Prospective randomized trial comparing efficacy of alfuzosin and tamsulosin in management of lower ureteral stones

Effect of alpha-adrenoceptor antagonists on sexual function. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Alpha-adrenoreceptor antagonists or alpha-blockers are used in the treatment of hypertension, in the therapy of benign prostatic hyperplasia and in medical expulsive treatment of ureteral stones. These agents may affect the sexual function, with differences between drugs within the same class, depending on their selectivity for receptor subtypes. The aim of this review was to analyze the effects of alpha-blockers on sexual function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE and other databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting sexual adverse effects in patients treated with alpha-blockers. Odds ratios for sexual dysfunction were calculated using random effects Mantel-Haenszel statistics.

RESULTS

Out of 608 records retrieved, 75 eligible RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, alphablockers were associated with increased odds of ejaculatory disorders both in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (OR: 7.53, 95% CI: 3.77-15.02, Z = 5.73, p < 0.00001, I2 = 55%) and in patients with ureteral stones (OR: 2.88, 95% CI: 1.50-5.44, Z = 3.19, p < 0.001, I2 = 31%). Uroselective alpha-blockers showed higher odds of ejaculatory disorders. Conversely, nonselective alpha-blockers were not associated with higher odds of ejaculatory dysfunction. Silodosin was associated with increased odds of ejaculatory dysfunction compared with tamsulosin (OR: 3.52, 95% CI: 2.18-5.68, 15 series, 1512 participants, Z = 5.15, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Naftopidil and alfuzosin showed lower odds of ejaculatory dysfunction compared to uroselective alpha-blockers.No statistically significant differences in the odds of erectile dysfunction were observed when alpha-blockers were compared to placebo.

EFFICACY OF DOXAZOSIN VERSUS TAMSULOSIN IN LOWER URETERIC STONE EXPULSION IN ADULT POPULATION OF DISTRICT DERA ISMAIL KHAN, PAKISTAN

Background: Urolithiasis is the third common disease of the urinary tract after UTIs and pathological diseases of the prostate. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of doxazosin versus tamsulosin in lower ureteric stone expulsion in adult population of District Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan.Materials Methods: This non-randomized control trial was conducted in the Department of Urology, Gomal Medical College, Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan from February 2020 to December 2020. The 252 patients included in our study were divided in to two groups. The patients in experimental group received Tab. doxazosin 4 mg daily for 4 weeks and Tab. diclofenac sodium 50 mg B.D for 5 days and then on need basis. The patients in control group received Cap. tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily for 4 weeks and similarly Tab. diclofenac sodium 50 mg as in experimental group. All the patients were followed regularly for expulsion of ureteric stones for four weeks. Sex, age and stone size were matching, while stone expulsion was a research variable. Hypothesis was verified by McNemar chi-square test.Results: Out of 252 patients, 113 (89.68%) patients in experimental group, while 77 (61.11%) patients in control group passed the stones. There was statistically significant difference in efficacy in doxazosin group as compared to tamsulosin group (p-value=.0001).Conclusion: The use of doxazosin as the medical expulsion therapy for the lower ureteric stone proved to be more effective as compared to tamsulosin as demonstrated by our results.

EFFICACY OF ALFUZOSIN VERSUS CONTROL GROUP IN UPPER URETERIC STONE EXPULSION IN ADULT POPULATION OF LAHORE, PAKISTAN

Background: Urinary stone disease is one of the commonest urological diseases worldwide. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of alfuzosin versus control group in upper ureteric stone expulsion in adult population of district Lahore, Pakistan.Materials Methods: This trial was conducted in Department of Urology, Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan form January 2017 to June 2017. All adult patients with upper ureteric stone size 5-10 mm were eligible. Those with multiple stones, having fever, severe pain, history of surgery in past two weeks and growth on urine culture or pyuria were excluded. Experimental and control groups each had 30 patients. Experimental group received Tab. alfuzosin 10 mg daily for four weeks and Tab. diclofenac sodium 50 mg SOS for acute pain. The control group received Tab. diclofenac sodium 50 mg SOS for acute pain. We followed all patients for four weeks for expulsion of ureteric stones by X-ray KUB or CT KUB. Sex, age and stone size were matching variables. Stone expulsion (yes, no) was research variable. We compared count of stone expulsion between two groups by using McNemar chi-square test at alpha 0.5 using GraphPad.Results: Out of 30 patients in experimental group, 23 (76.67%) were men and seven (23.33%) women and out of 30 in control group, 20 (66.67%) were men and 10 (33.33%) women, almost similar in both groups. Mean age in experimental group was 39.45±10.33 years and in control group it was 37.38±8.28 years, almost similar in both groups. Mean stone size was 7.45±1.47 (5-10) mm in the experimental and 7.28±1.68 (5-10) mm in control group, being comparable in both the groups. In experimental group, stone expulsion was achieved in 23 (76.67%) cases and not in seven (23.33%) cases and in control group, it was achieved in 16 (53.33%) cases and not in 14 (46.67%) cases. There was statistically no significant difference in efficacy of alfuzosin versus control group (p=.1213).Conclusion: Our study showed no difference in efficacy of alfuzosin versus control group for upper ureteric stone expulsion in adult population of district Lahore, Pakistan.

Comparison of efficacy of various drugs used for medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Medical expulsive therapy has been found to be effective for distal ureteric stones; however, which drug is most efficacious in terms of stone expulsion rate (SER) and stone expulsion time (SET) is not known. With this review we aimed to compare the efficacy of various drug treatments for distal ureter stones used as medical expulsive therapy in terms of SER and SET.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was conducted to include all the randomised study comparing various drug interventions for lower ureter stones. Standard preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis for network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) were pursued.

RESULTS

In this review, 50 randomised studies with 12,382 patients were included. For stone expulsion rate (SER), compared with placebo all the treatment groups were more effective except nifedipine and sildenafil. According to the SUCRA values obtained, naftopidil plus steroid was the highest rank and nifedipine lowest. For stone expulsion time (SET), compared with placebo only tadalafil plus silodosin, nifedipine plus steroid, alfuzosin, silodosin, tadalafil and tamsulosin were more effective. SUCRA values were highest for tadalafil plus silodosin and least for naftopidil plus steroid. From subgroup analysis with individual drugs for SER, SUCRA values were highest for naftopidil followed by silodosin and SET was highest for silodosin and least for naftopidil.

CONCLUSION

For lower ureter stone, tadalafil plus silodosin is the best combination and silodosin best individual drug considering the SET and SER. Nifedipine as monotherapy is no more effective than control group.

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.

Evaluation of the efficacy of sexual intercourse on distal ureteral stones in women: a prospective, randomized, controlled study

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of sexual intercourse in the expulsion of distal ureteric stones in women.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of seventy woman patients with distal ureteral or intramural stone were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 included 35 patients who were advised to do sexual intercourse 3-4 times/week with the administration of symptomatic treatment, and group 2 (control group) included 35 patients receiving symptomatic treatment only and were instructed not to do sexual intercourse or masturbation during the study. After 4 weeks follow up; the expulsion rate, need for analgesic and ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy were compared for each group.

RESULTS

The mean ages of the patients in groups 1 and 2 were 36.4 ± 10.8, 37.1 ± 12.4, respectively. The mean stone size was 7.01 ± 1.6 in group 1, 6.67 ± 1.4 mm in group 2 (p: 0.3). Stone expulsion rate, in the first 2 weeks for group 1 was 80% (28/35), while 51.4% (18/35) in group 2 (p < 0.001). In the 4th week, the expulsion rate for group 1 was 85.7%, but 60% in group 2 (p < 0.001). The mean expulsion time was shorter in group 1 (12 ± 4.2 days) than group 2 (16.1 ± 6.4 days) (p < 0.01). The analgesic needs in groups 1 and 2 were found to be 1.9 ± 0.7, 2.6 ± 0.8 times/a day respectively, and were significantly lower in group 1 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

At least three or four sexual intercourses per week seem to increase the spontaneous passage for distal or intramural ureteral stones in women. Furthermore, sexual intercourse reduces the need for analgesics.

Is tamsulosin effective for the passage of symptomatic ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some trials have stated that there is no benefit to tamsulosin administration for clearing ureteral stones, which is contrary to previous studies. To confirm the efficacy of tamsulosin for treating symptomatic ureteral stones, we performed this review.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all studied variables, including tamsulosin, urinary stones, expulsion, and side effects. In addition, for all patients and different stone sizes, the treatment efficacy, expulsion rate, and expulsion time were also recorded for this treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies involving 6436 patients met the inclusion criteria. The data synthesized from these studies indicated that tamsulosin improved the renal stone clearance rate (80.5% vs 70.5%; mean difference (MD), 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-1.19; P <.00001) and reduced the expulsion time (MD, -3.61; 95% CI, -3.77 to -3.46; P ≤.00001). Regarding complications, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups in terms of the total side effects (MD, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.35; P = .10) or divided complications, including retrograde ejaculation (P = .01), hypotension (P = .52), dizziness (P = .07), diarrhea (P = .58), vomiting (P = .88), headache (P = .84), nausea (P = .91), and fatigue (P = .10).

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin should be strongly recommended for patients with ureteral stones to increase treatment efficacy. The side effects were not significantly different between the tamsulosin and control treatments.

Predictor Role of Pretreatment Resistive and Pulsatile Indexes in the Success of Medical Expulsive Therapy of Ureteral Stones

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the role of renal resistive index (RI) and pulsatile index levels measured with renal Doppler ultrasonography in predicting the success of medical expulsive treatment in patients with ureteral stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients admitted to our clinic between January and December 2017 with a ureteral stone of less than 1 cm in diameter were evaluated in terms of their RI and pulsatile index values obtained using Doppler ultrasonography, and the localization and diameter of their stone and grade of hydronephrosis using computed tomography at the time of admission. After 4 weeks of medical expulsive treatment with tamsulosin, spontaneous stone passage was assessed to investigate the relationship between the data obtained before treatment and the success of medical expulsive treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-eight of 71 patients passed the stone spontaneously after treatment (67.6%). Among the related variables, the largest diameter of stone and ipsilateral RI levels were independently associated with the success of medical expulsive treatment (P <.001). In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, a RI value of less than 0.72 was associated with spontaneous stone expulsion with a sensitivity of 89.6%, a specificity of 69.6%, and a positive predictive value of 97%.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to predict the success of medical expulsive treatment using RI levels. We anticipate that in patients who are not likely to pass the stones spontaneously with medical treatment, surgery should not be postponed to avoid irreversible kidney damage.

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).

Comparative efficacy of tamsulosin versus tadalafil as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones

Objective:

The objective of this study was to compare the relative efficacy of tamsulosin and tadalafil as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones.

Patients and Methods:

This was a prospective study performed between December 2014 and February 2016. A total of 123 adult patients (>18 years of age) presenting with distal ureteric stones sized 6–10 mm were randomized to treatment with tamsulosin 0.4 mg once daily (Group A) or tadalafil10 mg once daily (Group B). Therapy was given for a maximum of 4 weeks. The stone expulsion rate was the primary endpoint. Time to stone expulsion, number of colic episodes, analgesic use, number of hospital visits for pain, endoscopic treatment, and adverse effects of the drugs were noted. Statistical analyses were done using Fisher's exact test and Chi-square test.

Results:

A total of 61 patients were included in tamsulosin group and 62 patients in tadalafil group. A statistically insignificant difference was found for stone clearance rate between both groups as a whole (Group A-73.77%, Group B-69.35%, P = 0.690) as well as when we considered both subgroups (A1-78.05%, B1-75.0%, P = 0.802; A2-65.0%, B2-55.6%, P = 0.741). All the primary and secondary outcome measures were more in favour of stones ≤8 mm size than stones >8 mm size. No statistical difference was found for adverse drug effects except for retrograde ejaculation, which was significantly high in tamsulosin group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion:

This study showed that although tamsulosin is more effective for stone clearance than tadalafil, but this difference was not significant (P = 0.690).

Efficacy and Safety of Tamsulosin in Medical Expulsive Therapy for Distal Ureteral Stones with Renal Colic: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Recent large high-quality trials have questioned the clinical effectiveness of medical expulsive therapy using tamsulosin for ureteral stones.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin for distal ureteral stones compared with placebo.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 3296 patients with distal ureteral stones, across 30 centers, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) into tamsulosin (0.4mg) or placebo groups for 4 wk.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary end point of analysis was the overall stone expulsion rate, defined as stone expulsion, confirmed by negative findings on computed tomography, over a 28-d surveillance period. Secondary end points included time to stone expulsion, use of analgesics, and incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among 3450 patients randomized between September 1, 2011, and August 31, 2013, 3296 (96%) were included in the primary analysis. Tamsulosin benefits from a higher stone expulsion rate than the placebo (86% vs 79%; p<0.001) for distal ureteral stones. Subgroup analysis identified a specific benefit of tamsulosin for the treatment of large distal ureteral stones (>5mm). Considering the secondary end points, tamsulosin-treated patients reported a shorter time to expulsion (p<0.001), required lower use of analgesics compared with placebo (p<0.001), and significantly relieved renal colic (p<0.001). No differences in the incidence of adverse events were identified between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that tamsulosin use benefits distal ureteral stones in facilitating stone passage and relieving renal colic. Subgroup analyses find that tamsulosin provides a superior expulsion rate for stones >5mm, but no effect for stones ≤5mm.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this report, we looked at the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin for the treatment of distal ureteral stones. We find that tamsulosin significantly facilitates the passage of distal ureteral stones and relieves renal colic.

To compare the efficacy of tamsulosin and alfuzosin as medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones

Aims and Objectives:

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of tamsulosin and alfuzosin for the distal ureteral stone. This study assessed the spontaneous passage and expulsion of the stone.

Materials and Methods:

The study was conducted in the Department of Surgery at Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala, from May 2013 to May 2014. A total number of 136 patients diagnosed as distal ureteric stone (US) of size <10 mm were included in this study. It was divided into two groups (I and II) out of which 36 cases were excluded. Group I received tablet tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day, and Group II received alfuzosin 10 mg/day. The efficacy of tamsulosin and alfuzosin as an adjunctive medical therapy was determined.

Results:

Both the drugs can be safely used for the distal USs. The stone expulsion rate was seen in 36 patients (72.0%) in Group I, and in 34 patients (68.0%) in Group II (P = 0.545). The passage of stones noticed by 32 patients in each Groups I and II (P = 1.000). The mean number of pain attacks was 2.91 ± 1.01 for Group I, and 1.8 ± 0.83 for Group II (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). Thus, we propagate the use of alfuzosin significantly lower number of pain attacks. The drug-related side-effects were postural hypertension (four in Group I and one in Group II) and retrograde ejaculation (eight in Group I, and one in Group II). Thus, the difference was statistically significant in terms of retrograde ejaculation but insignificant for postural hypotension.

Conclusion:

There is no difference between both medications in term of efficacy (passing stones) for the management of distal ureteral stones. Both medications are safe and effective. In addition, alfuzosin was better tolerated than tamsulosin as it has fewer side effects.

Spontaneous forniceal rupture: Can it be treated conservatively?

CONTEXT

Spontaneous forniceal rupture is one of the possible complications of urolithiasis. The mechanism of forniceal rupture is not well explained in the literature. Most of the cases presented with sudden onset of acute renal colic and diagnosed by noncontrast CT (NCCT). Until now there is no solid consensus about the ideal management of such a condition.

AIM

To study indications and validity of conservative management of spontaneous caliceal rupture.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

This is an observational prospective study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All cases diagnosed as spontaneous forniceal rupture in our departments from 2011 to 2015 were enrolled. All cases were diagnosed with NCCT or CT-Urography.. Non complicated patients were primarily managed conservatively. Intervention (DJ stent insertion, nephrostomy tube insertion, or urgent ureteroscopy) was reserved to complicated cases or solitary kidney. Drainage of urinoma was done in cases with sizable urinoma (more than 100 ml³).

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients: Twenty eight (70%) patients had normal serum creatinine level at presentation, while 12 (30%) patients had elevated serum creatinine. Twenty three (57.5%) patients were successfully managed conservatively, their mean size of stone was 6.2 ± 2 mm and the hospital stay was 3.1 ± 1.9 days. Eighteen patients (42.5%) underwent interventions. Their stone size was 4.5 ± 2.1 mm and the hospital stay for the interventional group was 4.2 ± 1.8 days.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Mann-Whitney test was used for testing difference between means because the data groups are not parametric. Otherwise, simple descriptive statestics were used.

CONCLUSION

Spontaneous forniceal rupture is more likely to occur with smaller distal ureteric stones. Conservative management is a valid option in non-complicated cases. Intervention should be reserved to complicated cases or cases with sizable urinoma.

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.

Evaluation of the efficacy of sexual intercourse in expulsion of distal ureteric stones

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of sexual intercourse in expulsion of distal ureteric stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 56 patients with distal ureteric or intramural stone. The stones size ranged from 5 to 10 mm and were detected by US, plain X-ray film, and non-enhanced CT. The patients were divided randomly into group A included 28 patients who were advised to do sexual intercourse 3-4 times/week with administration of symptomatic treatment, and group B included 28 patients receiving symptomatic treatment only (control group) and were instructed not to do sexual intercourse or masturbation during the study. Follow-up (4 weeks) was done by plain X-ray, US, and urine analysis every week and by asking the patients about stone passage, time of expulsion, number of colicky attacks, and analgesic injections.

RESULTS

Group A patients mean age was 36.5 ± 10.7 years and group B 37.3 ± 12.5 years. Stone expulsion rate, in the first 2 weeks for group A, was 82% (23/28), while in group B 53% (16/28), (P = 0.006). At the fourth week, expulsion rate for group A reached to 89%, but in group B 71.4%. The mean expulsion time was shorter in group A (11.9 ± 4.4 days) than group B (16.2 ± 6.7 days). The number of colicky attacks and analgesics for group A was less than group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Practicing sexual intercourse for 3-4 times/week for married male patients with distal ureteric stone (5-10 mm) increases the expulsion rate and decreases the frequency of renal colic and the needs for analgesic.

Outcome of α-blockers, with or without methylprednisolone combination, in medical expulsive therapy for lower ureteric stones: A prospective randomised study

Objectives

To compare the safety and efficacy of tamsulosin, alfuzosin, and their combinations with methylprednisolone, in the medical management of lower ureteric stones.

Patients and methods

Between September 2012 and June 2014, patients diagnosed with a single lower ureteric stone of ⩽10 mm (longest dimension) were enrolled. Patients with urinary tract infection, severe hydronephrosis, pregnancy, hypertension, diabetes, ulcer disease, or renal insufficiency were excluded. According to the medication added to the analgesic anti-inflammatory, patients were stratified into four groups, with 53 patients in each. Group I patients received tamsulosin 0.4 mg and those in Group II received tamsulosin 0.4 mg and methylprednisolone 8 mg. Group III patients received alfuzosin 10 mg and those in Group IV received alfuzosin 10 mg and methylprednisolone 8 mg. Treatment was continued until stone expulsion or to a maximum of 2 weeks. The patients’ demographics, stone criteria, and stone-free rates were calculated and analysed.

Results

The mean (SD) maximum stone dimension was 7.8 (1.5), 8.1 (1.3), 7.9 (1.6) and 8.0 (1.4) mm in Groups I, II, III and IV, respectively. Groups II and IV had significantly higher stone-free rates than Groups I and III (P < 0.05), whilst there were no statistically significant differences between Groups I and III or between Groups II and IV. There was no statistical difference among the four groups for the time to stone expulsion. Three patients in Group II and two patients in Group IV developed transient hyperglycaemia, which resolved after cessation of methylprednisolone.

Conclusions

The combination of alfuzosin or tamsulosin with methylprednisolone seems to be effective and safe for managing lower ureteric stones of <1 cm.

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.

Silodosin vs tamsulosin in the management of distal ureteric stones: A prospective randomised study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of silodosin (8 mg) vs tamsulosin (0.4 mg), as a medical expulsive therapy, in the management of distal ureteric stones (DUS) in terms of stone clearance rate and stone expulsion time.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective randomised study was conducted on 115 patients, aged 21-55 years, who had unilateral DUS of ⩽10 mm. Patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 received silodosin (8 mg) and Group 2 received tamsulosin (0.4 mg) daily for 1 month. The patients were followed-up by ultrasonography, plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder, and computed tomography (in some cases).

RESULTS

There was a significantly higher stone clearance rate of 83% in Group 1 vs 57% in Group 2 (P = 0.007). Group 1 also showed a significant advantage for stone expulsion time and analgesic use. Four patients, two in each group, discontinued the treatment in first few days due to side-effects (orthostatic hypotension). No severe complications were recorded during the treatment period. Retrograde ejaculation was recorded in nine and three patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that silodosin is more effective than tamsulosin in the management of DUS for stone clearance rates and stone expulsion times. A multicentre study on larger scale is needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of silodosin.

Efficacy and Safety of Alfuzosin as Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Alfuzosin has been widely used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatitis, and is claimed to be a selective agent for the lower urinary tract with low incidence of adverse side-effects and hypotensive changes. Recently, several randomized controlled trials have reported using Alfuzosin as an expulsive therapy of ureteral stones. Tamsulosin, another alpha blocker, has also been used as an agent for the expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. It is unclear whether alfuzosin has similar efficacy as Tamsulosin in the management of ureteral stones.

Objective

To perform a systematic review and analysis of literatures comparing Alfuzosin with Tamsulosin or standard conservative therapy for the treatment of ureteral stones less than 10 mm in diameter.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed in December 2014 using Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases to identify relevant studies. All randomized and controlled trials were included. A subgroup analysis was performed comparing Alfuzosin with control therapy on the management of distal ureteral stones.

Results

Alfuzosin provided a significantly higher stone-free rate than the control treatments (RR: 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35–2.55; p<0.001), and a shorter stone expulsion time (Weighted mean difference [WMD]: -4.20 d, 95%CI, -6.19 to -2.21; p<0.001), but it has a higher complication rate (RR: 2.02; 95% CI, 1.30–3.15; p<0.01). When Alfuzosin was compared to Tamsulosin, there was no significant difference in terms of stone-free rate (RR: 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79–1.02; p = 0.09) as well as the stone expulsion time (WMD: 0.52 d, 95%CI, -1.61 to 2.64; p = 0.63). The adverse effects of Alfuzosin were similar to those of Tamsulosin (RR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.61–1.26; p = 0.47).

Conclusions

Alfuzosin is a safe and effective agent for the expulsive therapy of ureteral stones smaller than 10 mm in size. It is more effective than therapeutic regiment without alpha blocker. It is equivalent to Tamsulosin in its effectiveness and safety profile. Adverse effects should always be kept in mind when use this class of drugs.

Efficacy of nifedipine and alfuzosin in the management of distal ureteric stones: A randomized, controlled study

INTRODUCTION

Stone disease is a significant and world-wide health problem. Recently, certain drugs have been used as a supplement to observation alone in an effort to improve spontaneous stone expulsion. We evaluated the efficacy of nifedipine and alfuzosin in the medical treatment of symptomatic, uncomplicated distal ureteral stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a randomized controlled prospective study to determine the efficacy of alfuzosin and nifedipine as an adjunctive medical therapy, to increases the stone-expulsion rates in distal ureteric calculus of size ≤10 mm. Investigators and patients were blinded to the randomization scheme. Patients were randomly divided into three equal groups of 35 patients each. Patients in Group I received tablet nifedipine 30 mg/day, Group II received alfuzosin 10 mg/day and Group III was the control group received tablet diclofenac sodium. The patient blood pressure, stone position on imaging, number of pain attacks, time of stone-expulsion, hospital re-admission and any adverse events were assessed. Patients were followed-up weekly and continued until the patient was rendered stone free or up to 28 days. Statistical analysis was performed and P < 0.05 was considered to be significant.

RESULTS

Stone-expulsion was observed in 60%, 85.7% and 20% patients in Group I, II and III respectively. A statistically significant difference was noted in between Groups I versus III, Groups II versus III and Groups I versus II (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, and P < 0.0315 respectively). The mean number of pain attacks was 2.91 ± 1.01 for Group I, 1.8 ± 0.83 for Group II, and 2.82 ± 1.12 for Group III, which is statistical significant in Groups II versus III, and Groups I versus II (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). Hospital re-admission rate was less in treatment groups when compare to control group (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The use of alfuzosin and nifedipine as a medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones proved to be safe and effective in term of increased stone-expulsion rate, reduced pain attacks and decrease hospital re-admissions.

Effects by silodosin on the partially obstructed rat ureter in vivo and on human and rat isolated ureters

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

α1 -adrenoceptor (-AR) antagonists may facilitate ureter stone passage in humans. We aimed to study effects by the α1 A -AR selective antagonist silodosin (compared to tamsulosin and prazosin) on ureter pressures in a rat model of ureter obstruction, and on contractions of human and rat isolated ureters.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

After ethical approval, ureters of male rats were cannulated beneath the kidney pelvis for in vivo ureteral intraluminal recording of autonomous peristaltic pressure waves. A partial ureter obstruction was applied to the distal ureter. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) was recorded. Approximate clinical and triple clinical doses of the α1 -AR antagonists were given intravenously. Effects by the α1 -AR antagonists on isolated human and rat ureters were studied in organ baths.

KEY RESULTS

Intravenous silodosin (0.1-0.3 mg kg(-1) ) or prazosin (0.03-0.1 mg kg(-1) ) reduced obstruction-induced increases in intraluminal ureter pressures by 21-37% or 18-40% respectively. Corresponding effects by tamsulosin (0.01 or 0.03 mg kg(-1) ) were 9-20%. Silodosin, prazosin and tamsulosin reduced MAP by 10-12%, 25-26% (P < 0.05), or 18-25% (P < 0.05) respectively. When effects by the α1 A -AR antagonists on obstruction-induced ureter pressures were expressed as a function of MAP, silodosin had six- to eightfold and 2.5- to eightfold better efficacy than tamsulosin or prazosin respectively. Silodosin effectively reduced contractions of both human and rat isolated ureters.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Silodosin inhibits contractions of the rat and human isolated ureters and has excellent functional selectivity in vivo to relieve pressure-load of the rat obstructed ureter. Silodosin as pharmacological ureter stone expulsive therapy should be clinically further explored.

Tamsulosin for treatment of unilateral distal ureterolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The lifetime prevalence of ureterolithiasis is approximately 13% for men and 7% for women in the United States. Tamsulosin, an α-antagonist, has been used as therapy to facilitate the expulsion of lithiasis. Whether it is a good treatment for distal lithiasis remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of tamsulosin on the passage of distal ureterolithiasis.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central. Trial eligibility was evaluated by two investigators. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tamsulosin to standard therapy or placebo for the treatment of a single distal ureterolithiasis ≤ 10 mm in adult patients with renal colic confirmed by radiographic imaging were included. Data extraction was conducted in duplicate. Primary outcome was the expulsion rate, and secondary outcomes were the mean time for ureterolithiasis expulsion, analgesic requirements, and side effects. Mantel-Haenszel random effect models were used, and heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics. Data were presented with relative risks (RRs).

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 685 articles, of which 22 studies were included. Combined results suggested a benefit for the expulsion of ureterolithiasis (≤ 10 mm) when tamsulosin was used compared to a standard treatment (RR 1.50 [95% CI 1.31-1.71], I²  =  70%). A decrease in the average time of expulsion of the ureterolithiasis of 3.33 days in favour of tamsulosin was observed (95% CI -4.23, -2.44], I²  =  67%).

CONCLUSION

Tamsulosin increases the rate of spontaneous passage of distal ureterolithiasis (≤ 10 mm).

Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones

BACKGROUND

Urinary stone disease is one of the most common reasons for patients visiting a urology practice, affecting about 5% to 10% of the population. Annual costs for stone disease have rapidly increased over the years and most patients with ureteral colic or other symptoms seek medical care. Stone size and location are important predictors of stone passage. In most cases medical expulsive therapy is an appropriate treatment modality and most studies have been performed with alpha-blockers. Alpha-blockers tend to decrease intra-ureteral pressure and increase fluid passage which might increase stone passage. Faster stone expulsion will decrease the rate of complications, the need for invasive interventions and eventually decrease healthcare costs. A study on the effect of alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy in ureteral stones is therefore warranted.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to answer the following question: does medical treatment with alpha-blockers compared to other pharmacotherapy or placebo impact on stone clearance rate, in adult patients presenting with symptoms of ureteral stones less than 10 mm confirmed by imaging? Other clinically relevant outcomes such as stone expulsion time, hospitalisation, pain scores, analgesic use and adverse effects have also been explored.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 9 July 2012 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, handsearching conference proceedings, and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing alpha-blockers with other pharmacotherapy or placebo on ureteral stone passage in adult patients were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Reporting bias was investigated using funnel plots. Subgroup analysis was used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed removing studies of poor methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-two studies (5864 participants) were included. The stone-free rates were significantly higher in the alpha-blocker group (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.64) when compared to standard therapy. Stone expulsion time was 2.91 days shorter with the use of alpha-blockers (MD -2.91, 95% CI -4.00 to -1.81). Use of alpha-blockers reduced the number of pain episodes (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.01), the need for analgesic medication (diclofenac) (MD -38.17 mg, 95% CI -74.93 to -1.41) and hospitalisation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.97). Patients using alpha-blockers were more likely to experience adverse effects when compared to standard therapy (RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.45) or placebo (RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.96). Most adverse effects were mild of origin and did not lead to cessation of therapy, and several studies reported no adverse events in either the treatment or control group.In 7/32 studies patients and doctors were both blinded. In the other studies blinding was not described in the methods or no blinding had taken place. Two studies described incomplete data and only one study showed a relatively high number of patients who withdrew from the study. These factors limited the methodological strength of the evidence found.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of alpha-blockers in patients with ureteral stones results in a higher stone-free rate and a shorter time to stone expulsion. Alpha-blockers should therefore be offered as part of medical expulsive therapy as one of the primary treatment modalities.

Spontaneous renal pelvis rupture: unexpected complication of urolithiasis expected to passage with observation therapy

Seventy percent of ureteral stones are located at distal ureter. Effective and safe passage of distal ureter stones is mediated by observation or medical expulsive treatment. Most of stones located at distal ureter pass spontaneously under observation; however, some are complicated with urinary tract infection, hydronephrosis, and renal function disturbances. Spontaneous perforation of the upper ureter is a rare condition that poses diagnostic and therapeutic problems. This case is reported, because the patient developed an unexpected spontaneous renal pelvis rupture (SRPR), while she was under observation and expected to pass her right ureteral stone spontaneously through hydration and analgesic treatment.

Does the endoscopic treatment of lower ureter stones affect uroflowmetric values? A prospective clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to document if stones at the lower ureter alter the micturition capability of the patients and to investigate whether endoscopic removal of these stones restores normal urinary flow rates or not in the 3 months of follow-up.

METHODS

Forty patients with lower ureteral stone (group 1) and 20 control subjects with proximal ureteral stone (group 2) were enrolled into the study. All patients underwent uroflowmetry testing before and 3 months after the treatment for endoscopic stone removal. The mean average and peak flow rates with a sufficient voided volume (≥150 ml) were evaluated before and after surgery and compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Mean values of the peak flow rates before and after surgery were 20.3 and 27.5 ml/s in group 1 and 22.5 and 23.6 ml/s in group 2, and the mean average flow rate values before and after surgery were 10.5 and 13.6 ml/s in group 1 and 11.4 and 12.1 ml/s in group 2. Statistically significant differences were determined between before and after ureteroscopy values were determined in terms of average (p < 0.05) and peak flow rates (p < 0.01) in group I; however, there no significant difference was seen in the control group.

CONCLUSION

We document for the first time in the literature that patients with lower ureteric stones have a reduction in their urinary stream which resolves with endoscopic removal of the stones.

Efficacy and safety of tamsulosin vs. alfuzosin as medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the efficacy of tamsulosin and alfuzosin as medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 112 patients with ureteric stones of ⩽10 mm, located along the ureter, were randomly divided into three groups. In group I, 32 patients received no α-blockers (controls), in group II 40 patients received tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily, and in group III 40 patients received alfuzosin 10 mg daily. All patients were given analgesia and antibiotics when indicated. The follow-up was weekly for 4 weeks.

RESULTS

The mean stone size and age were comparable in the three groups. The stone expulsion rate was 44%, 85% and 75% in groups I, II and III, respectively. Half of the stones in group II passed within 2 weeks, half in group III passed within 3 weeks, while more than half of the stones in group I did not pass even after 4 weeks. The mean number of painful episodes was 2.45, 1.38 and 1.64 in groups I, II and III, respectively. The drug-related side-effects reported by patients were mild and transient.

CONCLUSION

The use of tamsulosin or alfuzosin as medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones in the three sections of the ureter (upper, middle and lower) was safe and effective, as shown by the increased overall stone expulsion rate, reduced stone expulsion time and fewer pain episodes. Tamsulosin was associated with a greater rate of stone expulsion than was alfuzosin.

Pharmacologic treatment of kidney stone disease

This article reviews the data on pharmacologic treatment of kidney stone disease, with a focus on prophylaxis against stone recurrence. One of the most effective and important therapies for stone prevention, an increase in urine volume, is not discussed because this is a dietary and not a pharmacologic intervention. Also reviewed are medical expulsive therapy used to improve the spontaneous passage of ureteral stones and pharmacologic treatment of symptoms associated with ureteral stents. The goal is to review the literature with a focus on the highest level of evidence (ie, randomized controlled trials).

Can tamsulosin facilitate expulsion of ureteral stones? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of the adrenergic alpha-antagonist tamsulosin in facilitating ureteral stones expulsion.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out using the PubMed database, Medline via Ovid, Embase and the Cochrane Library database to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficiency of tamsulosin in the treatment of ureteral stones. Meta-analysis and forest plots were carried out by use of Review Manager version 5.1 software (Cochrane Collaboration).

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, the tamsulosin group had an increase in expulsion rate of 51% and a decrease in expulsion time of 2.63 days. Furthermore, tamsulosin was found to reduce the risk of ureteral colic during treatment by 40% and also the risk of requirement of auxiliary procedures during follow up by 60%. In terms of safety, the tamsulosin group had a 117% increase in the incidence of side-effects compared with the control group, especially for incidence of dizziness.

CONCLUSION

Tamsulosin facilitates the expulsion of ureteral calculi by providing a higher expulsion rate, a shorter expulsion time, a lower incidence of ureteral colic during treatment and a lower requirement of auxiliary procedures. However, the incidence of dizziness occurring during tamsulosin treatment is significantly higher in this setting.

Tamsulosin for ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy of tamsulosin as a medical expulsive therapy of ureteral stones.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ISI-Science Citation Index up to December 2011. All randomized controlled trials were identified in which patients were randomized to receive either tamsulosin or standard therapy with/without placebo for ureteral stones. Outcome measures assessed were overall stone expulsion rate (primary) and expulsion time, and the number of pain episodes (secondary). Three authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. All data were analyzed using RevMan 5.0.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine trials with a total of 2,763 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis showed a 19% improvement in stone clearance with tamsulosin. According to the doses of tamsulosin, the pooling effects of tamsulosin were analyzed, with a higher expulsion rate obtained than in controls. Compared with calcium channel blockers, there was a higher stone expulsion rate in tamsulosin. In addition, a shorter expulsion time, fewer colic episodes and adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin is a safe and effective medical expulsive therapy choice for ureteral stones. It should be recommended for most patients with distal ureteral stones before stones are 10 mm in size. In future, high-quality multicenter, randomized and placebo-controlled trials are needed to evaluate the outcome.

Effects of alfuzosin with methylprednisolone for spontaneous expulsion and pain control of lower ureteral stone

The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of alfuzosin with methylprednisolone on expulsion and pain control of lower ureteral stones <10 mm in size. Between June 2005 and June 2007, 113 patients with lower ureteral stones <10 mm in size were enrolled in the study. The patients were divided into a control group (group I) and medical expulsive therapy group (group II). Group I (n = 66) received oral analgesics daily and group II (n = 47) received the same analgesics along with 10 mg alfuzosin and 8 mg methylprednisolone for 4 weeks orally once a day. The treatment was continued until stone expulsion or to a maximum of 4 weeks. All patients were allowed 25 mg pethidine hydrochloride intramuscular injections if needed for suboptimal pain control. The average stone size was 6.15 mm in group I and 5.42 mm in group II. Of the 113 patients, 80 became stone free (70.7%). Group II had significantly higher stone free rates (82.9 vs. 62.1%, p = 0.014), fewer expulsion times (mean 4.4 vs. 7.3 days, p = 0.001), and mean number of intramuscular analgesic injections (0.8 vs. 2.1) compared to group I. Alfuzosin with methylprednisolone treatment seems safe and effective for lower ureteral stones <10 mm in size as demonstrated by the increased stone free rate, earlier expulsion, and reduced additional analgesic therapy.

Comparison and efficacy of low-dose and standard-dose tamsulosin and alfuzosin in medical expulsive therapy for lower ureteral calculi: prospective, randomized, comparative study

PURPOSE

Typically in Korea, for a standard dose (0.4 mg) of tamsulosin, two low doses (0.2 mg) are administered. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of tamsulosin (0.2 mg and 0.4 mg) and alfuzosin (10 mg) in the treatment of lower ureteral stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 141 patients presenting with a single 4- to 10-mm sized lower ureteral stone were randomly assigned to 4 groups. Patients in group 1 (n=41) and group 2 (n=30) received an oral dose of 0.2 mg tamsulosin once and twice daily, respectively, and patients in group 3 (n=36) received a daily oral dose of 10 mg alfuzosin. Patients in group 4 (n=34) received trospium chloride only. The spontaneous passage of stones, the stone expulsion time, and adverse effects were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in patient background, including age, sex, BMI, stone size, stone side, and symptom duration. The spontaneous stone passage rate through the ureter was higher and the stone expulsion time was faster in groups 1, 2, and 3 than in group 4. There were no statistically different changes in groups 1, 2, and 3. The adverse effects observed in all groups were comparable and were mild.

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin at 0.2 mg and 0.4 mg and alfuzosin (10 mg) proved to be safe and effective. A first cycle of medical expulsive therapy with tamsulosin 0.2 mg could be considered as an option in the management of single lower ureteral stone.