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.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to study the prevalence of frailty and its associated factors in a subacute geriatric ward. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of 167 participants between June 2018 and June 2019. Baseline demographics and participants' Mini Nutritional Assessment, Geriatric Depression Scale, Mini Mental State Examination, Charlson's Comorbidity Index and LACE index scores were obtained. Functional measurements such as modified Barthel's Index scores and hand grip strength (HGS) were taken. Frailty was assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and the FRAIL scale. Data on history of healthcare utilisation, medications, length of stay, selected blood investigations and presence of geriatric syndromes were also collected. RESULTS: The prevalence of pre-frailty (CFS 4) and frailty (CFS ≥ 5) was 16.2% and 63.4%, respectively. There were significant associations between CFS and age (pre-frail vs. non-frail: odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.25, P = 0.006; frail vs. non-frail: OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15, P = 0.021), HGS at discharge (frail vs. non-frail: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.99, P = 0.025), serum albumin (frail vs. non-frail: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.99, P = 0.035) and the presence of urinary incontinence (frail vs. non-frail: OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.19-7.77, P = 0.021). CONCLUSION Frailty is highly prevalent in the subacute geriatric setting and has many associated factors. In this study, independent factors associated with frailty were age, HGS at discharge, serum albumin and urinary incontinence. This has implications for future resource allocation for frail older inpatients and may help direct further research to study the effectiveness of frailty-targeted interventions.
Humans ; Aged ; Frailty/epidemiology* ; Frail Elderly ; Hand Strength ; Prevalence ; Singapore/epidemiology* ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Fatigue Syndrome, Chronic ; Geriatric Assessment ; Urinary Incontinence ; Serum Albumin