The 6-month visit rather than the baseline visit was chosen to avoid any systematic confounders due to the multiple therapeutic changes that occurred around the time of baseline (withdrawal of prior antiresorptive treatment, initiation of calcium supplementation).

These additional samples were assayed within the same analytical batch as other samples from the same participant. The 6-month visit was selected as the appropriate time point for this assessment because bone formation markers were expected to have reached their peak value by this time. Assessment of BMD Areal BMD at the lumbar spine (LS; L1–L4) and hip (total hip and femoral neck) was assessed by DXA (using Hologic, Lunar or Norland scanners) ML323 chemical structure at baseline and at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of teriparatide treatment [for details see: 21, 27, 28]. Quality assessments and evaluations were performed by a central reader (Bioimaging Technologies, Leiden, The Netherlands). Statistical analysis The bone marker analysis of this nonrandomized

cohort was based on a full analysis set and included all patients who took at least one dose of study medication and had at least one post-baseline bone marker determination (n = 758). All non-missing data were included and no imputations selleck inhibitor for missing data were performed. In addition, a per protocol analysis was completed, which included 651 subjects who were >80% compliant with the study medication in the first 6 months (when the bone markers were assessed) and had all three measurements of the bone markers available for analysis. For the Spearman correlations with BMD and the relationship with incident fractures, the analysis included those patients who received daily teriparatide treatment for up to 24 months (n = 468). Baseline patient demographic characteristics of the three

defined subgroups (treatment-naïve, AR-pretreated, and inadequate AR responders) were compared using ANOVA. The duration of previous medication was compared between the AR-pretreated and inadequate Dynein AR responder subgroups. The biochemical bone markers have a log normal distribution; therefore, the data were transformed before analysis. Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) was used to assess the within-patient change from baseline and the between-group differences in bone markers. Within-patient changes at each visit were assumed to be correlated but no assumptions regarding the structure of these correlations were made. The MMRM assumes data are missing at random; all non-missing data contribute to the model. This model assumes that the bone markers of those patients with missing data would behave in a similar way to those of patients with non-missing data. Change in BMD to 24 months was modeled using ANOVA. The C188-9 purchase amount of variance in the change in BMD to 24 months was modeled.