Administration of the selective alpha 1A-adrenoceptor antagonist silodosin facilitates expulsion of size 5–10 mm distal ureteral stones, as compared to control

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.

Comparison of efficacy of three commonly used alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Introduction:

The efficacy of alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy (MET) is well established. However, it is not known which of the three most commonly used alpha-blockers (tamsulosin, alfuzosin and silodosin) is the most efficacious. With this study we aimed to assess the efficacy of the three commonly used alpha-blockers as MET for distal ureter stones.

Materials and Methods:

For this review, we searched multiple databases such as PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, OviD SP, CINAHL, and web of science to identify all the relevant randomized studies comparing the efficacy of tamsulosin, alfuzosin, and silodosin. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews for network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) were followed while conducting this review and the study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020175706).

Results:

In this review, 31 studies with 7077 patients were included. Compared to placebo all the treatment groups were more effective for both stone expulsion rate (SER) and stone expulsion time (SET). For both SER and SET, silodosin had the highest SUCRA (94.8 and 90.4) values followed by alfuzosin (58.8 and 64.9) and tamsulosin (46.2 and 44.5). The incidence of postural hypotension was similar with all the drugs, whereas, the incidence of retrograde ejaculation was significantly higher for silodosin. Overall confidence for each comparison group in this review ranged from “very low” to “moderate” according to the CINeMA approach.

Conclusion:

Among the three commonly used alpha-blockers silodosin is the most efficacious drug as MET for lower ureter stones followed by alfuzosin and tamsulosin.

Efficacy and safety of silodosin, vardenafil versus silodosin in combination with vardenafil as a medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones: a prospective randomized double-blind study

Background

Urolithiasis is considered one of the most common diseases in urological practice. Its prevalence is about 1% to 15% with 30 years old as the peak age of incidence. Medical expulsive therapy (MET) has been used as a conservative treatment for patients with ureteral stones. Nitrergic fibers have been identified to have a relaxant effect on the distal ureteral smooth musculature. The objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of silodosin and vardenafil as a medical expulsive therapy in comparison with each drug alone.

Methods

One hundred and two male patients with uncomplicated distal ureteric stone 6–10 mm were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomly divided into 3 equal groups, and each one consists of 34 patients. Group I received silodosin 8 mg once daily, group II vardenafil 5 mg once daily and group III combination of silodosin 8 mg and vardenafil 5 mg once daily. The treatment was given for all the patients until stone expulsion or a maximum of 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the stone expulsion rate, and the secondary endpoints were time to stone expulsion, number of hospital visits for pain, amount of analgesic required and side effects associated with MET.

Results

Our study showed that the stone expulsion rate was higher in combination = 90.0% than silodosin = 76.7% and vardenafil groups = 60.0% (P = 0.025), the time to stone expulsion was significantly shorter in combination = 11.23 ± 3.14 than silodosin = 12.50 ± 1.66 and vardenafil groups 14.67 ± 1.24 days (P < 0.01), the number of hospital visits for pain was statistically significant between the three groups (silodosin 1.35 ± 0.9, vardenafil 1.65 ± 1.09 and combination groups 1.02 ± 0.80) (P = 0.038) and lesser amount of analgesic required in combination 313.6 ± 2.85.5 than silodosin 613.44 ± 483.62 and vardenafil groups 716.97 ± 685.3 (P = 0.008). There was no significant difference among the studied groups as regards the drugs side effects except for retrograde ejaculation (silodosin and combination = 86.7% vs vardenafil groups = 0.0%) (P < 0.05) and increased erection (combination = 26.7%, vardenafil = 23.3% and silodosin groups = 0%) (P = 0.010).

Conclusion

The prescription of vardenafil in combination with silodosin is safe and more effective than silodosin or vardenafil alone as a MET.

Silodosin: An Update on Efficacy, Safety and Clinical Indications in Urology

INTRODUCTION

Silodosin determines smooth muscle relaxation in bladder and prostate tissues, increases bladder blood flow in conditions of chronic bladder ischemia and regulates the activity of transcriptional factors responsible for stromal growth and prostate hyperplasia. Phase III trials have already demonstrated the efficacy and safety of silodosin in the treatment of patients bothered by lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe the rationality for the use of silodosin and to summarize the current literature on the use of Silodosin for the treatment of LUTS.

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science were queried with the terms: 'silodosin' in combination (AND) with the terms 'lower urinary tract symptoms', 'LUTS', 'pathophysiology', 'symptoms' OR 'therapy'. Studies published in the last 10 years (2007-2017) in adults and core clinical journals in English were included.

RESULTS

Silodosin 8 mg once-daily was superior to placebo in improving IPSS total score, voiding subscore, storage subscore and QoL score, and at least as effective as tamsulosin 0.4 mg once-daily in all the efficacy analyses. In addition, studies assessing the effect on urodynamic parameters showed that silodosin determined a higher improvement in the bladder outlet obstruction index compared to other alpha1 adrenergic receptor antagonists. Concerning the safety profile, long-term data (after 9 months of treatment) confirmed the limited effect of silodosin on the cardiovascular and gastrointestinal systems. Although ejaculatory disorders represented the main complaint of patients taking silodosin, the discontinuation rate due to this condition remained low even in a long-term follow-up study (7.5%). Encouraging findings showed that silodosin may be administered as a medical expulsive therapy for promoting spontaneous stone passage of distal ureteral stones < 10 mm, to relieve LUTS in patients who underwent prostate cancer brachytherapy and to increase the likelihood of successful trials without a catheter in patients experiencing acute urinary retention.

CONCLUSION

Silodosin is one of the drugs approved for the treatment of BPH, being highly effective in improving not only LUTS but also urodynamic parameter impairments secondary to BPH. Moreover, it has shown efficacy as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones in previous prospective randomized trials.

FUNDING

Sponsorship for this study and article processing charges were funded by Recordati.

Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones

BACKGROUND

Ureteral colic is a common reason for patients to seek medical care. Alpha-blockers are commonly used to improve stone passage through so-called medical expulsive therapy (MET), but their effectiveness remains controversial. This is an update of a 2014 Cochrane review; since that time, several large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported, making this update relevant.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of alpha-blockers compared with standard therapy for ureteral stones 1 cm or smaller confirmed by imaging in adult patients presenting with symptoms of ureteral stone disease.

SEARCH METHODS

On 18 November 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO Portal/ICTRP to identify all published/unpublished and ongoing trials. We checked all references of included and review articles and conference proceedings for articles relevant to this review. We sent letters to investigators to request information about unpublished or incomplete studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of ureteral stone passage in adult patients that compared alpha-blockers versus standard therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened studies for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures. We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were stone clearance and major adverse events; secondary outcomes were stone expulsion time, number of pain episodes, use of diclofenac, hospitalisation, and surgical intervention. We assessed the quality of evidence on a per-outcome basis using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies with 10,509 participants overall. Of these, 15 studies with 5787 participants used a placebo.Stone clearance: Based on the overall analysis, treatment with an alpha-blocker may result in a large increase in stone clearance (risk ratio (RR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 1.55; low-quality evidence). A subset of higher-quality, placebo-controlled trials suggest that the likely effect is probably smaller (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25; moderate-quality evidence), corresponding to 116 more (95% CI 51 more to 182 more) stone clearances per 1000 participants.Major adverse events: Based on the overall analysis, treatment with an alpha-blocker may have little effect on major adverse events (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.96; low-quality evidence). A subset of higher-quality, placebo-controlled trials suggest that alpha-blockers likely increase the risk of major adverse events slightly (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.86), corresponding to 29 more (95% CI 3 more to 75 more) major adverse events per 1000 participants.Patients treated with alpha-blockers may experience shorter stone expulsion times (mean difference (MD) -3.40 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -2.63; low-quality evidence), may use less diclofenac (MD -82.41, 95% CI -122.51 to -42.31; low-quality evidence), and likely require fewer hospitalisations (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77; moderate-quality evidence), corresponding to 69 fewer hospitalisations (95% CI 93 fewer to 32 fewer) per 1000 participants. Meanwhile, the need for surgical intervention appears similar (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02; low-quality evidence), corresponding to 28 fewer surgical interventions (95% CI 51 fewer to 2 more) per 1000 participants.A predefined subgroup analysis (test for subgroup differences; P = 0.002) suggests that effects of alpha-blockers may vary with stone size, with RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.15; P = 0.16; I² = 62%) for stones 5 mm or smaller versus 1.45 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.72; P < 0.0001; I² = 59%) for stones larger than 5 mm. We found no evidence suggesting possible subgroup effects based on stone location or alpha-blocker type.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For patients with ureteral stones, alpha-blockers likely increase stone clearance but probably also slightly increase the risk of major adverse events. Subgroup analyses suggest that alpha-blockers may be less effective for smaller (5 mm or smaller) than for larger stones (greater than 5 mm).

Role of silodosin as medical expulsive therapy in ureteral calculi: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The objective of this study is to investigate the efficacy of silodosin in medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteral stones. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of silodosin in MET for ureteral calculi. We searched PubMed, Embase, Medline, Central (the Cochrane Library, Issue 1,2013), Google Scholar from the inception to March 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing silodosin with tamsulosin or control on ureteral stone passage. Eight RCTs with a total of 1145 ureteral stone patients (300 patients in the control group, 287 patients in the tamsulosin group, 558 patients in the silodosin group) were included in this meta-analysis. When compared with control, silodosin significantly improved expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones (RR: 1.42; 95% CI, 1.21-1.67; P < 0.0001), while there was no significant difference between silodosin and the control in expulsion rate of proximal (RR: 0.99; 95% CI, 0.69-1.43; P < 0.97) or mid (RR: 1.13; 95% CI, 0.60-2.16; P < 0.0001) ureteral stones. There was no significant difference between silodosin and tamsulosin in terms of expulsion time (WMD: -2.47; 95% CI, -5.32 to 0.39; P = 0.09), analgesic use (WMD: -0.39; 95% CI, -0.91 to 0.13; P  = 0.14) and retrograde ejaculation rate (RR: 1.85; 95% CI, 0.95-3.59; P = 0.07) in MET for distal ureteral stones. However, silodosin provided a significantly higher expulsion rate (RR: 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.37; P < 0.0001) than tamsulosin for distal ureteral stones. Silodosin significantly improved expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones and was clinically superior to tamsulosin. Silodosin was ineffective in MET for proximal and mid ureteral stones. More RCT studies are needed to compare the efficacy of silodosin versus tamsulosin in MET for distal ureteral stones.

Alpha blockers in the management of ureteric lithiasis: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Effective medical expulsion for ureteric stones with α-blockers offers numerous advantages over surgical alternatives. However, its effectiveness remains uncertain and with the publication of new trial data, the available evidence requires reappraisal.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of α-blockers the management of ureteric lithiasis.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature, with predefined search criteria, was conducted using PubMed and Embase. All randomised trials comparing α-blocker monotherapy to placebo or standard therapy were included. Stone expulsion rate was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were time to stone expulsion, analgesic usage and pain scores. Subgroup analyses assessed individual adrenergic antagonists and variations in standard therapy. Sensitivity analysis was based on stone location, stone size, Cochrane Risk of Bias score and study protocol. Summary effects were calculated using a random-effect model and presented as Relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD) for dichotomous and continuous outcome measures, respectively.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies randomising 6654 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Stone expulsion rates improved with α-blockers (RR, 1.49; 95% CI 1.38-1.61). Contrast enhanced funnel showed evidence of publication bias. Stone expulsion time was 3.99 days (CI -4.75 to -3.23) shorter with α-blockers. Similarly, patients required 106.53 mg [CI -148.20 to -64.86] less diclofenac compared with control/placebo, and had 0.80 [CI -1.07 to -0.54] fewer pain episodes. Visual Analogue Scores were also reduced, -2.43 [CI -3.87 to -0.99]. All formulations of α-antagonists all demonstrated beneficial effects over conservative treatment/placebo. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated significant effects of stone location, stone size and study design.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Despite the opposing results of recently published trial, current evidence continues to demonstrate a potential benefit of α-blocker treatment particularly for distal stones over 5 mm.

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.

Tamsulosin or Silodosin Adjuvant Treatment Is Ineffective in Improving Shockwave Lithotripsy Outcome: A Short-Term Follow-Up Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study

INTRODUCTION

The role of α-blockers after shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is controversial. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of tamsulosin and silodosin after SWL for kidney stones.

METHODS

From 2012 onward, a consecutive series of patients undergoing SWL were prospectively enrolled and randomized by closed envelopes in three groups receiving tamsulosin 0.4 mg (A), silodosin 8 mg (B), and placebo (C) daily for 21 days after SWL. Anthropometrics, stone size, and location were recorded before SWL. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was collected at 6, 12, and 24 hours after treatment to evaluate patients' discomfort. Stone-free rate was assessed 1 and 3 weeks postoperatively. Complications and medical treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Differences in VAS score, stone-free rate, and complications were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 60 patients were enrolled. Mean stone sizes were 10.28 ± 2.46 mm, 10.45 ± 1.73 mm, and 9.23 ± 2.04 mm in groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = 0.474). There was no significant difference between the three groups with regard to stone location. Comparable energy was used to treat patients from the three groups. The overall 3-week stone-free rate was 53%: 58% in the tamsulosin group, 47% in the silodosin group, and 55% in the placebo group (p = 0.399). No significant differences were observed in the VAS scores reported by the groups at 6 hours (p = 1.254), 12 hours (p = 0.075), and 24 hours (p = 0.490). Overall, 12 complications were reported: 11 patients (7 in group C and 4 in group B) needed analgesics for colic, and 1 patient (group B) was surgically treated for Steinstrasse. Tamsulosin was superior to placebo (p = 0.008) and silodosin (p = 0.021) in preventing complications; no difference between silodosin and placebo (p = 0.629) was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin and silodosin are ineffective in increasing stone-free rate as well as early patients' discomfort after extracorporeal lithotripsy.

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

This study aimed at comparing the success rates of silodosin to the most commonly used for medical expulsive therapy (MET) tamsulosin for the management of ureteral stones. A systematic review using the search string: "silodosin AND (ston* OR calcu* OR expul*)" was conducted on Pubmed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register. The Primary endpoint was the stone expulsion rate. Secondary endpoint was the time to stone expulsion. Two authors independently screened the studies depending on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis and forest-plot figures were calculated with the software Review Manager (RevMan 5.3.5). Variations were evaluated with the χ ² statistical method and heterogeneity with I ² index. After screening of 39 publications obtained by the initial search, three randomized controlled trials were eligible to be included in the meta-analysis. 407 patients were pooled. Favorable results were observed for silodosin in terms of stone expulsion rates with a risk ratio of 1.33 (95 % CI 1.17-1.50) (I ² = 0 %). Similarly, faster stone expulsion times were observed with silodosin when compared with tamsulosin. Mean difference -2.49 (95 % CI -3.40 to 1.58) (I ² = 89 %). This meta-analysis showed significantly higher stone expulsion rates and faster expulsion times in favor of silodosin when compared to tamsulosin.

Efficacy and safety of silodosin in the medical expulsion therapy for distal ureteral calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Using a selective α-adrenoceptor blocker for medical expulsive therapy (MET) is an effective treatment approach widely used for ureteral stones. The aim of the review was to assess the efficacy and safety of silodosin in medical expulstion therapy compared with placebo and tamsulosin.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials that compared silodosin with a placebo or tamsulosin for ureteral calculi.

RESULTS

Eight publications involving a total of 1048 patients were used in the analysis, which compared silodosin with placebo and tamsulosin. We found that silodosin was effective in treating ureteral calculi in our meta-analysis and was superior to tamsulosin in its efficacy. The expulsion rate of all ureteral stones (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.08, 2.36, P = 0.02), the expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.70, 4.67, P < 0.0001) and the expulsion time (days) of distal ureteral stones (standard mean difference (SMD) -4.71, 95% CI -6.60, -2.83, P < 0.00001) indicated that silodosin was more effective than the placebo. Moreover, expulsion rate (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.70, 3.78, P < 0.00001), expulsion time (days) (SMD -2.64, 95% CI -3.64, -1.64, P < 0.00001) and pain episodes (P < 0.00001) indicated that silodosin was more effective than the tamsulosin. Even though silodosin had a significant increase in abnormal ejaculation compared with tamsulosin, no significant differences were observed for complications (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.58, 1.74, P = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicated that silodosin was superior to placebo or tamsulosin in the efficacy for distal ureteral calculi with better control of pain. The safety profile of silodosin was similar to tamsulosin though retrograde ejaculation was worse for silodosin use. We conclude that silodosin might have potential as a MET for ureteral stones.

Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of previous randomised controlled trials concluded that the smooth muscle relaxant drugs tamsulosin and nifedipine assisted stone passage for people managed expectantly for ureteric colic, but emphasised the need for high-quality trials with wide inclusion criteria. We aimed to fulfil this need by testing effectiveness of these drugs in a standard clinical care setting.

METHODS

For this multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited adults (aged 18-65 years) undergoing expectant management for a single ureteric stone identified by CT at 24 UK hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned by a remote randomisation system to tamsulosin 400 μg, nifedipine 30 mg, or placebo taken daily for up to 4 weeks, using an algorithm with centre, stone size (≤5 mm or >5 mm), and stone location (upper, mid, or lower ureter) as minimisation covariates. Participants, clinicians, and trial personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who did not need further intervention for stone clearance within 4 weeks of randomisation, analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population defined as all eligible patients for whom we had primary outcome data. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT number 2010-019469-26, and as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 69423238.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 11, 2011, and Dec 20, 2013, we randomly assigned 1167 participants, 1136 (97%) of whom were included in the primary analysis (17 were excluded because of ineligibility and 14 participants were lost to follow-up). 303 (80%) of 379 participants in the placebo group did not need further intervention by 4 weeks, compared with 307 (81%) of 378 in the tamsulosin group (adjusted risk difference 1·3% [95% CI -5·7 to 8·3]; p=0·73) and 304 (80%) of 379 in the nifedipine group (0·5% [-5·6 to 6·5]; p=0·88). No difference was noted between active treatment and placebo (p=0·78), or between tamsulosin and nifedipine (p=0·77). Serious adverse events were reported in three participants in the nifedipine group (one had right loin pain, diarrhoea, and vomiting; one had malaise, headache, and chest pain; and one had severe chest pain, difficulty breathing, and left arm pain) and in one participant in the placebo group (headache, dizziness, lightheadedness, and chronic abdominal pain).

INTERPRETATION

Tamsulosin 400 μg and nifedipine 30 mg are not effective at decreasing the need for further treatment to achieve stone clearance in 4 weeks for patients with expectantly managed ureteric colic.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

A comparison of nifedipine and tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy for the management of lower ureteral stones without ESWL

Administration of nifedipine or tamsulosin has been suggested to augment stone expulsion rates. We aimed to compare the stone expulsion rates and adverse effects associated with the use of nifedipine or tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for the management of lower ureteral stones (LUS) without extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) via a literature review and meta-analysis. Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases. Finally, a total of 7 RCTs with 3897 patients were included. Our meta-analysis showed that tamsulosin could significantly increase the stone expulsion rate relative to nifedipine in patients with LUS (random-effects model; risk ratio [RR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75–0.88; P < 0.00001). The subgroup analysis indicated no statistically significant difference between the drugs with regard to minor or major adverse effects (fixed-effect model; RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.91–1.54, P = 0.20; and RR = 1.63, 95% CI = 0.22–11.82, P = 0.63, respectively). This meta-analysis demonstrated that tamsulosin was more effective than nifedipine in patients with LUS, as evidenced by the higher stone expulsion rate. Tamsulosin treatment should therefore be considered for patients with LUS.