Osteoporosis Treatment Sequencing: Where Do the Anabolics Fit In?

Introduction

Osteoporosis is a progressive skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength, deterioration of bone microarchitecture, and an increased susceptibility to fragility fractures. It represents one of the most significant causes of morbidity among older adults, particularly postmenopausal women and elderly men. The global burden of osteoporosis continues to rise as populations age, making fracture prevention a major public health priority. Fragility fractures, especially those involving the hip, vertebrae, pelvis, and wrist, are associated with substantial clinical consequences, including chronic pain, physical disability, loss of functional independence, reduced quality of life, increased healthcare utilization, institutionalization, and premature mortality. Hip fractures are particularly devastating, with many patients failing to regain their pre-fracture level of mobility and a significant proportion experiencing long term dependence or death within the first year following injury.

For decades, the cornerstone of osteoporosis management has been antiresorptive therapy. Agents such as bisphosphonates and denosumab have demonstrated substantial efficacy in reducing fracture risk by suppressing osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. By slowing the rate of bone loss, these therapies help preserve skeletal integrity, increase bone mineral density, and reduce the incidence of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures. Their proven effectiveness, favorable cost profile, and extensive clinical experience have established them as foundational treatments in osteoporosis care.

Despite their important benefits, antiresorptive therapies primarily function by preventing further bone deterioration rather than actively rebuilding damaged skeletal tissue. This limitation becomes particularly relevant in patients with severe osteoporosis, advanced skeletal fragility, or recent fracture events. In such individuals, the risk of subsequent fractures remains elevated, particularly during the months immediately following an initial fracture. This period of imminent fracture risk represents a critical therapeutic window during which simply slowing bone loss may be insufficient to adequately protect patients from further skeletal injury.

The development of anabolic therapies has fundamentally altered the treatment landscape by introducing a mechanism that directly stimulates new bone formation. Unlike antiresorptive agents, anabolic medications promote osteoblastic activity, enhance bone remodeling in favor of bone accrual, improve trabecular and cortical bone architecture, and increase overall bone strength. Available anabolic therapies, including teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, have demonstrated significant improvements in bone mineral density and substantial reductions in vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk in high risk populations. These agents offer the possibility of rebuilding skeletal structure rather than merely preserving what remains.

The emergence of anabolic therapy has shifted the clinical conversation from whether these medications are effective to how they should be optimally integrated into treatment strategies. Treatment sequencing has become one of the most important topics in contemporary osteoporosis management. Historically, anabolic agents were often reserved for patients who had failed or not responded adequately to antiresorptive therapy. This approach was driven by considerations of cost, limited treatment duration, and historical prescribing practices. However, growing evidence suggests that the sequence in which osteoporosis therapies are administered can significantly influence clinical outcomes.

Studies have demonstrated that initiating treatment with an anabolic agent followed by antiresorptive therapy often produces greater improvements in bone mineral density and fracture reduction than the reverse sequence. Beginning with anabolic therapy allows rapid bone formation and restoration of skeletal architecture, while subsequent antiresorptive treatment helps maintain the gains achieved. In contrast, prolonged prior exposure to potent antiresorptive agents may attenuate the anabolic response, potentially limiting the full therapeutic benefit of bone-forming therapies.

This evolving evidence has led to a redefinition of treatment goals for patients at the highest levels of fracture risk. Contemporary clinical practice increasingly recognizes that not all patients with osteoporosis should be managed identically. Individuals with severe osteoporosis, multiple prior fragility fractures, very low bone mineral density, recent fractures, or fractures occurring despite ongoing therapy represent a distinct population requiring more aggressive intervention. For these patients, rapid fracture risk reduction and restoration of skeletal strength are often paramount objectives.

Reflecting this shift in understanding, major professional organizations have updated their treatment recommendations. The Endocrine Society recommends consideration of anabolic therapy for postmenopausal women at very high fracture risk, particularly those with severe osteoporosis or multiple fractures. Similarly, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology supports the use of injectable therapies, including anabolic agents, as initial treatment options for patients categorized as being at very high fracture risk. These recommendations reflect a growing consensus that treatment intensity should be matched to fracture risk and that anabolic therapy may provide the greatest benefit when used early in carefully selected patients.

As osteoporosis management continues to evolve, the focus is increasingly moving toward individualized treatment pathways that consider fracture history, bone density, age, comorbidities, and imminent fracture risk. The emerging evidence supports a risk-based approach in which anabolic-first strategies are prioritized for patients with the greatest need for rapid skeletal rebuilding and fracture prevention. This paradigm represents a significant departure from traditional stepwise treatment models and underscores the importance of treatment sequencing as a determinant of long term skeletal outcomes. Ultimately, optimizing the order in which osteoporosis therapies are administered may prove as important as selecting the appropriate therapy itself, offering clinicians new opportunities to reduce fracture burden and improve patient quality of life.

Current Osteoporosis Treatment Landscape

Osteoporosis care begins with foundational measures: adequate calcium intake, vitamin D sufficiency, resistance and weight-bearing exercise, fall prevention, smoking cessation, moderation of alcohol intake, and correction of secondary causes of bone loss. Pharmacologic therapy is added when fracture risk exceeds treatment thresholds.

Antiresorptive agents

Bisphosphonates remain first-line therapy for many patients. Alendronate, risedronate, and zoledronic acid reduce vertebral, hip, and nonvertebral fracture risk. Ibandronate reduces vertebral fracture risk but has less robust evidence for hip and nonvertebral fracture prevention. Bisphosphonates bind to bone mineral and inhibit osteoclast-mediated resorption. Their long skeletal retention allows residual anti-fracture benefit after discontinuation, which is why “drug holidays” may be considered in selected lower-risk patients after several years of therapy.

Denosumab is a potent antiresorptive monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand. It is administered subcutaneously every six months and produces large BMD gains. Unlike bisphosphonates, denosumab does not remain in bone. Discontinuation without follow-on antiresorptive therapy can cause rebound bone turnover, rapid BMD loss, and increased vertebral fracture risk. Therefore, denosumab should not be stopped without a transition plan.

Raloxifene and menopausal hormone therapy may be useful in selected patients, but they are not the primary focus of very-high-risk sequencing because their fracture reduction profile is narrower and patient selection is more restrictive.

Anabolic and bone-forming agents

Three anabolic or bone-forming agents are central to modern sequencing:

1. Teriparatide: recombinant human parathyroid hormone 1-34.
2. Abaloparatide: synthetic parathyroid hormone-related peptide analog.
3. Romosozumab: monoclonal antibody against sclerostin with dual effects—increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption.

These agents are most relevant when fracture risk is high enough that rapid bone-building therapy is justified.

Defining High Risk Versus Very High Risk

A key correction in osteoporosis sequencing is distinguishing high fracture risk from very high fracture risk. Many patients with osteoporosis are high risk and merit pharmacologic therapy. Not all require anabolic therapy first.

Very-high-risk features include:

Very-high-risk feature	Clinical importance
Recent fragility fracture, especially within 12 months	Indicates imminent refracture risk
Multiple fragility fractures	Suggests severe skeletal fragility
Hip or vertebral fracture	Strong predictor of future fracture
Very low BMD, often T-score ≤ –3.0	Reflects severe structural deficit
Fracture while adherent to therapy	Suggests inadequate response
Very high FRAX probability	Supports need for aggressive risk reduction
Chronic glucocorticoid exposure with fracture or very low BMD	Ongoing skeletal injury
High fall risk plus osteoporosis	Increases near-term fracture probability

Patients at high but not very high risk often do well with antiresorptive-first therapy. Patients at very high or imminent risk are the group in whom anabolic-first therapy becomes most compelling.

Mechanisms and Evidence for Anabolic Agents

Teriparatide

Teriparatide is a recombinant form of parathyroid hormone 1-34. Continuous PTH exposure increases bone resorption, but intermittent daily exposure preferentially stimulates osteoblast activity and bone formation. The pivotal trial by Neer and colleagues showed that teriparatide reduced vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Later evidence strengthened its role in severe osteoporosis. The VERO trial compared teriparatide with risedronate in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis and found that teriparatide was superior for reducing new vertebral and clinical fractures. This is an important correction: the key head-to-head fracture trial was VERO, and the comparator was risedronate, not zoledronic acid.

Teriparatide is generally used for up to two years. However, the prior boxed warning for osteosarcoma was removed, and labeling now allows use beyond two years in selected patients who remain at or return to high fracture risk. This does not mean indefinite routine use; it means clinicians have more flexibility in exceptional cases.

Abaloparatide

Abaloparatide is a PTHrP analog that activates the PTH1 receptor. In the ACTIVE trial, abaloparatide reduced vertebral and nonvertebral fractures compared with placebo over 18 months. Clinically, abaloparatide is generally limited to a cumulative lifetime duration of two years, although the pivotal fracture trial duration was 18 months.

Abaloparatide and teriparatide are similar in clinical positioning. Both are daily subcutaneous agents, both require follow-on antiresorptive therapy, and both are most useful when bone formation is urgently needed. Abaloparatide may have a lower rate of hypercalcemia than teriparatide in some comparisons, but selection is usually driven by patient factors, coverage, tolerability, and clinician experience.

Romosozumab

Romosozumab inhibits sclerostin, a protein that suppresses bone formation. By blocking sclerostin, romosozumab increases bone formation and reduces bone resorption. It is administered monthly for 12 months as two subcutaneous injections per dose.

Romosozumab has strong evidence in very-high-risk osteoporosis. In FRAME, romosozumab for 12 months followed by denosumab reduced vertebral fracture risk compared with placebo followed by denosumab. In ARCH, romosozumab followed by alendronate was superior to alendronate alone for reducing vertebral, clinical, nonvertebral, and hip fractures. However, ARCH also raised concern about a numerical imbalance in serious cardiovascular events, leading to cardiovascular warnings.

Romosozumab should not be initiated in patients who have had myocardial infarction or stroke within the previous year. In patients with other major cardiovascular risk factors, clinicians should weigh fracture benefit against possible cardiovascular risk and consider alternative therapy when appropriate. The Endocrine Society update states that romosozumab may be used for up to one year in postmenopausal women at very high fracture risk, and that antiresorptive therapy should follow to preserve bone health.

Comparison of Available Anabolic Agents

Characteristic	Teriparatide	Abaloparatide	Romosozumab
Mechanism	PTH 1-34 analog; intermittent PTH receptor activation	PTHrP analog; PTH1 receptor activation	Sclerostin inhibitor; increases formation and decreases resorption
Administration	Daily subcutaneous injection	Daily subcutaneous injection	Monthly subcutaneous injection; two injections per dose
Usual duration	Usually up to 2 years; longer only in selected high-risk cases	Up to 2 years; pivotal fracture trial 18 months	12 months
Key fracture evidence	Reduced vertebral and nonvertebral fractures vs placebo; superior to risedronate in VERO	Reduced vertebral and nonvertebral fractures vs placebo in ACTIVE	Reduced vertebral fractures in FRAME; superior sequence vs alendronate in ARCH
Main safety considerations	Hypercalcemia, orthostatic symptoms; avoid in patients at increased baseline osteosarcoma risk	Hypercalcemia/hypercalciuria, orthostatic symptoms; avoid cumulative use >2 years	Boxed warning for MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death risk
Cardiovascular caution	Not a primary limiting issue	Not a primary limiting issue	Avoid initiation after MI or stroke within prior year
Post-treatment requirement	Follow with antiresorptive	Follow with antiresorptive	Follow with antiresorptive
Storage	Refrigeration	Refrigeration; follow product-specific instructions after first use	Refrigeration; limited room-temperature storage after removal

Why Sequencing Matters

The order of osteoporosis therapy matters because the skeletal response differs depending on what comes first.

Anabolic first, then antiresorptive

This is the preferred sequence for many very-high-risk patients. Starting with an anabolic agent builds bone quickly, improves microarchitecture, and reduces fracture risk. Transitioning to an antiresorptive afterward preserves the gains.

This approach is particularly useful for:

• Recent vertebral or hip fracture.
• Multiple fragility fractures.
• Very low BMD.
• Fracture while adherent to antiresorptive therapy.
• Severe glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.
• Very high FRAX probability or imminent fracture risk.

Antiresorptive first, then anabolic

This approach remains common because of cost and access barriers. It is reasonable for many high-risk but not very-high-risk patients. However, prior potent antiresorptive therapy may blunt the early BMD response to teriparatide or abaloparatide, especially at cortical sites. Switching from denosumab directly to teriparatide is particularly problematic because it can cause bone loss at the hip and radius and transient loss at the spine.

DATA-Switch showed that transitioning from teriparatide to denosumab produced continued BMD gains, whereas switching from denosumab to teriparatide caused bone loss at some sites. This is a clinically important sequencing lesson: denosumab discontinuation requires careful antiresorptive consolidation, not a casual switch to teriparatide.

Anabolic therapy without consolidation

This is a sequencing error. BMD gains from teriparatide, abaloparatide, or romosozumab are not durable without follow-on antiresorptive therapy. Bone turnover and bone density can regress after stopping anabolic therapy. Therefore, transition planning should begin before the anabolic course ends.

Patient Selection for Anabolic-First Therapy

Anabolic-first therapy is most appropriate when the fracture risk is urgent enough to justify higher cost, injectable treatment, and more complex sequencing.

Strong candidates

Patient profile	Rationale
Recent vertebral or hip fracture	Highest near-term refracture risk
Multiple vertebral fractures	Severe skeletal fragility
T-score ≤ –3.0 with additional risk factors	Severe BMD deficit
Fracture while adherent to bisphosphonate or denosumab	Indicates inadequate protection
Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis with fracture or very low BMD	Ongoing high-risk exposure
Very high FRAX probability	Supports aggressive therapy
Severe osteoporosis plus high fall risk	Imminent fracture concern

Patients often appropriate for antiresorptive-first therapy

Patient profile	Rationale
Osteoporosis by BMD without fracture and no very-high-risk features	Bisphosphonates are effective and cost-efficient
Moderate fracture risk	Antiresorptive therapy usually sufficient
Patient prefers oral therapy	Improves adherence and feasibility
Major cost or access barriers	Generic bisphosphonates may be realistic first step
Contraindication to anabolic agent	Use antiresorptive alternatives

Transition Strategies After Anabolic Therapy

Post-anabolic consolidation is essential.

After teriparatide or abaloparatide

Patients should transition promptly to antiresorptive therapy. Options include:

• Oral alendronate or risedronate.
• IV zoledronic acid.
• Denosumab.

Denosumab is potent and can continue BMD gains after teriparatide, but it requires a long-term plan. Stopping denosumab without bisphosphonate consolidation can lead to rebound bone turnover and vertebral fracture risk.

After romosozumab

Romosozumab should be followed by antiresorptive therapy. FRAME used denosumab after romosozumab, while ARCH used alendronate after romosozumab. Both strategies support the principle that romosozumab is a one-year bone-building phase that must be followed by maintenance therapy.

Avoiding poor transitions

The most important transition errors are:

1. Stopping anabolic therapy without antiresorptive follow-up.
2. Stopping denosumab without bisphosphonate consolidation.
3. Switching denosumab directly to teriparatide without recognizing risk of bone loss.
4. Delaying consolidation long enough for anabolic gains to regress.

Monitoring During Treatment

Monitoring should confirm adherence, response, and safety.

Bone mineral density

BMD is typically measured by DXA at baseline and again after 1–2 years, though earlier monitoring may be considered in very-high-risk patients when the result will change management. During anabolic therapy, BMD gains may be seen within months, but fracture prevention remains the clinical priority.

Bone turnover markers

Bone turnover markers can help confirm biologic response. P1NP often rises within weeks of teriparatide or abaloparatide initiation. Romosozumab produces an early rise in formation markers and reduction in resorption markers. Lack of expected marker response may suggest nonadherence, improper administration, malabsorption of calcium/vitamin D, or secondary contributors.

Laboratory monitoring

Monitoring should be individualized but often includes:

• Serum calcium.
• 25-hydroxyvitamin D.
• Renal function.
• Phosphorus when clinically relevant.
• PTH when secondary hyperparathyroidism is suspected.
• Bone-specific alkaline phosphatase or P1NP in selected cases.

Teriparatide and abaloparatide may cause hypercalcemia or hypercalciuria. Romosozumab requires cardiovascular risk assessment before initiation and vigilance for new cardiovascular symptoms during therapy.

Cost, Access, and Real-World Barriers

Anabolic therapy is clinically powerful but expensive. Prior authorization requirements often restrict access to patients who have already failed bisphosphonate therapy or meet strict T-score and fracture criteria. These restrictions can conflict with the evidence-based concept of anabolic-first therapy for very-high-risk patients.

Real-world barriers include:

• Medication cost.
• Insurance denials.
• Step-therapy requirements.
• Need for injectable administration.
• Storage requirements.
• Patient reluctance.
• Limited clinician familiarity.
• Delayed referral to endocrinology, rheumatology, or osteoporosis specialists.

These barriers mean that the ideal sequence and the feasible sequence may differ. Clinicians should document very-high-risk features clearly, including fracture history, T-scores, prior therapy, adherence, FRAX probability, fall risk, glucocorticoid exposure, and rationale for anabolic therapy.

Practical Treatment Algorithm

Step 1: Confirm osteoporosis and fracture risk

Assess:

• Fragility fracture history.
• DXA T-scores.
• Vertebral imaging when indicated.
• FRAX probability.
• Fall risk.
• Secondary causes.
• Medication contributors.
• Renal function.
• Calcium and vitamin D status.

Step 2: Classify risk

High risk: osteoporosis by BMD or elevated FRAX without recent fracture, multiple fractures, or extreme BMD deficit.

Very high risk: recent fracture, multiple fractures, hip or vertebral fracture, T-score ≤ –3.0 with risk factors, fracture on therapy, very high FRAX probability, or severe glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

Step 3: Choose initial therapy

For high-risk patients:

• Oral bisphosphonate is often appropriate.
• IV zoledronic acid or denosumab may be used when oral therapy is unsuitable.

For very-high-risk patients:

• Consider anabolic-first therapy.
• Choose agent based on fracture pattern, cardiovascular risk, renal function, route preference, cost, and access.

Step 4: Plan the exit before starting

Before starting anabolic therapy, decide the consolidation plan:

• Teriparatide or abaloparatide → bisphosphonate or denosumab.
• Romosozumab → bisphosphonate or denosumab.
• Denosumab discontinuation → bisphosphonate consolidation.

Step 5: Monitor and reassess

Monitor adherence, calcium/vitamin D status, interval fractures, falls, BMD, and adverse effects. Reassess therapy if fracture occurs despite adherence.

Special Clinical Scenarios

Recent vertebral fracture

A recent vertebral fracture places the patient at high imminent risk of another fracture. Anabolic-first therapy should be strongly considered, especially if BMD is very low or additional fractures are present.

Hip fracture

Hip fracture is a major sentinel event. Antiresorptive therapy reduces future fracture risk, but anabolic therapy may be considered in patients with severe osteoporosis, multiple fractures, or very low BMD. Romosozumab requires cardiovascular risk assessment.

Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis

Patients receiving chronic glucocorticoids may lose bone rapidly and fracture at higher BMD values than expected. Teriparatide has evidence in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis and may be appropriate for very-high-risk patients.

Chronic kidney disease

Renal function affects medication selection. Bisphosphonates are limited in advanced CKD. Denosumab can be used in CKD but requires careful calcium monitoring, especially in advanced stages. Anabolic therapy requires evaluation for CKD-mineral and bone disorder before use in advanced kidney disease.

Cardiovascular disease

Romosozumab should be avoided in patients with MI or stroke within the prior year. In patients with established ASCVD or multiple risk factors, discuss alternative agents and weigh the urgency of fracture prevention against possible cardiovascular risk.

Common Sequencing Mistakes

Mistake	Why it matters
Reserving anabolics only for last-resort therapy	Very-high-risk patients may lose the chance for rapid risk reduction
Using anabolic therapy without consolidation	BMD gains can be lost
Stopping denosumab without a bisphosphonate plan	Rebound vertebral fractures may occur
Switching denosumab directly to teriparatide	Can cause bone loss at hip/radius
Treating all osteoporosis patients as anabolic candidates	Cost and complexity outweigh benefit in lower-risk patients
Ignoring cardiovascular history before romosozumab	May expose patient to avoidable risk
Failing to correct vitamin D deficiency or secondary causes	Reduces response and safety

Future Directions

The future of osteoporosis sequencing will likely involve more personalized approaches. Better tools are needed to identify patients with imminent fracture risk, predict response to anabolic therapy, and determine the best consolidation agent after bone-building treatment.

Research priorities include:

• Longer-term outcomes after anabolic-first strategies.
• Best post-romosozumab consolidation approach.
• Management after denosumab in complex sequences.
• Use of anabolic therapy in men and secondary osteoporosis.
• Cost-effectiveness in very-high-risk populations.
• Biomarker-guided sequencing.
• Strategies to improve access and reduce treatment delays after fracture.

 

Frequently Asked Questions

When should anabolic therapy be used first?

Anabolic-first therapy should be considered for patients at very high fracture risk, including those with recent fragility fracture, multiple fractures, hip or vertebral fracture, very low BMD, fracture while adherent to therapy, or severe glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

Are bisphosphonates still first-line therapy?

Yes. Bisphosphonates remain appropriate first-line therapy for many patients with osteoporosis who are high risk but not very high risk. They are effective, inexpensive, and have strong fracture outcome data.

How long can anabolic therapy be used?

Romosozumab is limited to 12 months. Abaloparatide is generally limited to a cumulative duration of two years. Teriparatide is usually used for up to two years, although longer use may be considered in selected patients who remain at or return to high fracture risk.

What should happen after anabolic therapy?

An antiresorptive should be started promptly after anabolic therapy to preserve BMD gains and maintain fracture-risk reduction. Options include oral bisphosphonates, IV zoledronic acid, or denosumab.

Is denosumab the best therapy after anabolic treatment?

Denosumab is highly effective after anabolic therapy, but it is not automatically best for every patient. Bisphosphonates are also appropriate consolidation options. Denosumab requires a long-term plan because stopping it without bisphosphonate follow-up can cause rebound bone loss and vertebral fractures.

Who should avoid romosozumab?

Romosozumab should not be started in patients who had myocardial infarction or stroke within the previous year. Patients with major cardiovascular risk factors require individualized risk-benefit discussion.

Can an anabolic be used after denosumab?

This sequence requires caution. Switching directly from denosumab to teriparatide can cause bone loss at some sites. If denosumab is stopped, bisphosphonate consolidation is usually needed to reduce rebound risk.

References

Camacho, P. M., Petak, S. M., Binkley, N., Diab, D. L., Eldeiry, L. S., Farooki, A., Harris, S. T., Hurley, D. L., Kelly, J., Lewiecki, E. M., Pessah-Pollack, R., McClung, M., Wimalawansa, S. J., & Watts, N. B. (2020). American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis—2020 update. Endocrine Practice, 26(Suppl 1), 1–46.

Cosman, F., Crittenden, D. B., Adachi, J. D., Binkley, N., Czerwinski, E., Ferrari, S., Hofbauer, L. C., Lau, E., Lewiecki, E. M., Miyauchi, A., Zerbini, C. A., Milmont, C. E., Chen, L., Maddox, J., Meisner, P. D., Libanati, C., & Grauer, A. (2016). Romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 375(16), 1532–1543.

Cosman, F., Crittenden, D. B., Ferrari, S., Khan, A., Lane, N. E., Lippuner, K., Matsumoto, T., Milmont, C. E., Nguyen, H. G., Reginster, J. Y., Zerbini, C. A., Libanati, C., & Grauer, A. (2018). FRAME study: The foundation effect of building bone with 1 year of romosozumab leads to continued lower fracture risk after transition to denosumab. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 33(7), 1219–1226.

Eastell, R., Rosen, C. J., Black, D. M., Cheung, A. M., Murad, M. H., & Shoback, D. (2019). Pharmacological management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 104(5), 1595–1622.

Haentjens, P., Magaziner, J., Colón-Emeric, C. S., Vanderschueren, D., Milisen, K., Velkeniers, B., & Boonen, S. (2010). Meta-analysis: Excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Annals of Internal Medicine, 152(6), 380–390.

Johnell, O., & Kanis, J. A. (2006). An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporosis International, 17(12), 1726–1733.

Kendler, D. L., Marin, F., Zerbini, C. A. F., Russo, L. A., Greenspan, S. L., Zikan, V., Bagur, A., Malouf-Sierra, J., Lakatos, P., Fahrleitner-Pammer, A., Lespessailles, E., Minisola, S., Body, J. J., Geusens, P., Möricke, R., & López-Romero, P. (2018). Effects of teriparatide and risedronate on new fractures in post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis: A multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 391(10117), 230–240.

Krege, J. H., Gilsenan, A. W., Komack, J., Kellier-Steele, N., & Andrews, E. B. (2022). Teriparatide and osteosarcoma risk: History, science, elimination of boxed warning, and other label updates. JBMR Plus, 6(9), e10665.

Leder, B. Z., Tsai, J. N., Uihlein, A. V., Wallace, P. M., Lee, H., Neer, R. M., & Burnett-Bowie, S. A. M. (2015). Denosumab and teriparatide transitions in postmenopausal osteoporosis: Extension of a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 386(9999), 1147–1155.

Miller, P. D., Hattersley, G., Riis, B. J., Williams, G. C., Lau, E., Russo, L. A., Alexandersen, P., Zerbini, C. A. F., Hu, M. Y., Harris, A. G., Fitzpatrick, L. A., Cosman, F., & Christiansen, C. (2016). Effect of abaloparatide vs placebo on new vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 316(7), 722–733.

Neer, R. M., Arnaud, C. D., Zanchetta, J. R., Prince, R., Gaich, G. A., Reginster, J. Y., Hodsman, A. B., Eriksen, E. F., Ish-Shalom, S., Genant, H. K., Wang, O., & Mitlak, B. H. (2001). Effect of parathyroid hormone 1-34 on fractures and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 344(19), 1434–1441.

Saag, K. G., Petersen, J., Brandi, M. L., Karaplis, A. C., Lorentzon, M., Thomas, T., Maddox, J., Fan, M., Meisner, P. D., & Grauer, A. (2017). Romosozumab or alendronate for fracture prevention in women with osteoporosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 377(15), 1417–1427.

Shoback, D., Rosen, C. J., Black, D. M., Cheung, A. M., Murad, M. H., & Eastell, R. (2020). Pharmacological management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: An Endocrine Society guideline update. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 105(3), 587–594.

Tsai, J. N., Uihlein, A. V., Lee, H., Kumbhani, R., Siwila-Sackman, E., McKay, E. A., Burnett-Bowie, S. A. M., Neer, R. M., & Leder, B. Z. (2013). Teriparatide and denosumab, alone or combined, in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: The DATA study randomized trial. The Lancet, 382(9886), 50–56.