Comparison of silodosin to tamsulosin for medical expulsive treatment of ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Pooled-analysis of tadalafil and tamsulosin for ureteral calculi

Objective

Urolithiasis is a common urological diseases and affects the daily life of patients. Medical expulsive therapy has become acceptable for many parents. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of tadalafil compared with tamsulosin for treating distal ureteral stones less than 10 mm in length.

Methods

Related studies were identified via searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. All the articles that described the use of tadalafil and tamsulosin for treating distal ureteral stones were collected.

Results

A total of 14 studies were included in our meta-analysis. Our results revealed that tadalafil enhanced expulsion rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47 to 0.98, p = 0.04]; reduced expulsion time [mean difference (MD) = 1.22, 95% CI (0.13, 2.30), p = 0.03]; lowered analgesia use [MD = 38.66, 95% CI (7.56, 69.77), p = 0.01] and hospital visits [MD = 0.14, 95% CI (0.06, 0.22), p = 0.0006]. According to our subgroup analysis, either tadalafil 5 mg or 10 mg did not promote expulsion rate and accelerate expulsion time compared with tamsulosin. But patients receiving 5 mg tadalafil decreased analgesia usage [MD = 101.04, 95% CI (67.56, 134.01), p < 0.00001].

Conclusion

Compared with tamsulosin, tadalafil demonstrates a higher expulsion rate and less expulsion time for patients with distal ureteral stones less than 10 mm with a favorable safety profile.

Comparative study between Tamsulosin, Silodosin and Tadalafil as a medical expulsive therapy for lower ureteral stones

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of Tamsulosin, Silodosin and Tadalafil as a medical expulsive therapy for treatment of distal ureteral calculi.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Over a period of 6 months (January 2022 to June 2022) this prospective randomized study was conducted on 170 patients with distal ureteric stone ≤ 10 mm. Patients were randomly divided into three groups. Patients in group A received Tamsulosin 0.4mg, in group B received Silodosin, and in group C receive Tadalafil 5 mg. Therapy was given for a maximum of 4 weeks. The rate and time of stone expulsion, the analgesic use, attacks of colic and hospital visits for pain, and adverse effects of drugs were recorded.

RESULTS

Among 170 patients who were enrolled in study, 20 were lost to follow-up (7, 8, 5 in group A, B, And C respective-ly). There was a significant higher stone passage rate in group C than group A and B (90% vs. 70% and 76% respectively; p-value = 0.043) and shorter expulsion time in group C (8.7 ± 3.3 days) vs. group A (12.5 ± 5.2 days) and group B (11.3 ± 4.2 days) with (p-value = 0.001)(highly statistically significant with p-value < 0.001) and increased amount of analgesics required in group A (225 ± 115.7 mg) and group B (163 ± 77.5 mg) when compared with group C (120 ± 55.3 mg).

CONCLUSION

Tadalafil is more effective than Tamsulosin and Silodosin in treatment of patients with distal ureteric stones ≤ 10 mm as regard stone expulsion rate, expulsion time with decreased number of colicky episodes and side effects.

Evolving Role of Silodosin for the Treatment of Urological Disorders – A Narrative Review

Use of α-androgenic receptor blockers remains a mainstay therapeutic approach for the treatment of urological diseases. Silodosin is recommended over other α-blockers for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), due to its high α_1A uroselectivity. Current research data suggest that silodosin is efficacious in the management of various urological diseases. Thus, we herein review the current evidence of silodosin related to its efficacy and tolerability and appraise the available literature that might ultimately aid in management of various urological conditions at routine clinical practice. Literature reveals that silodosin is beneficial in improving nocturia events related to LUTS/BPH. Silodosin exerts effect on relaxing muscles involved in detrusor obstruction, therefore prolonging the need for patients undergoing invasive surgery. Silodosin treatment, either as a monotherapy or combination, significantly improves International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) including both storage and voiding symptoms in patients with BPH/LUTS. Patients on other treatment therapies such as phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors or other α-blockers are well managed with this drug. Steadily, silodosin has proved beneficial in the treatment of other urological disorders such as chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS), overactive bladder/acute urinary retention (AUR), premature ejaculation (PE), and prostate cancer post brachytherapy-induced progression. In patients with distal ureteral stones, silodosin treatment is beneficial in decreasing stone expulsion time without affecting stone expulsion rate or analgesic need. Moreover, there were significant improvements in intravaginal ejaculation latency time, quality of life scores, and decrease in PE profile among patients with PE. Silodosin has also demonstrated promising results in increasing the likelihood of successful trial without catheter in patients with AUR and those taking antihypertensive drugs. Reports from Phase II studies have shown promising role of silodosin in the treatment of CP/CPPS as well as facilitating ureteral stone passage. From the robust data in this review, further silodosin treatment strategies in the management of different urological conditions need to be focused on.

Efficacy of tamsulosin versus tadalafil as medical expulsive therapy on stone expulsion in patients with distal ureteral stones: A randomized double-blind clinical trial

Purpose:

To compare the effects of tadalafil, tamsulosin, and placebo as a medical expulsive therapy (MET) for distal ureteral calculi.

Materials and Methods:

This prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 132 renal colic patients with distal ureteric stones (≤10mm) over a period of 12 months. Patients were randomly divided into three groups. Patients in group A received tamsulosin 0.4mg, in group B received tadalafil 10mg, and in group C received placebo. Therapy was given for a maximum of 4 weeks. The rate of stone expulsion, duration of stone expulsion, the dose and the duration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), analgesic use, and adverse effects of drugs were recorded.

Results:

Demographic profiles were comparable between the 3 groups. Although the stone expulsion rate in group A (72.7%) was higher in comparison to group B(63.6%) and group C(56.8%), it was not considered statistically significant (P=0.294). Shorter mean time to stone expulsion was significantly observed in group A (17.75±75), than group B(21.13±1.17) and group C(22.25±1.18) (P=0.47). The mean number of analgesic use was 9.8±5.09 days in group A, 14.6±7.9 days in group B, and 12.6±22.25 days in group C, this difference was significant (P=0.004). The analgesic requirement (doses of NSAIDs and pethidine) in group A was significantly lower than other groups (P<0.05). Also, patients in group A reported fewer headaches compared to other groups (P=0.011).

Conclusion:

Tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy is more effective for distal ureteric stones with less need for analgesics and less stone expulsion time than tadalafil.

Medical treatment of urinary stones

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To identify the latest progression on medical treatment of urinary stones.

RECENT FINDINGS

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be the preferred analgesic option for patients presenting to the emergency department with renal colic. A-blockers could be of patient benefit when used for distal ureteral stones more than 5 mm in size. However, the quality of the randomized controlled studies on medical expulsive therapy (MET) is still low based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria. MET should be used with caution in children and pregnant women. In patients with renal stones, the evaluation of the comorbidities of developing chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) or End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) is mandatory. It is highly recommended to follow the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel Diagnostic and Therapeutic algorithms to prevent stone recurrence.

SUMMARY

Medical treatment of urinary stone disease should be supported by well designed higher level of evidence clinical research.

Silodosin versus tamsulosin for medical expulsive treatment of ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Silodosin, a recently introduced selective α-blocker, has a much higher selectivity for the α-1A receptor. The efficacy and safety of silodosin compared to tamsulosin in medical expulsive therapy (MET) are controversial. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of silodosin compared to tamsulosin for treating ureteral stones <10 mm in diameter. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases from their inception to May 2018. We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and observational studies, which investigated stone expulsion rates using silodosin compared to tamsulosin. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model. Sixteen studies with 1824 patients were eligible for inclusion. Silodosin achieved significantly higher expulsion rates than tamsulosin (pooled risk difference (RD): 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09 to 0.18, GRADE: high). A subgroup analyses showed that silodosin has a significantly higher expulsion rate on stone sizes of 5-10 mm than tamsulosin (pooled RD: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.22, I2 = 0%). The superior effect was not observed on stone sizes <5 mm. A multivariate regression showed that the RD was negatively associated with the control expulsion rate after adjusting for age and gender (coefficient -0.658, p = 0.01). A sensitivity analysis showed that our findings were robust. Patients receiving silodosin also probably had a significantly shorter expulsion time (pooled mean difference (MD): -2.55 days, 95% CI: -4.06 to -1.04, I2 = 85%, GRADE: moderate) and may have fewer pain episodes (pooled MD: -0.3, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.09, GRADE: low) but a higher incidence of retrograde ejaculation by 5% compared to those receiving tamsulosin. In conclusion, compared to tamsulosin, silodosin provided significantly better stone passage for patients with ureteral stones (particularly for sizes of 5~10 mm), shorter expulsion times, and fewer pain episodes but caused a higher incidence of retrograde ejaculation.

Medical Expulsive Therapy for Distal Ureteral Stones: Tamsulosin Versus Silodosin in the Turkish Population

Introduction

Our aim was to contribute a study that includes a higher patient population to the limited number of studies comparing tamsulosin and silodosin in the treatment of distal ureteral stones.

Material and methods

Patients who presented with renal colic to the urology emergency clinic and were diagnosed with ureteral stones and followed-up with conservative treatment between January 2010 and January 2016 were retrospectively screened. According to the inclusion-exclusion criteria, the patients were divided into three groups. Group 1: 150 patients followed with watchful waiting (WW), Group 2: 156 patients who received 0.4 mg of tamsulosin daily, and Group 3: 159 patients who received 8 mg of silodosin daily. The side effects of the used drugs, duration of stone reduction, and expulsion rates were evaluated and compared separately.

Results

A total of 465 patients were included in the study. No statistically significant difference was found in terms of age, gender, and stone size among the groups. The patient characteristics and results are shown in Table 1. The differences in stone expulsion rate between the groups in the first week were calculated using the Chi-square test and found to be non-significant (p = 0.155); whereas, the stone expulsion rates between Group 1 versus Group 2 and Group 1 versus Group 3 were found to be significantly different after the second and third week.

Conclusion

According to our results, no statistically significant superiority between tamsulosin and silodosin was shown in the treatment of distal ureteral stones in the Turkish population.

Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

 To investigate the efficacy and safety of alpha blockers in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones.

DESIGN

 Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, LILACS, and Medline databases and scientific meeting abstracts to July 2016.

REVIEW METHODS

 Randomized controlled trials of alpha blockers compared with placebo or control for treatment of ureteric stones were eligible. : Two team members independently extracted data from each included study. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who passed their stone. Secondary outcomes were the time to passage; the number of pain episodes; and the proportions of patients who underwent surgery, required admission to hospital, and experienced an adverse event. Pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the primary outcome with profile likelihood random effects models. Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and the GRADE approach were used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarize conclusions.

RESULTS

 55 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate quality evidence that alpha blockers facilitate passage of ureteric stones (risk ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 1.61). Based on a priori subgroup analysis, there seemed to be no benefit to treatment with alpha blocker among patients with smaller ureteric stones (1.19, 1.00 to 1.48). Patients with larger stones treated with an alpha blocker, however, had a 57% higher risk of stone passage compared with controls (1.57, 1.17 to 2.27). The effect of alpha blockers was independent of stone location (1.48 (1.05 to 2.10) for upper or middle stones; 1.49 (1.38 to 1.63) for lower stones). Compared with controls, patients who received alpha blockers had significantly shorter times to stone passage (mean difference -3.79 days, -4.45 to -3.14; moderate quality evidence), fewer episodes of pain (-0.74 episodes, -1.28 to -0.21; low quality evidence), lower risks of surgical intervention (risk ratio 0.44, 0.37 to 0.52; moderate quality evidence), and lower risks of admission to hospital (0.37, 0.22 to 0.64; moderate quality evidence). The risk of a serious adverse event was similar between treatment and control groups (1.49, 0.24 to 9.35; low quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

 Alpha blockers seem efficacious in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones who are amenable to conservative management. The greatest benefit might be among those with larger stones. These results support current guideline recommendations advocating a role for alpha blockers in patients with ureteric stones.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

 PROSPERO registration No CRD42015024169.

Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureterolithiasis: The EAU Recommendations in 2016

Medical expulsive therapy (MET), in particular α-blockers, have been recommended as supportive medication if observational treatment of a ureteral stone was an option. Over the years, a considerable number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) as well as several meta-analyses have been published on MET, supporting the use of α-blockers. However, several recently published high quality, large, placebo-controlled randomized trials raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of α-blockers. The contradictory results of meta-analyses of small RCTs versus the findings of large, well conducted multicenter trials show the methodological vulnerability of meta-analyses, in particular if small single center, lower quality, papers have been included. Small single center trials, for instance, tend to show larger treatment effects compared to multicenter RCTs. It also shows the responsibility of careful planning when conducting a RCT. Trial registration as a prerequisite for approval by ethics committees could in addition minimize publication bias. Weighting the current evidence on whether to use MET, or not, it seems that in distal ureteral stones larger than 5mm, there may be a potential therapeutic benefit for the use of α-blockers. Patients should be informed about the possible, but as yet unproven benefit of using α-blockers in this situation, as well as their off-label use and potential side effects.

Mechanisms Underlying Activation of α₁-Adrenergic Receptor-Induced Trafficking of AQP5 in Rat Parotid Acinar Cells under Isotonic or Hypotonic Conditions

Defective cellular trafficking of aquaporin-5 (AQP5) to the apical plasma membrane (APM) in salivary glands is associated with the loss of salivary fluid secretion. To examine mechanisms of α₁-adrenoceptor (AR)-induced trafficking of AQP5, immunoconfocal microscopy and Western blot analysis were used to analyze AQP5 localization in parotid tissues stimulated with phenylephrine under different osmolality. Phenylephrine-induced trafficking of AQP5 to the APM and lateral plasma membrane (LPM) was mediated via the α_1A-AR subtype, but not the α_1B- and α_1D-AR subtypes. Phenylephrine-induced trafficking of AQP5 was inhibited by ODQ and KT5823, inhibitors of nitric oxide (NO)-stimulated guanylcyclase (GC) and protein kinase (PK) G, respectively, indicating the involvement of the NO/ soluble (c) GC/PKG signaling pathway. Under isotonic conditions, phenylephrine-induced trafficking was inhibited by La³⁺, implying the participation of store-operated Ca²⁺ channel. Under hypotonic conditions, phenylephrine-induced trafficking of AQP5 to the APM was higher than that under isotonic conditions. Under non-stimulated conditions, hypotonicity-induced trafficking of AQP5 to the APM was inhibited by ruthenium red and La³⁺, suggesting the involvement of extracellular Ca²⁺ entry. Thus, α_1A-AR activation induced the trafficking of AQP5 to the APM and LPM via the Ca²⁺/ cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP)/PKG signaling pathway, which is associated with store-operated Ca²⁺ entry.