Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

Bone & calcium

Teriparatide

A parathyroid-hormone fragment that builds bone — one of the few anabolic osteoporosis treatments.

L5Repeated human trialsApproved medicine (jurisdiction-specific) · FDA (US)Approved
How settled this rating is:
high confidence in the current evidence rating
Routes studied:
Subcutaneous injection
Also known as:
Forteo, PTH(1-34), teriparatide injection
Last reviewed:
2026-08-23
Jump to section

Evidence passport

Teriparatide

A one-screen evidence identity for this compound. These fields describe research maturity, confidence and legal status. They are not a safety guarantee, efficacy percentage or recommendation.

Reviewed 2026-08-23
Evidence level
L5Repeated human trials
Confidence
High confidence in rating
Regulatory status
Approved medicine (jurisdiction-specific) · See jurisdiction details
Development status
Approved

Evidence strength

Human efficacy evidence85 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.

Human safety evidence80 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.

The 0-100 values rate the strength and maturity of evidence, not how effective or safe the compound is.

Evidence base
Includes human studies
Furthest established stage
Approved
Human research maturity
Long-approved osteoporosis medicine
Source curation
Sources fully curated

Routes recorded

SC injection

Overview

Human efficacy evidence strength85 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.

Preclinical (animal / lab) evidence strength80 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.

Human safety evidence strength80 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.

How to read these scores

Every number here rates the evidence, not the compound. They are editorial 0-100 strength ratings, not percentages, and not a rating out of five stars.

  • Human efficacy evidence strength — Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
  • Preclinical evidence strength — Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
  • Human safety evidence strength — Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number. A score of 80 does not mean “80% safe”.
  • Evidence level (L0-L5) — the strongest type of study behind the compound, from anecdote (L0) to large replicated human trials (L5). It is a description of the study evidence, not a quality, safety or recommendation rating.
  • Confidence — how likely we think it is that this rating changes as new research lands. Low confidence means the picture is unsettled, not that the compound is bad.

None of these ratings is medical advice, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use anything. How we grade evidence.

How far human research has progressed: Long-approved osteoporosis medicine

Routes & formulations

Studied / approved routes

SC injection

Approved products are daily subcutaneous injections, with duration limits defined in labelling.

Route availability is not evidence of efficacy, and evidence from one route does not transfer to another. The Registry never provides dosing or sourcing information.

Peptide lifecycle

  1. Discovery

  2. Preclinical

  3. Phase I

  4. Phase II

  5. Phase III

  6. Approved

Approved

What it is

The first 34 amino acids of parathyroid hormone — the fragment containing its receptor activity — given intermittently to stimulate new bone formation.

What people claim

  • Reduces fracture risk in high-risk osteoporosis
  • Builds new bone rather than only slowing loss

What the evidence actually says

Randomised trials demonstrated fracture-risk reduction in defined high-risk populations. The intermittent-dose paradox is mechanistically famous here: continuous PTH erodes bone, while brief daily pulses build it.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • Pivotal randomised trials showing vertebral and non-vertebral fracture reduction.

Preclinical evidence

  • Bone-formation pharmacology.
  • Rat studies showed osteosarcoma at high, near-lifetime exposures — the origin of treatment-duration limits.

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

  • Intermittent PTH1-receptor activation preferentially stimulates osteoblast activity and bone formation.

Safety and unknowns

  • Labelled duration limits exist because of the rat osteosarcoma signal.
  • Labelled effects include transient hypercalcaemia, dizziness and leg cramps.

Cancer relevance

This section covers questions raised by how the compound works in the body, plus anything regulators and trial teams keep an eye on. It is not a statement that this compound causes cancer — for most compounds here, no human data exist in either direction.

Monitored in trials; not demonstrated in humans

Rat studies found osteosarcoma at exposures far above human dosing, driving precautionary labelling. Post-marketing surveillance in humans has not established the same risk, but the precaution shapes how the drug is used.

Regulatory status

Regulatory decisions apply to specific jurisdictions, products, formulations and indications. An approval elsewhere is not automatically an approval in your country.

Named regulators: FDA (US)

Approved for osteoporosis in patients at high fracture risk, with indications varying by label and region. Indication-specific.

Evidence grade

L5Repeated human trialsHigh confidence in rating

Substantial, consistent controlled human evidence supporting a specified outcome, preferably independently replicated. Approval is reported separately.

What would change our rating?

  • Continued long-term human registry surveillance on the osteosarcoma question.

References and sources

Source transparency

A provenance snapshot of this profile. Counts show what kinds of sources are cited, not how much scientific weight each source deserves.

Sources fully curated
Last editorial review
2026-08-23
Recently reviewed · 54 days ago
Linked curated sources
1
Sources still pending
0
External specialist reviews
0
None recorded for this profile
Regulatory / label: 1

Review provenance

Registry editorial review: Colin Jackson-White, creator and editor, who is not a doctor or clinician. External specialist review is credited only when a named reviewer has completed a review of this exact profile.

Literature-discovery and AI tools may help locate or challenge candidate evidence, but they are not counted as evidence sources here. Registry judgements are tied to the underlying papers, trial records, regulator documents and official study records.

Source hierarchy: regulatory documents and trial registries first, peer-reviewed work next, sponsor material flagged as non-independent. We never use supplier or clinic marketing as evidence, and where a verified source has not yet been curated we say so rather than inventing one.

Evidence change history

These entries record changes to our assessment of the published evidence — not changes to the compound itself.

No recorded changes yet. Baseline position set on 2026-08-23.