Efficacy of tamsulosin oral controlled absorption system after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy to treat urolithiasis

Outcomes of alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy following shockwave lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine stone-free rate following shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) with/without alpha-blockers as well as complication rates (individual and classified using the Clavien-Dindo system).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review of all randomized controlled trials that included more than 20 patients (age > 18 years) and examined the use of alpha-blockers after SWL. Meta-analysis was performed using 'metafor' in R. We report risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The PROSPERO ID for the trial was: CRD42021248108.

RESULTS

We assessed 158 full-text articles and included a total of 21 studies in our review. There were 1445 patients receiving alpha-blockers and 1478 control patients. Those receiving alpha-blockers were significantly more likely to be stone-free (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07-1.16; P < 0.001). This effect was robust to 'trim-and-fill' adjustment. In those taking alpha-blockers there was a significant reduction in Clavien III-V complications and, on trim-and-fill adjustment, a significant reduction in Clavien I-II complications. There were also significant reduction in rates of steinstrasse, pain and requirement for auxiliary procedures. There was no significant difference in retreatment rates. These effects were robust to trim-and-fill adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a modest increase in stone-free rates in those receiving alpha-blockers following SWL, with a reciprocal modest risk reduction for steinstrasse, pain and auxiliary procedures. However, alpha-blockers do not reduce the risk of requiring retreatment.

Adjunctive medical expulsive therapy with tamsulosin for repeated extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose:

To evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive medical expulsive therapy (MET) with tamsulosin for the promotion of stone fragments clearance for repeated extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).

Materials and Methods:

This meta-analysis was conducted by systematic search for randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science databases in January 2020, which compared tamsulosin with either placebo or non-placebo control for repeated ESWL. The primary endpoint was stone-free rate (SFR), the second endpoints were stone clearance time and complications. The quality assessment of included studies was performed by using the Cochrane System and Jadad score.

Results:

7 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Tamsulosin provided higher SFR (for stones larger than 1cm, OR: 5.56, p=0.0003), except for patients with stones less than 1cm. For patients with renal stones (OR: 2.97, p=0.0005) or upper ureteral stones (OR: 3.10, p=0.004), tamsulosin can also provide a higher SFR. In addition, tamsulosin provided a shorter stone clearance time (WMD: −9.40, p=0.03) and lower pain intensity (WMD=-17.01, p <0.0001) and incidences of steinstrasse (OR: 0.37, p=0.0002).

Conclusion:

Adjunctive MET with tamsulosin is effective in patients with specific stone size or location that received repeated ESWL. However, no well-designed RCT that used computed tomography for the detection and assessment of residual stone fragments was found. More studies with high quality and the comparison between tamsulosin and secondary ESWL are needed in the future.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Alpha-Blockers for Kidney Stones in Adults

Objective: To review the literature for α-blocker treatment of kidney stones. Data Sources: PubMed search performed November 15, 2017, using the following search terms: alpha-blocker, alfuzosin, silodosin, or tamsulosin AND kidney or ureteral stones. Additional studies found through references of primary and tertiary literature. Inclusion criteria included English language, randomized controlled trials (not included in meta-analyses), and meta-analyses evaluating US available alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy with or without lithotripsy in adults with renal or ureteral stones, and no date limits. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 case-control trial, and 6 meta-analyses were found and included in this review. Two RCTs and 4 meta-analyses evaluated alpha-blockers without lithotripsy. Five RCTs, 1 case-control trial, and 2 meta-analyses evaluated their use post-lithotripsy. The primary endpoint was stone clearance rate in most studies. Data Synthesis: For ureteral stones ≤10 mm treated without lithotripsy, alpha-blockers increased clearance in all meta-analyses and one RCT versus control. For ureteral or renal stones treated with lithotripsy, 4 RCTs and all meta-analyses found benefit with alpha-blockers compared with control. When results were stratified by stone size, alpha-blockers performed better for stones 10 to 20 mm, while there was no difference for stones <10 mm. Conclusion: Alpha-blockers are beneficial without lithotripsy for ureteral stones 5 to 10 mm. They are beneficial post-lithotripsy for renal or ureteral stones >10 mm. They can be considered post-lithotripsy for stones 5 to 10 mm, but little benefit may be seen. Although all uroselective alpha-blockers have been found to be effective, most data are with tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily.

A network meta-analysis on the beneficial effect of medical expulsive therapy after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

We applied a newly introduced method, network meta-analysis, to re-evaluate the expulsion effect of drugs including tamsulosin, doxazosin, nifedipine, terazosin and rowatinex after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) as described in the literature. A systematic search was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library for articles published before March 2016. Twenty-six studies with 2775 patients were included. The primary outcome was the number of patients with successful stone expulsion. The data were subdivided into three groups according to duration of follow-up. A standard network model was established in each subgroup. In 15-day follow-up results, SUCRA outcome showed the ranking of effects was: doxazosin > tamsulosin > rowatinex > nifedipine > terazosin (88.6, 77.4, 58.6, 32.2 and 30.4, respectively). In 45-day follow-up results, SUCRA ranking was: tamsulosin > nifedipine > rowatinex (69.4, 67.2 and 62.6, respectively). In 90-day follow-up results, SUCRA ranking was: doxazosin > rowatinex > tamsulosin (84.1, 68.1 and 49.1, respectively). In conclusion, doxazosin and tamsulosin have potential to be the first choice for pharmacological therapy to promote the expulsion of urinary stone fragments after ESWL, with this doxazosin can improve the SFR in the long term, while tamsulosin may result more in accelerating the process of expulsion.

The Efficacy and Safety of Tamsulosin Combined with Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy for Urolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Many studies have been conducted to investigate adjunctive tamsulosin therapy after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for urolithiasis. The results from those studies, however, are still inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to provide an update on the clinical efficacy and safety of tamsulosin combined with SWL for urolithiasis.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials until January 2015. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted with Review Manager (RevMan), version 5.1.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (2093 subjects in total) were identified in the current meta-analysis. Compared with a control group, the experimental group (tamsulosin combined with SWL) showed an increased overall benefit for stone expulsion, with pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.26). With respect to the different geographic regions, European and American had a high possibility of improvement in stone expulsion (RR: 1.33, 95% CI, 1.19-1.49). According to the stone locations (renal, upper and lower ureteral) and sizes (4-10 mm and 11-24 mm), tamsulosin is more useful for lower ureteral stone (RR: 1.28; 95% CI, 1.14-1.43) and larger sized stones (RR: 1.49; 95% CI, 1.28-1.75). The effect estimates did not vary markedly when stratified by follow-up durations but varied by dose of tamsulosin. Furthermore, a shorter expulsion time, reduced occurrence of steinstrasse, fewer incidences of colic, and lower analgesic requirements were observed within the experimental group. In addition, tamsulosin is well tolerated, and its adverse events rarely led to dropouts of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, evidence suggests that tamsulosin combined with SWL is safe and effective in enhancing stone expulsion for patients with urolithiasis. Furthermore, high-quality, randomized and placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin should be performed.

Adjunctive medical therapy with α-blocker after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of renal and ureteral stones: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although some trials assessed the efficacy and safety of the α-blocker in facilitating renal and ureteral stones expulsion after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), the role of the α-blocker in facilitating upper urinary calculi expulsion after ESWL remain controversial.

AIMS

To determine the efficacy and safety of the α-blocker in facilitating renal and ureteral stones expulsion after ESWL.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out using the PubMed database, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library database to identify relevant studies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Pooled effect estimates were obtained using a fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 23 RCTs, α-blocker significantly enhanced expulsion rate of upper urinary tract calculi after ESWL (P<0.00001; RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.12-1.31), significantly promoted steinstrasse expulsion (P=0.03; RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53), significantly shortened the discharge time of upper urinary tract calculi (P=0.0001; MD -2.12; 95% CI -3.20--1.04), significantly reduced the patient's pain VAS score (P=0.001; RR -1.0; 95% CI -1.61--0.39). Compared with the control group, dizziness (P=0.002; RR 5.48; 95% CI 1.91-15.77), anejaculation (P=0.02; RR 12.17; 95% CI 1.61-91.99) and headache (P=0.04; RR 4.03; 95% CI 1.04-15.72) in the α-blocker group was associated with a higher incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with α-blocker after ESWL appears to be effective in enhancing expulsion rate of upper urinary tract calculi, shortening the discharge time of upper urinary tract calculi, reducing the patient's pain. The side effects of α-blocker were light and few.

Usefulness of adjunctive alpha1-adrenergic antagonists after single extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy session in ureteral stone expulsion

INTRODUCTION

We evaluate the efficiency of α-adrenergic antagonists on stone clearance after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in patients with lower ureteral stones.

METHODS

A total of 356 patients with solitary lower ureteral stones who underwent single ESWL sessions were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 received our standard medical therapy, and Group 2 was treated with 0.4 mg/day tamsulosin for a maximum of 2 weeks. All patients were re-evaluated with plain film radiography and ultrasound each week during the treatment period. A computed tomography scan was systematically performed 3 months after ESWL.

RESULTS

In total, 82 of the 170 patients in Group 1 (48.2%) and 144 of the 186 patients in Group 2 (77.4%) (p = 0.002) were stone-free. Among the patients with stones 10 to 15 mm in diameter, the stone-free rate was 38.4% in Group 1 and 77.1% in Group 2 (p = 0.003). Average stone expulsion time was 10.6 days and 8.4 days in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Ureteral colic occurred in 40 patients (23.5%) in Group 1, but only in 10 patients (5.3%) in Group 2 (p = 0.043). The only side effect of tamsulosin was slight dizziness in 5 of the 186 patients in Group 2 (2.6%).

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive therapy with α1-adrenergic antagonists after ESWL is more efficient than, and equally as safe as, lithotripsy alone to manage patients with lower ureteral stones. The adding of α-blockers is more reliable and helpful for stones with a large dimension, and can also decrease stone elimination time and episodes of ureteral colic.

Do patients on alpha-blockers for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia have better results after shockwave lithotripsy of urinary stones?

PURPOSE

To investigate whether patients who are on alpha 1-adrenergic receptor (alpha 1-AR) antagonists for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) had better results after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL).

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed the records of male patients older than 50 years who underwent SWL. Clinical characteristics, including the use of alpha 1-AR antagonists for BPH were analyzed. Mann-Whitney U test was used for data not normally distributed and student's t test for data normally distributed. The categorical variables were analyzed by the Chi-square test. A multiple logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the associations of variables on successful treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 264 renal units were treated. Complete stone clearance was achieved in 167 RUs (63.3%) and 28 RUs (10.6%) had clinically insignificant residual fragments. In 69 RUs (26.1%), SWL failed. More patients were on alpha 1-AR antagonists for BPH in the successfully treated group (p=0.028). The multivariate analysis revealed that the use of alpha 1-AR antagonists had significant effects on the success of SWL (p=0.047). SWL was performed to 34 RUs of 33 patients who were on alpha 1-AR antagonists and it was successful in 30 RUs (88.2%). In the remaining 230 RUs, stone-free state was achieved in 165 RUs (71.7%) (p=0.028). Stone-free rates were similar for patients on alfuzosine, tamsulosine, and doxazosine (p=0.310).

CONCLUSION

Patients who are being treated with alpha 1-AR antagonist agents for BPH have better results after SWL treatment, compared to patients not receiving alpha 1-AR antagonist. The improved results are independent of the type of alpha 1-AR antagonist.

Extracorporeal Shock-wave Lithotripsy Success Rate and Complications: Initial Experience at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with Modularis Vario Siemens in the management of patients with renal and ureteral stones.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2009, 225 outpatients were treated with Siemens Modularis Vario lithotripter at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital. Stone size, location, total number of shockwaves, stone-free rate, complications and adjunctive interventions were investigated. Chi-Square and Logistic Regression analyses were used, with p<0.05 set as the level of significance.

RESULTS

Of the 225 initial consecutive patients who underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, 192 (85%) had renal stones and 33 (15%) had ureteric stones. The mean±SD stone size was 11.3±4.5 mm, while the mean age of the patients was 39.9±12.8 years with 68.5% males. The mean renal stone size was 11.6±4.7 mm; a mean of 1.3 sessions was required. The mean ureteric stone size was 9.9±3 mm; and a mean of 1.3 sessions was required. Treatment success (defined as complete clearance of ureteric stones, stone-free or clinically insignificant residual fragments of <4 mm for renal stones) was 74% for renal stones and 88% for ureteric stones. Additional extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy were the most adjunctive procedures used for stone clearance. Complications occurred in 74 patients (38.5%) with renal stones and 13 patients (39.4%) with uretetric stones. The most common complication was loin pain (experienced by 16.7% with renal stones and 21% with ureteric stones). Severe renal colic mandating admission occurred in 2% of patients with renal stones and 6% of patients with ureteric stones. In patients with renal stone, steinstrasse occurred in 3.6% and infection post extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in 0.5%. Using Multivariate Logistic Regression analysis, factors found to have significant effect on complete stone clearance were serum creatinine (p=0.004) and the number of shockwaves (p=0.021).

CONCLUSION

Siemens Modularis Vario lithotripter is a safe and effective tool for treating renal and ureteric stones.