Alpha-blockers after shock wave lithotripsy for renal or ureteral stones in adults

Alpha-blockers: the magic pill for endourology-The great delusion

PURPOSE

The present paper takes a different and more critical look at the role of alpha-blockers, sometimes nicknamed as "magical pills", in particular for stone disease and medical expulsive therapy (MET).

METHODS

A non-systematic narrative review was performed, synthesizing pertinent information from selected articles, and critically evaluating their conclusions. Sometimes different views on alpha-blockers were laid bare, including curiosities or other entertaining nuances suitable to the present topic, but always maintaining sharp objectivity and the foremost scientific rigor.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Alpha-blockers seem to be a panacea, being used to treat a wide variety of non-urological diseases and conditions. Urological applications include erectile dysfunction to benign prostatic hyperplasia, from incontinence to urinary retention, or even to facilitate urinary stone passage along the urinary tract. Due to its versatility, alpha-blockers appear to be the Swiss army knife of urological medications. However, the efficacy of alpha-blockers for MET, pain management, or facilitating upper tract access is very disappointing, bringing no, or in some instances, only marginal benefits. Their treatment results are far from being significant or impressive let alone magical. Regular sexual intercourse is an effective alternative to alpha-blockers, providing faster ureteral stone expulsion rates and reducing the need for pain medication. Most of the research supporting alpha-blockers has been based on single-center, underpowered, low-quality studies. These low-quality studies biased several subsequent meta-analyses, contaminating them with their low-quality data, enhancing and prolonging this delusion. These results emphasize the need for large, multi-centric, unbiased, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials to prevent future year-long delusions that may afflict any medical field.

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones

BACKGROUND

Nephrolithiasis is a common urological disease worldwide. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has been used for the treatment of renal stones since the 1980s, while retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are newer, more invasive treatment modalities that may have higher stone-free rates. The complications of RIRS and PCNL have decreased owing to improvement in surgical techniques and instruments. We re-evaluated the best evidence on this topic in an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy compared with percutaneous nephrolithotomy or retrograde intrarenal surgery for treating kidney stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov with no restrictions on language or publication status. The latest search date was 6 December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared ESWL with PCNL or RIRS for kidney stone treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were treatment success rate at three months (defined as residual fragments smaller than 4 mm, or as defined by the study authors), quality of life (QoL), and complications. Our secondary outcomes were retreatment rate, auxiliary procedures rate, and duration of hospital stay. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and independently rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 trials involving 3361 participants (3060 participants completed follow-up). Four trials were only available as an abstract. Overall mean age was 46.6 years and overall mean stone size was 13.4 mm. Most participants (93.8%) had kidney stones measuring 20 mm or less, and 68.9% had lower pole stones. ESWL versus PCNL ESWL may have a lower three-month treatment success rate than PCNL (risk ratio [RR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.79; I2 = 87%; 12 studies, 1303 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 304 fewer participants per 1000 (397 fewer to 194 fewer) reporting treatment success with ESWL. ESWL may have little or no effect on QoL after treatment compared with PCNL (1 study, 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESWL probably leads to fewer complications than PCNL (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82; I2 = 18%; 13 studies, 1385 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 82 fewer participants per 1000 (115 fewer to 39 fewer) having complications after ESWL. ESWL versus RIRS ESWL may have a lower three-month treatment success rate than RIRS (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93; I2 = 63%; 13 studies, 1349 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 127 fewer participants per 1000 (186 fewer to 59 fewer) reporting treatment success with ESWL. We are very uncertain about QoL after treatment; the evidence is based on three studies (214 participants) that we were unable to pool. We are very uncertain about the difference in complication rates between ESWL and RIRS (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; I2 = 32%; 13 studies, 1305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to nine fewer participants per 1000 (49 fewer to 48 more) having complications after ESWL.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ESWL compared with PCNL may have lower three-month success rates, may have a similar effect on QoL, and probably leads to fewer complications. ESWL compared with RIRS may have lower three-month success rates, but the evidence on QoL outcomes and complication rates is very uncertain. These findings should provide valuable information to aid shared decision-making between clinicians and people with kidney stones who are undecided about these three options.

Alpha-blockers after shock wave lithotripsy for renal or ureteral stones in adults

BACKGROUND

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a widely used method to treat renal and ureteral stone. It fragments stones into smaller pieces that are then able to pass spontaneously down the ureter and into the bladder. Alpha-blockers may assist in promoting the passage of stone fragments, but their effectiveness remains uncertain.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of alpha-blockers as adjuvant medical expulsive therapy plus usual care compared to placebo and usual care or usual care alone in adults undergoing shock wave lithotripsy for renal or ureteral stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, several clinical trial registries and grey literature for published and unpublished studies irrespective of language. The date of the most recent search was 27 February 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing SWL. Participants in the intervention group had to have received an alpha-blocker as adjuvant medical expulsive therapy plus usual care. For the comparator group, we considered studies in which participants received placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion/exclusion, and performed data abstraction and risk of bias assessment. We conducted meta-analysis for the identified dichotomous and continuous outcomes using RevManWeb according to Cochrane methods using a random-effects model. We judged the certainty of evidence on a per outcome basis using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 studies with 4793 participants randomized to usual care and an alpha-blocker versus usual care alone. Only four studies were placebo controlled. The mean age of participants was 28.6 to 56.8 years and the mean stone size prior to SWL was 7.1 mm to 13.2 mm. The most widely used alpha-blocker was tamsulosin; others were silodosin, doxazosin, terazosin and alfuzosin.  Alpha-blockers may improve clearance of stone fragments after SWL (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.23; I² = 78%; studies = 36; participants = 4084; low certainty evidence). Based on the stone clearance rate of 69.3% observed in the control arm, an alpha-blocker may increase stone clearance to 80.4%. This corresponds to 111 more (62 more to 159 more) participants per 1000 clearing their stone fragments. Alpha-blockers may reduce the need for auxiliary treatments after SWL (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; I² = 16%; studies = 12; participants = 1251; low certainty evidence), but also includes the possibility of no effect. Based on a rate of auxiliary treatments in the usual care arm of 9.7%, alpha-blockers may reduce the rate to 6.5%. This corresponds 32 fewer (53 fewer to 0 fewer) participants per 1000 undergoing auxiliary treatments. Alpha-blockers may reduce major adverse events (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80; I² = 0%; studies = 7; participants = 747; low certainty evidence). Major adverse events occurred in 25.8% of participants in the usual care group; alpha-blockers would reduce this to 15.5%. This corresponds to 103 fewer (139 fewer to 52 fewer) major adverse events per 1000 with alpha-blocker treatment. None of the reported major adverse events appeared drug-related; most were emergency room visits or rehospitalizations. Alpha-blockers may reduce stone clearance time in days (mean difference (MD) -3.74, 95% CI -5.25 to -2.23; I² = 86%; studies = 14; participants = 1790; low certainty evidence). We found no evidence for the outcome of quality of life. For those outcomes for which we were able to perform subgroup analyses, we found no evidence of interaction with stone location, stone size or type of alpha-blocker. We were unable to conduct an analysis by lithotripter type. The results were also largely unchanged when the analyses were limited to placebo controlled studies and those in which participants explicitly only received a single SWL session.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low certainty evidence, adjuvant alpha-blocker therapy following SWL in addition to usual care may result in improved stone clearance, less need for auxiliary treatments, fewer major adverse events and a reduced stone clearance time compared to usual care alone. We did not find evidence for quality of life. The low certainty of evidence means that our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.