Effects of teriparatide compared with risedronate in the treatment of osteoporosis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background:This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects and safety of teriparatide with risedronate in the treatment of osteoporosis.Material and methods:PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane library database were systematically reviewed for studies published up to February 24, 2019. Eligible studies that compared the effects of teriparatide with risedronate in osteoporosis were included in this meta-analysis. The outcomes included percentage change in bone mineral density (BMD) of lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip, the incidence of clinical fractures, serum bone markers, and adverse events. A random-effects or fixed-effects model was used to pool the estimate, according to the heterogeneity among the included studies.Results:Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with risedronate, teriparatide was associated with a significant increase in lumbar spine BMD [weight mean difference (WMD)=4.24, 95%CI: 3.11, 5.36; P<.001], femoral neck BMD (WMD=2.28, 95%CI: 1.39, 3.18; P<.001), and total hip BMD (WMD=1.19, 95%CI: 0.47, 1.91; P=.001). Moreover, patients in teriparatide group had significantly lower incidences of clinical fracture (risk ratio [RR]=0.48, 95%CI: 0.32, 0.72; P<.001), new vertebral fracture (RR=0.45, 95%CI: 0.32, 0.63; P<.001), and non-vertebral fracture (RR=0.63, 95%CI: 0.40, 0.98; P=.042) than those in risedronate group. There were significant differences between the 2 groups in serum change, including P1NP (WMD=122.34, 95%CI: 68.89, 175.99; P<.001), CTx (WMD=0.62, 95%CI: 0.29, 0.96; P<.001), and iPTH (WMD=-13.18, 95%CI: -15.04, -11.33; P<.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar between the 2 groups (RR=0.93, 95%CI: 0.69, 1.25; P=.610).Conclusion:This study suggested that teriparatide was more effective than risedronate for increasing the BMD in lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip, as well as reducing the incidences of clinical fracture, new vertebral fracture and non-vertebral fracture. There was no significant difference in incidence of adverse events between the 2 drugs. Considering the potential limitations in the present study, further large-scale, well-performed randomized trials are needed to verify our findings.