L arge increases in bone mineral density (BMD) and reductions in fracture risk, particularly vertebral fractures, have generated much enthusiasm for anabolic therapy in the osteoporosis community. Two forms of parathyroid hormone (PTH) (PTH or teriparatide, and PTH ) have been used clinically for almost a decade (PTH has not been approved for use in the United States). They have been shown to be safe and effective in increasing BMD and reducing fracture risk. However, PTH increases bone resorption as well as formation, and an ideal anabolic treatment would be one that could optimize the impact on formation while producing lesser changes in resorption.The search for such a treatment has been a theme in many interesting clinical studies over the last 10 years. The report by Horwitz and colleagues (1) in this issue of the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research details a 3-month trial of one such approach: PTH related protein ). Earlier, preliminary data collected in short-term and small human studies, (2)(3)(4) as well as preclinical studies, (5) had suggested that PTHrP might increase formation without increasing resorption and provided the rationale for the current randomized trial comparing two doses of PTHrP to teriparatide over 3 months. (1) The absence or near absence of hypercalcemia with comparable doses in those prior studies (2)(3)(4) also suggested that PTHrP might avoid that known potential side effect of PTH therapy.Horwitz and colleagues (1) show that, indeed, PTHrP has a net anabolic effect with a significant bone formation marker increase over the 3 months of the study. The net effects of PTHrP on BMD over 3 months were indistinguishable from those of teriparatide, although inferences about BMD are limited by the small study size and relatively short duration. However, contrary to the investigators' prior hypotheses, a resorption marker increase was also seen. Furthermore, while the resorption marker increase was modest, the increase in formation with PTHrP was also much more modest than that for teriparatide. Figure 2 in Horowitz and colleagues (1) shows this dramatically: at 3 months, procallagen type 1 amino-terminal propeptide (P1NP) (the marker of formation) had increased by 171% with teriparatide compared to only 46% for the 400-mg dose of PTHrP. Cross-linked C-telopeptide (CTX) (the measure of resorption) also increased much more with teriparatide than with PTHrP (92% versus 30%). (1) In terms of safety, the investigators had hypothesized that PTHrP would be less likely to induce hypercalcemia than teriparatide, based on the absence or near absence of hypercalcemia in their prior studies with the doses used here. Surprisingly, the results showed the opposite: PTHrP led to more instances of elevated serum calcium (defined as serum Ca >10.5 mg/dL) than teriparatide. The difference was quite striking, with zero cases in 35 participants randomized to teriparatide versus 18 of 70 (26%) among those randomized to (either dose of) PTHrP. In their discussion, the investigators speculate about the poss...