[Indinavir urolithiasis in HIV-positive patients. Treatment and prophylaxis]

[History of epidemics in urology in German-speaking countries]

Pandemics are relevant for many fields of medicine from microbiology to economics and epidemiology. Many medical specialties which developed during the 19th century, e. g., urology, have had much impact on diagnostics and therapy, such as during the treatment of tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases. For some of them, including urology, treatment of, for example, sexually transmitted diseases, was constitutional and differed between countries.

Fluids and diuretics for acute ureteric colic

BACKGROUND

Acute ureteric colic is commonly associated with severe and debilitating pain. Theoretically, increasing fluid flow through the affected kidney might expedite stone passage, thereby improving symptoms more quickly. The efficacy and safety of interventions such as high volume intravenous (IV) or oral fluids and diuretics aimed at expediting ureteric stone passage is, however, uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To look at the benefits and harms of diuretics and high volume (above maintenance) IV or oral fluid therapy for treating adult patients presenting with uncomplicated acute ureteric colic.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register (3 January 2012). Previously we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (from 1966), EMBASE (from 1980) and handsearched reference lists of nephrology and urology textbooks, review articles, relevant studies, and abstracts from nephrology scientific meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (including the first period of randomised cross-over studies) looking at diuretics or high volume IV or oral fluids for treating uncomplicated acute ureteric colic in adult patients presenting to the emergency department for the first time during that episode were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model for multiple studies of the same outcomes, otherwise the fixed-effect model was used. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or as mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies (enrolling 118 participants) examined the association between intense hydration and ureteric colic outcomes. There was no significant difference in pain at six hours (1 study, 60 participants: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.57), surgical stone removal (1 study, 60 participants: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.51) or manipulation by cystoscopy (1 study, 60 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.13) when no fluids over six hours was compared to three litres IV fluids administered over a six hour period. There was no difference in stone clearance (1 study 43 participants: RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.84), hourly pain score or patients' narcotic requirements (P > 0.05 for all comparisons) when forced IV hydration of two litres over four hours was compared with minimal IV hydration at 20 mL/hour.One study did not provide any details which would have allowed us to assess any of the risk of bias items (selection, detection, performance, attrition or reporting bias). The second study did not report the method of randomisation or allocation (selection bias - unclear), they reported that the patients were blinded to therapy (low risk of bias), analgesics were administered according to predetermined pain score criteria (low risk), and assessment of stone passage was unlikely to have been biased by knowledge of group assignment (low risk). However the second study also reported a high percentage of participants excluded post randomisation (26%; high risk of bias). We were unable to assess or ascertain any of the other risk of bias items.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no reliable evidence in the literature to support the use of diuretics and high volume fluid therapy for people with acute ureteric colic. However, given the potential positive therapeutic impact of fluids and diuretics to facilitate stone passage, the capacity of these interventions warrants further investigation to determine safety and efficacy profiles.

Urological management of indinavir-associated acute renal failure in HIV-positive patients

INTRODUCTION

Indinavir, a protease inhibitor that is commonly used to treat HIV infection, may cause crystal formation within the renal tubules when urine pH is above 3.5. Crystallization in the urine may lead to intrarenal crystal deposition and acute renal failure (ARF).

AIM

To establish the beneficial urological management of acute renal failure caused by indinavir treatment of HIV/AIDS patients.

PATIENTS--METHODS

Five HIV positive patients (four men, one woman) with a mean age of 32 years (range 28-36 years) were referred to our Department of Urology from an AIDS outpatient Clinic, because of the development of postrenal acute renal failure with continuously elevated creatinine and urea plasma levels after indinavir therapy. Among the initial therapeutic maneuvers, indinavir administration was interrupted for 1 week while bilateral double-J ureteral stents were inserted in all the HIV/AIDS patients, during the first 24-72 h to secure upper-tract drainage. Concurrently urine has been acidified by oral administration of the amino acid L: -methionine and oral fluid intake was increased.

RESULTS

All the patients responded well to the treatment and their renal function was effortlessly restored to normal within a few days.

CONCLUSION

HIV-positive patients receiving indinavir therapy might be complicated by acute renal failure, mainly due to intrarenal crystal deposition (tubules) or urolithiasis (postrenal obstruction). This adverse effect may simply manage by the discontinuation of indinavir administration, urine acidification, as well as the possible early insertion of bilateral double-J ureteral stents.

Fluids and diuretics for acute ureteric colic

BACKGROUND

Acute ureteric colic is a common cause of severe and debilitating pain. Theoretically, increasing fluid flow through the affected kidney might expedite stone passage, thereby improving symptoms more quickly. Unfortunately, for interventions such as high volume intravenous or oral fluids and diuretics that are aimed at doing this, the efficacy and safety is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To look at the benefits and harms of diuretics and high volume (above maintenance) intravenous or oral fluid therapy for treating adult patients presenting with uncomplicated acute ureteric colic.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register (July 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL - The Cochrane Library, issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 - July 2004), EMBASE (1980 - July 2004) and handsearched reference lists of nephrology and urology textbooks, review articles, relevant trials, and abstracts from nephrology scientific meetings. We sent letters seeking information about unpublished or incomplete trials to investigators known to be involved in previous trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTS (including the first period of randomised cross-over studies) looking at diuretics or high volume intravenous or oral fluids for treating uncomplicated acute ureteric colic in adult patients presenting to the emergency department for the first time during that episode were to be included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the results expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or weight mean difference (WMD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

One trial (60 participants) was identified. This study compared no fluids for six hours versus three litres of IV fluids received over a six hour period. There was no significant difference in pain at six hours (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.57), surgical stone removal (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.51) or manipulation by cystoscopy (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.13).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Unfortunately, we could find no credible evidence in the literature regarding either of these two treatment modalities. Given their potential positive impact, the role of diuretics and high volume fluid therapy in acute ureteric colic should be examined to determine their safety and efficacy in facilitating stone passage.