Characterization of α1-adrenoceptor Subtypes Mediating Contraction in Human Isolated Ureters

Does preoperative silodosin administration facilitate ureteral dilatation during flexible ureterorenoscopy? A randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To assess whether preoperative administration of silodosin can facilitate the placement of ureteral access sheath (UAS) prior to flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) and reduce the occurrence of ureteric injury in challenging cases.

METHODS

This prospective randomized clinical trial was carried out on 147 patients diagnosed with upper ureteric stone or stone kidney, non-stented. The patients were randomly divided into two equal groups. Group A (silodosin group) included patients in whom F-URS was done with daily preoperative intake of 8 mg silodosin for 1 week and group B (placebo/control group) included patients in whom F-URS was done with daily preoperative intake of placebo tablets.

RESULTS

In group A, a total of 23 (33.3%) experienced ureteral wall injury following UAS insertion, while in group B, this occurred in 40 patients (59.7%). There was a statistically significant difference in the grade of ureteral wall injury between the two groups (P < 0.001). In the multiple regression analysis, age, operative time and silodosin were found to be significant risk factors for ureteral wall injury (P = 0.007, 0.041 and < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of silodosin prior to retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) effectively prevented significant ureteral wall damage and reduced initial postoperative discomfort.

Does mirabegron have a potential role as a medical expulsive therapy in the treatment of distal ureteral stones? A prospective randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

The existence of β3 receptors in the bladder and ureter was documented in many studies on animals and humans, it was documented that relaxation of the lower ureteral segment is achieved by the stimulation of these receptors. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of mirabegron as a medical expulsive therapy (MET) for distal ureteral stones in comparison with silodosin and placebo.

METHODS

One hundred eighty patients with distal ureteral stone of 5-10 mm size were included in our study. They were divided into three groups, and each one consisted of 60 patients. Group I was given silodosin 8 mg, group II mirabegron 50 mg and group III placebo once daily. The treatment was prescribed for all the cases till stone expulsion or a maximum duration of 4 weeks. Primary outcome was the stone expulsion rate (SER). While secondary outcomes were stone expulsion time, side effects of the used drugs, hospital visits number for pain, and amount of analgesic taken.

RESULTS

We found that the SER was significantly higher in silodosin than mirabegron and placebo groups (61%, 38.6%, and 36.7%, respectively) (p = 0.013). Also, the stone expulsion interval was significantly shorter in silodosin than mirabegron and control groups (p < 0.001). While hospital visits number for pain, and amount of analgesic taken were comparable. There was no difference between the studied medications in terms of the adverse effects except for retrograde ejaculation (silodosin = 63.3%, mirabegron = 0%, and placebo = 0%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Mirabegron has no medical expulsive effect. While silodosin improves SER and stone expulsion time. However, retrograde ejaculation was its main side effect and occurred in 63.3% of the male patients. Therefore, more research is needed to discover a more tolerable MET.

Management of Pediatric Urolithiasis in an Italian Tertiary Referral Center: A Retrospective Analysis

Background and Objectives: In recent years, the prevalence of pediatric urolithiasis has increased in North America and Western countries, though it is endemic in developing countries. The aim of this study is to describe the experience of a tertiary pediatric referral center in the surgical management of pediatric urolithiasis. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the experience of patients ≤ 16 years old affected by urinary stones who underwent surgery. Results: From April 2021 to September 2023, 31 pediatric patients underwent surgical procedures for stone diseases at our department: 13 preschool-aged (1-5 years) and 18 school-aged (6-16 years) children. During this period, 12 URSs, 17 RIRSs, and 2 PCNLs were recorded. Five patients had residual fragments at first, so three of them underwent a second endourological lithotripsy (2 RIRSs and 1 URS). Complete clearance was finally achieved in 27 patients. The stone composition was evaluated in 25 cases. Conclusions: Numerous innovations in the surgical treatment of pediatric urolithiasis have resulted from the development of smaller devices and new technology. Our results show how, in experienced centers, retrograde and percutaneous lithotripsy are safe and effective procedures for use in pediatric populations.

Silodosin versus Tamsulosin for Medical Expulsive Therapy of Ureteral Stones: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the therapeutic effects and safety profiles of silodosin and tamsulosin for medical expulsive therapy (MET) of ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify articles published before July 2022 that described randomized controlled trials comparing silodosin and tamsulosin for MET of ureteral stones. Endpoints were stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, and total complication rate. Results: In total, 14 studies were included in our analysis. The size of ureteral stones was <1 cm. Compared with tamsulosin, silodosin resulted in a significantly higher stone expulsion rate (p < 0.01, odds ratio (OR) = 2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.91 to 3.06, I2 = 0%) and significantly shorter stone expulsion time (p < 0.01, mean difference = −3.04, 95% CI = −4.46 to −1.63, I2 = 89%). The total complication rate did not significantly differ between silodosin and tamsulosin (p = 0.33, OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.52, I2 = 7%). Conclusions: Compared with tamsulosin, silodosin resulted in significantly better expulsion of ureteral stones <1 cm. The total complication rate did not significantly differ between silodosin and tamsulosin. Thus, silodosin may be superior to tamsulosin for MET of ureter stones <1 cm.

Meta-Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of α-Adrenergic Blockers for Pediatric Urolithiasis in the Distal Ureter

OBJECTIVE

Pediatric urolithiasis is a common condition, and medical expulsive therapy has grown to be accepted by many parents. We carried out a meta-analysis to identify the efficacy and safety of α-adrenergic blockers for the treatment of pediatric urolithiasis.

METHODS

We identified related articles from the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. All published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) describing the use of α-adrenergic blockers and placebo treatment for pediatric distal urolithiasis were involved. The outcomes included stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, pain episodes, need for analgesia, adverse events, and related subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

A total of nine RCTs were involved in our study, including 586 patients. We found that α-adrenergic blockers could significantly increase the rate of stone expulsion [odds ratio (OR), 3.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.38-5.12; p < 0.00001], reduce the stone expulsion time [mean difference (MD), -5.15; 95% CI, -8.51 to -1.80; p = 0.003], and decrease pain episodes (MD, -1.02; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.72; p < 0.00001) and analgesia demand (MD, -0.92; 95% CI, -1.32 to -0.53; p < 0.00001) but had a higher incidence of side effects (MD, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.55 to 5.15; p = 0.0007). During subgroup analyses, different medications (tamsulosin, doxazosin, and silodosin) also exhibited better efficiencies than placebo, except for doxazosin, which showed no difference in expulsion time (MD, -1.23; 95% CI, -2.98 to 0.51; p = 0.17). The three kinds of α-adrenergic blockers also appeared to be better tolerated, except for tamsulosin with its greater number of adverse events (MD, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.34 to 6.03; p = 0.006). Silodosin led to a better expulsion rate than tamsulosin (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.92; p = 0.03). In addition, α-adrenergic blockers increased the stone expulsion rate regardless of stone size and decreased the expulsion time of stones measuring <5 mm (MD, -1.71; 95% CI, -2.91 to -0.52; p = 0.005), which was not the case for stones measuring >5 mm in expulsion time (MD, -3.61; 95% CI, -10.17 to 2.96; p = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

Our review suggests that α-adrenergic blockers are well-tolerated and efficient for treating pediatric distal urolithiasis. We also conclude that silodosin is the best choice of drug, offering a better expulsion rate, but it remains to be evaluated further by future studies.

Current and emerging pharmacological targets for medical expulsive therapy

The primary goals of medical expulsive therapy are to increase the rate of stone expulsion along the ureter to avoid ureteral obstruction and reduce ureteral colic and thus avoid the need for surgical and more invasive interventions. This review focussed on the findings from in vivo and in vitro animal and human studies that have investigated the pharmacological mechanisms controlling ureteral motility and their translation to current and potentially new clinically used drugs for increasing the rate of stone expulsion along the ureter. The complicated contractility profile of the ureter, which alters with age, tissue segment region, orientation and species contributes to the difficulty of interpreting studies on ureteral pharmacology, which translates to the complexity of discovering ideal drug targets for medical expulsive therapy. Nevertheless, the current drug classes clinically used for patients with stone lodgement include α₁ -adrenoceptor antagonists, calcium channel blockers and NSAIDS, whilst there are promising targets for drug development that require further clinical investigations including the phosphodiesterase type 5 enzyme, β-adrenoceptors and 5-HT receptors.

Silodosin for Prevention of Ureteral Injuries Resulting from Insertion of a Ureteral Access Sheath: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The ureteral access sheath (UAS) is an ancillary device widely used by urologists, but acute ureter injury may occur following its insertion. Preoperative selective oral α1-blockers can reduce intraureteral pressure, and prevent ureteral wall injury during UAS insertion.

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative data of patients who underwent flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) with UAS with and without premedication with silodosin.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Single-blind, 100 patients from a single institution who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney and upper ureter stone removal were prospectively allocated from May 2018 to March 2019.

INTERVENTION

The experimental groups received silodosin for 3 d preoperatively.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint included ureteral injuries after UAS insertion that were assessed according to endoscopic classification. The secondary endpoint was an evaluation of whether premedication with silodosin had any effect on postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 44 and 43 patients were randomly assigned to the control and experimental groups, respectively. Silodosin prevented significant postoperative ureteral injury involving the smooth muscle layer more successfully than in the control group (9.3% vs 27.3%; p = 0.031). There was no significant difference in the overall complication rate as determined by the modified Clavien-Dindo classification system and the computed tomography scan stone-free rate postoperatively. Patients who received silodosin before fURS reported lower pain scores than those in the control group using a visual analog scale (p = 0.009). Limitation included a lack of placebo comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that preoperative silodosin protects against significant ureteral injury related to UAS insertion during fURS and decreases postoperative pain level. Silodosin premedication might be an effective and safe technique to replace prestenting.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We investigated the preventive effect of an α-blocker against perioperative complication caused by ureteral access sheath inserted during flexible ureterorenoscopy. Taking silodosin before surgery prevented ureter wall injury during surgery and immediately improved postoperative pain.

Silodosin versus Tamsulosin as Medical Expulsive Therapy for Children with Lower-Third Ureteric Stones: Prospective Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of silodosin versus tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy for stones of lower-third ureter in children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective single-blind placebo-controlled randomized study included 167 pediatric patients who presented with distal ureteric stone (DUS) less than 1 cm. Patients were randomized into 3 groups; group I received silodosin 4 mg once daily, and group II received tamsulosin 0.4 mg while those in group III had placebo. The side effects of the used drugs, both rate and time of stone expulsion, and number of pain episodes were compared among the study groups for a maximum of 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Follow-up data of our patients after treatment revealed that the stone expulsion rate was significantly higher and the time to stone expulsion was significantly shorter in group I (89.3%, 12.4 ± 2.3 days) and group II (74.5%, 16.2 ± 4.2 days) compared to group III (51.8%, 21.2 ± 5.6). However, a statistically significant difference between silodosin and tamsulosin groups in favor of the former one was reported regarding the 2 studied items. Meanwhile, pain episodes requiring analgesia were statistically fewer in group I and II in contrast to placebo group. Adverse events were comparable among all groups.

CONCLUSION

Silodosin provides significantly better stone expulsion rate and shorter expulsion time than tamsulosin for treatment of DUS. Both medications showed good safety profiles in children. However, further studies are required on a larger scale to confirm our results. Assessment of drug safety on younger age-group is still needed.

The safety and efficacy of doxazosin in medical expulsion therapy for distal ureteric calculi: A meta-analysis

Purpose

Alpha-adrenergic receptor blockers can be effectively used in the context of medical expulsion therapy (MET) to treat ureteric stones. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of doxazosin in MET relative to placebo or tamsulosin.

Methods

We systematically searched the PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Chinese Academic Database, and Web of Science databases to select randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared the use of doxazosin with placebo or tamsulosin to treat ureteric stones. All patients we included were limited to those diagnosed with visible stones in the distal ureter. The diameter of ureteric stones does not exceed 10 mm.

Results

Eight trials comparing doxazosin with placebo or tamsulosin containing 667 patients were assessed in the final analysis. The meta-analysis showed that doxazosin effectively treated ureteric stones and was better than placebo in terms of efficacy. Relative to the placebo group, the expulsion rate of stones from the distal ureter (OR = 3.00, 95% CI [2.15, 4.19], I2 = 0%, P < 0.00001) was significantly increased, and the expulsion time (days) was shortened (mean difference) (MD) = −4.03, 95% CI [−4.53, −3.53], P < 0.00001). The doxazosin group experienced fewer pain episodes (MD = −0.78, CI = [−0.94, −0.23], I2 = 0%, P < 0.00001) than the placebo group. A subgroup analysis showed that the doxazosin group had a higher expulsion rate (of 5–10 mm stones) compared with the placebo group. Although doxazosin resulted in significantly more adverse effects compared with the placebo, the patient’s symptoms were mild and no further medical interventions were required. Moreover, the expulsion time (days) was shorter for patients receiving doxazosin (MD = −0.61, 95% CI [−0.97, −0.24], I² = 39%, P = 0.001) than those receiving tamsulosin.

Conclusion

Compared with the placebo group, patients receiving doxazosin had a greater expulsion rate, a reduced expulsion time, and fewer pain episodes. The expulsion time of doxazosin was shorter than that of tamsulosin.

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

BACKGROUND

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Pooled analysis of the efficacy and safety of adjunctive alpha-blocker therapy before ureteroscopy in the management of ureteral stones

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive alpha-blocker therapy before ureteroscopy in the management of ureteral stones.

Methods

The databases MEDLINE^®, EMBASE and The Cochrane Controlled Trail Register of Controlled Trials were searched between January 1980 and June 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that referred to the use of alpha-blockers as adjunctive therapy before ureteroscopy for the treatment of ureteral stones. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for dichotomous outcomes; and mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs were used to report continuous outcomes.

Results

The analysis included five RCTs with a total of 557 patients. Compared with placebo, patients that received adjunctive alpha-blockers had significantly higher successful access to the stone (OR 5.44; 95% CI 2.99, 9.88), a significantly higher stone-free rate at the end of week 4 (OR 3.75; 95% CI 2.20, 6.39), significantly less requirement for balloon dilatation (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.15, 0.44) and a significantly lower risk of complications (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.15, 0.42). There was no significant difference in the operation time between the two groups (MD –3.33; 95% CI –7.03, 0.37).

Conclusions

Adjunctive alpha-blocker therapy administered before ureteroscopy was effective in the management of ureteral stones with a lower risk of complications than placebo treatment.

The pharmacology of α1-adrenoceptor subtypes

This review examines the functions of α₁-adrenoceptor subtypes, particularly in terms of contraction of smooth muscle. There are 3 subtypes of α₁-adrenoceptor, α_1A- α_1B- and α_1D-adrenoceptors. Evidence is presented that the postulated α_1L-adrenoceptor is simply the native α_1A-adrenoceptor at which prazosin has low potency. In most isolated tissue studies, smooth muscle contractions to exogenous agonists are mediated particularly by α_1A-, with a lesser role for α_1D-adrenoceptors, but α_1B-adrenoceptors are clearly involved in contractions of some tissues, for example, the spleen. However, nerve-evoked responses are the most crucial physiologically, so that these studies of exogenous agonists may overestimate the importance of α_1A-adrenoceptors. The major α₁-adrenoceptors involved in blood pressure control by sympathetic nerves are the α_1D- and the α_1A-adrenoceptors, mediating peripheral vasoconstrictor actions. As noradrenaline has high potency at α_1D-adrenceptors, these receptors mediate the fastest response and seem to be targets for neurally released noradrenaline especially to low frequency stimulation, with α_1A-adrenoceptors being more important at high frequencies of stimulation. This is true in rodent vas deferens and may be true in vasopressor nerves controlling peripheral resistance and tissue blood flow. The α_lA-adrenoceptor may act mainly through Ca²⁺ entry through L-type channels, whereas the α_1D-adrenoceptor may act mainly through T-type channels and exhaustable Ca²⁺ stores. α₁-Adrenoceptors may also act through non-G-protein linked second messenger systems. In many tissues, multiple subtypes of α-adrenoceptor are present, and this may be regarded as the norm rather than exception, although one receptor subtype is usually predominant.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of sexual intercourse for distal ureteric stones

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of sexual intercourse for treatment of distal ureteral stones.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sexual intercourse for treatment of distal ureteral stones were searched using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register.

RESULTS

Three RCTs comprising 240 patients were included in the meta-analysis, which showed that sexual intercourse was effective in treating distal ureteral stones. The expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones at the second week (odds ratio [OR] = 6.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.66 to 11.94), expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones at the fourth week (OR = 4.00, 95% CI: 2.09 to 7.64), and number of analgesic injections (mean difference [MD] = -0.79, 95% CI: -1.51 to -0.08) indicated that sexual intercourse was more effective than placebo. However, the mean expulsion time of distal ureteral stones (MD = -3.98, 95% CI: -8.77 to 0.81) showed no difference between sexual intercourse and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, sexual intercourse exhibited greater efficacy for the treatment of distal ureteral stones, whilst potentially alleviating pain.

Efficacy of silodosin on the outcome of semi-rigid ureteroscopy for the management of large distal ureteric stones: blinded randomised trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of silodosin therapy, as a new α-adrenergic receptor (α-AR) blocker, on the success rate of semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) for the management of large distal ureteric stones.

Patients and methods

This prospective study recruited 127 adult patients with single distal ureteric stone of ≥1 cm. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups: the first group included 62 patients who received silodosin (8 mg) for 10 days before URS (Silodosin group), whilst the second group included 65 patients who received placebo, in the form of multivitamins, for 10 days before URS (Placebo group). All patients underwent URS and a pneumatic lithoclast was used for stone fragmentation.

Results

The mean (SD) operative time was shorter in the Silodosin group compared with the Placebo group, at 41.61 (4.67) vs 46.85 (4.6) min, respectively. Furthermore, advancing the ureteroscope to access the stone failed in a statistically significant number of patients in the Placebo group compared with the Silodosin group (13 vs two, respectively). The complication rate was significantly higher in the Placebo group compared with the Silodosin group (20% vs 6.4%, P = 0.036). Additionally, the need for postoperative analgesia was significantly lower in the Silodosin group compared with the Placebo group (8.1% vs 26.2%, P = 0.009).

Conclusion

Silodosin therapy prior to URS management of large distal ureteric stones seems to be associated with better advancing of the ureteroscope to access the stone, shorter procedure time, higher stone-free rate, lower incidence of complications, and lesser need for postoperative analgesia.

Sexual intercourse as a new option in the medical expulsive therapy of distal ureteral stones in males: a prospective, randomized, controlled study

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of sexual intercourse on the spontaneous passage of distal ureteral stones 5-10 mm in size.

METHODS

A total of 190 male patients with distal ureteral stones were randomly divided into three groups. Patients in group 1 were administered tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day (n = 60). Patients in group 2 were asked to have sexual intercourse at least three times a week (n = 66). Patients in group 3 received standard medical therapy alone and acted as the controls (n = 64). The expulsion rate was controlled after 2 and 4 weeks. Differences between the groups were analyzed statistically by the Chi-square and Student's t test. p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS

The mean ages of the patients in groups 1, 2, and 3 were 34.4 ± 13.5 (18-60), 38.6 ± 14.1 (18-63), and 36.92 ± 12.4 (18-59) years, respectively (p > 0.05). The mean stone size was 7.09 ± 1.4 mm in group 1, 7.01 ± 1.4 mm in group 2, and 7.1 ± 1.3 mm in group 3 (p > 0.05). Spontaneous passage rates in groups 1, 2, and 3 were 81.6, 81.8, and 51.5%, respectively, and it was significantly higher in group 1 (p = 0.0394) and group 2 (p = 0.0350). There was no significant difference between groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.9925). The analgesic needs in groups 1, 2, and 3 were found to be 1.3 ± 0.4, 1.2 ± 0.6, and 1.4 ± 0.4 times, respectively, and were significantly lower in the sexual intercourse group than in the control group (p = 0.0276).

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin and sexual intercourse increase the spontaneous passage of distal ureteral stones 5-10 mm in size. At least three sexual intercourses per week seem to be at least as effective as tamsulosin. Sexual intercourse also reduces the need for analgesics in ureteric colic due to ureteral stones.

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.

The efficacy and safety of silodosin for the treatment of ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of silodosin as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of silodosin in the treatment of ureteral stones. The reference lists of retrieved studies were also investigated.

Results

Six RCTs, including 916 participants and comparing silodosin with controls, were used in the meta-analysis. Silodosin was superior to controls in terms of stone expulsion rate, the primary efficacy end point in all six RCTs (odds ratio [OR] for expulsion 2.16, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.62 to 2.86, p <0.00001). Silodosin was also more effective for secondary efficacy end points; the stone expulsion time (standardized mean difference [SMD] −3.66, 95 % CI −6.61 to −0.71; p =0.01) and analgesic requirements (SMD −0.89, 95 % CI −1.19 to −0.60; p < 0.00001) were significantly reduced compared with those of controls. Other than the incidence of abnormal ejaculation, which was higher in the silodosin groups (OR 2.84, 95 % CI 1.56 to 5.16, p =0.0006), few adverse effects were observed.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis indicates silodosin is an effective and safe treatment option for ureteral stones with a low occurrence of side effects.

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.

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.

Update on medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: Beyond alpha-blockers

Medical expulsive therapy (MET) has been described as an effective conservative treatment option in the initial management of small distal ureteral stones. Therapies that have been investigated include alpha-blockers, calcium channel blockers, corticosteroids, and most recently phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5) inhibitors. While alpha-blockers are currently the only recommended monotherapy, corticosteroids have received increased attention as a potential useful adjunct in the medical management of distal stones. PDE5 inhibitors are a novel treatment alternative, requiring further investigation. This review provides an overview of recent MET best practices, with a focus on novel therapies beyond alpha-blockers.

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.

The presence and distribution of alpha adrenergic receptors in human renal pelvis and calyces

In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the presence of Alpha (α) 1 receptors and subtypes in human pelvis and calyces, because an agent to facilitate kidney stone movement and help decrease pain may be an α 1 adrenergic blocker, as used in ureteral stones. Twenty patients who applied to our clinic for renal cell carcinoma were enrolled to the study. All patients underwent radical nephrectomy. After the specimens were removed, excisional biopsies were performed on healthy pelvises and calyces. Mean α-receptor stain rates in renal pelvis were 2.65 ± 0.74, 1.35 ± 0.81 and 2.9 ± 0.30 for α 1A, 1B and 1D, respectively. For calyces, the rates are 2.40 ± 0.82, 1.50 ± 0.76 and 2.75 ± 0.44 for α 1A, 1B and 1D, respectively (Fig. 1). When the staining patterns were compared, α 1A and 1D were expressed more in both pelvis and calyces than α 1B (p < 0.05). After the demonstration of α-adrenergic receptors in pelvis and calyces of human kidney, it may be helpful in coming up with new alternative treatments for patients suffering from kidney stones.

Silodosin in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms as a result of benign prostatic hyperplasia: who are the best candidates

BACKGROUND

As the clinical effects of the available α1-adrenoceptors (ARs) blockers are usually considered comparable for treatment in patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to prostatic enlargement, officially recognised guidelines do not make specific recommendations regarding the choice of which agent should be considered according to the patient's characteristics.

AIM

To analyse data supporting the use of silodosin, a highly selective once-daily dosing α1-ARs blocker, in different daily clinical practice scenarios.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A structured literature review was performed using data retrieved from articles assessing the role of silodosin in the management of LUTS secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A literature search of English language publications was performed using MEDLINE(®) and Web of Science from 2000 to 2012 using the terms LUTS; BPH; silodosin; α1-ARs blockers. The papers with the highest level of evidence were identified and represent the basis of the present review.

RESULTS

Available data coming from basic research analyses, randomised trials and prospective studies showed that silodosin is efficacious for the initial management of patients with LUTS. Clinical developmental safety data from patients receiving silodosin with concomitant antihypertensive therapy do not indicate an increase in risk of orthostatic hypotension. In this context, a recent study demonstrated that silodosin can be safely administered to patients who are consensually assuming phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. A recent randomised crossover study comparing the efficacy of silodosin and tamsulosin in patients with LUTS showed that further significant improvement was observed after switching to silodosin treatment, while worsening or little improvement was observed after switching to tamsulosin treatment. Preliminary results seem to demonstrate a potential role of silodosin in the treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome and to facilitate ureteral stone passage, as well.

DISCUSSION

When considering the above cited pharmacological and clinical characteristics of the drug, silodosin can be considered in the following clinical scenario: patients suffering from moderate-severe nocturia, patients with low normal blood pressure levels and patients concomitantly treated with antihypertensive medications, patients concomitantly treated with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, patients not satisfied (for efficacy or tolerability) with previous treatment with other α1-ARs blockers.

CONCLUSION

Silodosin is efficacious for the initial management of patients with LUTS. Silodosin has a good cardiovascular safety profile and can be considered an option in patients with cardiovascular co-morbidities. It seems to be especially beneficial in patients with nocturia alone or presenting with the symptomatic trial nocturia-frequency-incomplete emptying. Patients on phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors treatment can be safely managed with silodosin.

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.