatide's effect on spine bone mineral density?
Spine bone mineral density: measured in Teriparatide's trials.
Interpretation spine bone mineral density is the recorded endpoint.
Show the evidence
biomarkers
spine bone mineral density; 2026-09-01
at 18 month endpoint in lumbar spine bone mineral density; 2026-09-01
bone mineral density; 2026-09-01
time to radiographic healing; 2026-09-01
lumbar spine bmd after 24 months; 2026-09-01
time to neutrophil engraftment; 2026-09-01
14 more recorded rows
biomarkers
bone mineral density at lumbar spine; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
lumbar spine bone mineral density at week 52; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
hypercalcemia; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
withdrew due to hypercalcemia; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
electrocardiogram findings reported as adverse event; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
height; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
weight; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
requirements for calcium supplementation; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
lumbar spine bone mineral density baseline to week 24; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
marker of bone metabolism pinp; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
bone mineral density total spine; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
surface to curve in the distal radius at month 18 endpoint; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
healing of a fracture from a low energy fall; 2026-09-01
biomarkers
success; 2026-09-01
half life
2026-09-04; halfLife; 2026-08-03
human trials at or under30
36
smallest human trial
0; NCT00347737; NA; the smallest recorded human enrolment at or below 30; the registry states no direction of its result; WITHDRAWN
Q6
Which of at 18 month endpoint in lumbar spine bone mineral density, at month 12 in bmd at the lumbar spine and bmd at left total hip did Teriparatide's trials measure?
at 18 month endpoint in lumbar spine bone mineral density, at month 12 in bmd at the lumbar spine and bmd at left total hip lead 40 outcome terms across Teriparatide's trials. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
time to radiographic healing, lumbar spine bmd after 24 months, time to neutrophil engraftment, bone mineral density at lumbar spine, lumbar spine bone mineral density at week 52 and hypercalcemia follow.
Show the evidence
spine bone mineral density
1
at 18 month endpoint in lumbar spine bone mineral density
1
bone mineral density
1
time to radiographic healing
1
lumbar spine bmd after 24 months
1
time to neutrophil engraftment
1
14 more recorded rows
bone mineral density at lumbar spine
1
lumbar spine bone mineral density at week 52
1
hypercalcemia
1
withdrew due to hypercalcemia
1
electrocardiogram findings reported as adverse event
1
height
1
weight
1
requirements for calcium supplementation
1
lumbar spine bone mineral density baseline to week 24
1
marker of bone metabolism pinp
1
bone mineral density total spine
1
surface to curve in the distal radius at month 18 endpoint
1
healing of a fracture from a low energy fall
1
success
1
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q7
Which of Teriparatide's 15 ongoing trials reports first?
Change in cortical thickness at the radius and tibia as measured by high-resolution quantitative computer tomography (HR-pQCT); Change in cortical thickness with teriparatide therapy from baseline to 24 months; latest 2030-12-01
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT01155232
"Effects of Teriparatide (PTH) on Bone in Men and Women With Osteoporosis"; n 100; "Change in cortical thickness at the radius and tibia as measured by high-resolution quantitative computer tomography (HR-pQCT)"; 2028-01
NCT01155245
"Teriparatide (PTH) and Bone Strength in Postmenopausal Women"; n 60; "Change in cortical thickness with teriparatide therapy from baseline to 24 months"; 2028-01
NCT03692143
"Comparation of Treatment Strategies for OVF: Teriparatide Injection and PVP"; n 90; "Quality of life of the patients"; 2030-12-01
NCT03770338
"Preoperative Teriparatide Use on Insertional Torque of Pedicle Screws for Lumbar Fusion Surgery"; n 192; "Insertional torque Intraoperative insertional torque measurement"; 2026-06-30
NCT03994172
"Novel Combination Therapy for Osteoporosis in Men"; n 40; "Effects of treatment with TPTD+cinacalcet compared to TPTD+PBO on lumbar spine BMD in men with low bone mass"; 2026-06-30
NCT04522622
"Treatment of Adynamic Bone Disorder With Parathyroid Hormone in Chronic Kidney Disease"; n 48; "Changes in bone specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP)"; 2027-09-01
9 further recorded trials
NCT04589819
"Fracture Recovery for Returning to Duty (Teriparatide STRONG)"; n 183; "Time from diagnosis to full return to activity"; 2026-12-30
NCT05151484
"Novel Precision Medicine Approach to Treatment of Osteoporosis Based on Bone Turnover"; n 60; "Mineral Bone Density of the lumbar spine"; 2027-01-31
NCT05866029
"Study of the Key Techniques of Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporotic Refracture"; n 2478; "The main study：The incidence of new vertebral fractures"; 2026-09-30
NCT06164795
"Sequential Therapies After Osteoanabolic Treatment"; n 150; "lumbar spine bone mineral density"; 2027-12
NCT06264609
"Precision Medicine Approach for Osteoporosis - Follow Up Study"; n 40; "Percent change in bone loss"; 2029-12-31
NCT06303284
"Post-surgical Outcomes With Anabolic Agent Use in High-risk Ankle Fractures: A Pilot RCT"; n 80; "Participant recruitment rate"; 2027-06-01
NCT06558188
"Combined Anabolic Therapy"; n 50; "Lumbar spine areal bone mineral density"; 2028-04-01
NCT06898060
"To Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Abaloparatide Injection (QLG2128) in the Treatment of Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis and at High Risk of Fracture"; n 282; "Percent Change in Bone Mineral Density (BMD) of Lumbar Spine From Baseline to 52 Week"; 2027-05
NCT07497503
"A Study of B-3E07 and Forsteo® in Healthy Adult Female Participants"; n 48; "Maximum Plasma Concentration (Cmax) of B-3E07"; 2026-10-14
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q8
Which 52 trials of Teriparatide posted no result?
Posted no result
52 of 52 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00670501, NCT02416271, NCT00532545, NCT00543218, NCT00543023 and NCT00542984, and 46 more
Completion dates
oldest 1999-04; newest 2023-07-01
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00670501
1999-04
NCT02416271
2003-05
NCT00532545
2004-04
NCT00543218
2004-06
NCT00543023
2004-08
NCT00542984
2004-11
14 further recorded trials
NCT00532207
2004-12
NCT00035256
2005-07
NCT00065637
2005-09
NCT00191802
2005-10
NCT00191425
2005-11
NCT00191321
2005-12
NCT00191867
2006-03
NCT00000400
2006-06
NCT00191893
2006-11
NCT00005006
2006-12
NCT00239629
2007-01
NCT00079924
2007-05
NCT00190944
2007-06
NCT00365924
2008-04
Q9
At the median, Teriparatide's trials enrolled 64 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
64
Largest enrolment
22054
Registered trials counted
148
Q10
What do 8421 spontaneous reports say about Teriparatide — and not say?
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Teriparatide appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 8421 reaction mentions were counted: fall 1699; dizziness 1212; arthralgia 1106; pain in extremity 913. open-targets-adr · CHEMBL525610 · 2026-06-24
Show the evidence
fall
1699
dizziness
1212
arthralgia
1106
pain in extremity
913
back pain
739
muscle spasms
686
4 more recorded rows
bone pain
605
hospitalisation
547
pharmaceutical product complaint
486
hip fracture
428
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q11
Was Teriparatide studied with exercise?
exercise is named in Teriparatide's label sentences: "PaVOS is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) which aims to address the use of whole-body vibration exercise (WBV) in combination with parathyroid hormone 1-34 fragment teriparatide (PTH 1-34) treatment in patients with osteoporosis." openfda-label+europepmc · 2018-03-16
1 recorded statement; exercise
Show the evidence
exercise
PaVOS is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) which aims to address the use of whole-body vibration exercise (WBV) in combination with parathyroid hormone 1-34 fragment teriparatide (PTH 1-34) treatment in patients with osteoporosis.
recorded 2018-03-16 · last checked 2026-09-04
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
ChEMBL ATC CC BY-SA · ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md · openFDA / DailyMed — US Government work
✗ required summary fields resolved: 5 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Most important common problem, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 9 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.