← Return to Oral teriparatide tablet (EB613) gets FDA nod for Phase 3 trial
DiscussionOral teriparatide tablet (EB613) gets FDA nod for Phase 3 trial
Osteoporosis & Bone Health | Last Active: Jun 30 2:13pm | Replies (28)Comment receiving replies
Replies to "@mayblin Such good news about the possibility of an oral anabolic! I think the previous trial..."
Connect

@kfhoz thank you very much for the detailed info and thoughtful comments!
A few clarifications,
EBP05 and EB613 are the same drug. The Phase 2 trial (NCT04003467) was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the name "EBP05," but the published results of that same trial - same number of patients, same doses, same investigators - refer to the drug as "EB613." EBP05 was simply the earlier development name.
The Phase 1 study after Phase 2 isn't a step backward in this scenario. For a truly new drug (brand new chemical entity NCE), the standard path is Phase 1 → 2 → 3, where Phase 1 is the first-in-human study to establish basic safety and how the drug behaves in the body (pharmacology study). But 'Phase 1' also describes another kind of study - a bridging study. When a company modifies its tablet (changes in coating, absorption enhancers, excipients, or manufacturing process, etc.), regulators require a study to confirm the reformulated tablet delivers the drug into the bloodstream comparably to the original. This pharmacokinetic (PK) study is classified as Phase 1, but this doesn't mean the program is starting over. So the sequence here is logical: Phase 2 (original formulation, completed) → Phase 1 bridging study (new vs. old formulation, completed early 2026) → Phase 3 (trial with the optimized formulation).
What's particularly interesting from the Phase 2 data is that oral PTH(1-34), or EBP05/EB613, appeared to have a different BTM kinetic profile from the injected version - it simultaneously stimulated bone formation markers and suppressed bone resorption markers, whereas injected teriparatide increases both. If confirmed in Phase 3, this dual mechanism could be a meaningful clinical differentiator, in addition to the convenience advantage over injections.
Your point about the hip BMD surrogate endpoint is spot on, and thanks for the link. The FDA now accepts total hip BMD improvement as evidence the drug works, rather than requiring years of data showing fewer fractures. This could significantly shorten the path to approval, with the tradeoff being less long-term fracture data at the time of approval.
The Phase 3 trial is expected to be larger (~750 participants) and likely multinational, potentially including US sites - worth watching for anyone interested in participating.