Abaloparatide and pelvic fracture healing: a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled trial
Authors' conclusion
In this small study, there was no significant difference in CT radiologic healing, physical performance, or change in pain with ABL vs. placebo in patients with acute pelvic fracture.
Study context
- Population
- Postmenopausal women and men ≥ 50 years old, enrolled within 4 weeks of pelvic fracture
- Participants
- 48 women
- Comparison
- Abaloparatide vs placebo
- Primary endpoint
- Fracture healing: 5-point scale for cortical bridging from CT images, assessed by two radiologists
- Follow-up
- 3 months
Methodological detailsphase 2, placebo-controlled, blinded
- Phase 2
- Placebo-controlled
- Blinded
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
CT bridging score distribution
- No significant difference in bridging score distribution
- Abaloparatide (ABL) vs placebo (PBO): P = 0.15
Further findings
| Outcome | ABL | PBO | RR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healed (3 or 4 cortices bridged), patients · 3 months | 39% | 64% | 0.61 (0.33–1.12) | |
| Healed, individual fractures (n = 81) · 3 months | 47% | 53% | 0.88 (0.55–1.40) | |
| 0.20.5125Relative risk (log scale) |
- Bridging scores, individual fractures (n = 81) · 3 months · similar bridging scores
- P = 0.13
Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain score
- Higher in placebo than ABL at baseline (p < 0.05); no further group differences in change in pain score
- Least square means controlling for age, sacral, and displaced fracture
Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and TUG scores
- Improved over time in both groups without group differences
Original publication
Abaloparatide and pelvic fracture healing: a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled trial. Osteoporos Int. Published 20 August 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →