3-mos. on/3 mos. off Forteo: report released - Osteoporosis Message Board

PatNJ · 08-19-2005, 01:20 PM

Below is a link to an abstract of the NEJM August 11, 2005, article about the Helen Hayes Hospital study of potential benefits to taking PTH 1-34 daily vs in three months on/three months off cycles. Interestingly enough, the subjects in the study had been on prior Fosamax therapy and continued to take it during the course of the study.

Guess what: Daily vs cyclic administration made little difference in the end, if I understand the conclusions correctly. Early-on findings that bone resorption increased in the daily-treatment group suggested that cyclic administration was preferable.

Hmm...

[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=A bstract&list_uids=16093465&query_hl=2[/url]

CrohnieToo · 08-19-2005, 06:19 PM

Thanks for the URL, PatNJ!!!! I'm on my way to read this article now. I wasn't able to find it earlier.

CrohnieToo · 08-19-2005, 07:19 PM

The key phrase I picked up on was:

"Among the women who were receiving cyclic parathyroid hormone, bone formation declined during cycles without parathyroid hormone and increased again during cycles with parathyroid hormone. Bone resorption increased in both parathyroid hormone groups but increased progressively more in the daily-treatment group than in the cyclic-therapy group."

However, they defined the difference as of "no significant difference". i.e. 6.1 percent in the daily treatment group and 5.4 percent in the cyclic therapy group. Those improvements were in comparison to the alendronate only group.

I would think those who encounter minor but troubling side effects from the Forteo would prefer the cyclic, 3 months on w/3 months off treatment regimen.

PatNJ · 08-19-2005, 07:59 PM

<<I would think those who encounter minor but troubling side effects from the Forteo would prefer the cyclic, 3 months on w/3 months off treatment regimen.>>

Very good point, Chronie. The difference in spinal BMD is way too close to call. Point seven percent (6.1 vs 5.4) could be attributed to the skill of the technician performing the follow-up DEXA tests. The last time I had my bone density scan done, the tech told me that it's not an exact science, that he could get different readings for the same patient on the same day.

CrohnieToo · 08-20-2005, 02:40 AM

That's interesting, PatNJ. I knew that there could be a very wide difference when having DEXAs done at various facilities and/or on different DEXA scanners and have even heard between between different "techs" on the same scanner, but had not known that there could be that much variance with the same equipment and "tech" on the same day!!! Sheesh! Kinda rattles your faith in the DEXA, doesn't it? Like it really would be nice if they would concentrate on coming up with a more specific and accurate test of our bone density and quality, wouldn't it?