INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis is the main cause of fractures among women after menopause. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of denosumab compared to bisphosphonates in treating postmenopausal osteoporosis. METHODS: Databases including PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared denosumab and bisphosphonates. RCTs that studied both denosumab and bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and had a Jadad score ≥ 3 were included. RESULTS: Nine studies were eligible for inclusion. They were further categorised into six cohort groups. All studies had denosumab with oral bisphosphonates as the active comparator. Four out of six cohort studies showed significant improvements in bone strength (p < 0.001) at the distal radius, tibia, total hip, femoral neck, lumbar spine and trochanter at 12 months for patients on denosumab compared to the bisphosphonate group. Serum C-telopeptide of cross-linked collagen, a bone turnover marker, was consistently lower in the denosumab group in all studies. There were no significant differences in hypocalcaemia, atypical fractures, fragility fractures, osteonecrosis of the jaw, all infections (including fever or influenza-like symptoms), gastrointestinal side effects or dermatological conditions in all studies, except for one that did not document side effects. CONCLUSION Denosumab can be used both as a first-line agent and an alternative to bisphosphonate in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. There is currently insufficient data to show that denosumab is not inferior to bisphosphonates in fracture prevention.

Acute Disease ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee ; adverse effects ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Humans ; Knee Joint ; pathology ; surgery ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pyoderma Gangrenosum ; diagnosis ; Skin ; pathology ; Surgical Wound Infection ; diagnosis

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are a critical resource in the effort to control the COVID-19 pandemic. They are also a sentinel surveillance population whose clinical status reflects the effectiveness of the hospital's infection prevention measures in the pandemic. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in Singapore General Hospital (SGH), a 1,822-bed tertiary hospital. Participants were all HCWs working in SGH during the study period. HCW protection measures included clinical workflows and personal protective equipment developed and adapted to minimise the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. HCW monitoring comprised staff contact logs in high-risk locations, twice-daily temperature monitoring, assessment of HCWs with acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs) in the staff clinic and, in the event of an exposure, extensive contact tracing, detailed risk assessment and risk-based interventions. HCW surveillance utilised monitoring data and ARI presentations and outcomes. RESULTS: In the ten-week period between 6 January 2020 and 16 March 2020, 333 (17.1%) of 1,946 HCWs at risk of occupational COVID-19 presented with ARI. 32 (9.6%) screened negative for SARS-CoV-2 from throat swabs. Five other HCWs developed COVID-19 attributed to non-clinical exposures. From the nine COVID-19 exposure episodes investigated, 189 HCW contacts were identified, of whom 68 (36.2%) were placed on quarantine and remained well. CONCLUSION Early in an emerging infectious disease outbreak, close monitoring of frontline HCWs is essential in ascertaining the effectiveness of infection prevention measures. HCWs are at risk of community disease acquisition and should be monitored and managed to prevent onward transmission.
Humans ; COVID-19/epidemiology* ; Pandemics/prevention & control* ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control* ; Sentinel Surveillance ; Retrospective Studies ; Infection Control ; Health Personnel

The complete picture regarding transmission modes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unknown. This review summarises the available evidence on its transmission modes, our preliminary research findings and implications for infection control policy, and outlines future research directions. Environmental contamination has been reported in hospital settings occupied by infected patients, and is higher in the first week of illness. Transmission via environmental surfaces or fomites is likely, but decontamination protocols are effective in minimising this risk. The extent of airborne transmission is also unclear. While several studies have detected SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid in air samples, none has isolated viable virus in culture. Transmission likely lies on a spectrum between droplet and airborne transmission, depending on the patient, disease and environmental factors. Singapore's current personal protective equipment and isolation protocols are sufficient to manage this risk.
COVID-19 ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Infection Control/methods* ; Personal Protective Equipment ; SARS-CoV-2