Role of Tamsulosin, Tadalafil, and Silodosin as the Medical Expulsive Therapy in Lower Ureteric Stone: A Randomized Trial (a Pilot Study)

Pooled-analysis of tadalafil and tamsulosin for ureteral calculi

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of either or both mirabegron and silodosin, as a medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and safety of either or both silodosin and mirabegron as MET for distal ureteric stones ≤ 10 mm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study enrolled a total of 105 patients, aged between 20 and 56 years, diagnosed by single radiopaque distal ureteral stone measuring ≤ 10 mm. The recruitment period spanned from May 2020 to December 2021. The patients were randomly divided into three groups, with each group consisting of 35 participants. Group A received a once-daily dose of 8 mg of silodosin, group B received a once-daily dose of 50 mg of mirabegron, and group C received a combination of both medications. Treatment was administered to all patients until the stone was expelled or for a maximum duration of four weeks. The stone-free rate was determined by analyzing KUB films with or without ultrasonography.

RESULTS

The rate of stone expulsion was significantly higher in group C compared to groups A and B (P = 0.04 and P = 0.004, respectively). The mean (standard deviation) time for stone expulsion in groups A, B, and C was 14 ± 2.3 days, 11 ± 3.1 days, and 7 ± 2.2 days, respectively. Group C demonstrated a significantly shorter stone expulsion time compared to groups A and B (P = 0.001 and P = 0.04, respectively). The frequency of renal colic in group C was significantly lower than that in groups A and B, resulting in a reduced requirement for analgesics (P < 0.05). Anejaculation occurred at a significantly higher rate in the silodosin group (73.9%) and combination group (84%) compared to the mirabegron group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study suggest that both silodosin and mirabegron are effective treatments for the expulsion of lower ureteric stones. Furthermore, the combination of these medications leads to an increased rate of stone expulsion and a reduced duration of expulsion.

Tamsulosin vs. Tadalafil as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is recommended for distal ureteral stones from 5 to 10 mm. The best drug for MET is still uncertain. In this review, we aim to compare the effectiveness of tadalafil and tamsulosin for distal ureteral stones from 5 to 10 mm in terms of stone expulsion rate (SER), stone expulsion time (SET) and the side effect profile.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception until April 2023. Only randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven publications with 1,330 patients were included. We observed that tadalafil has a higher SER (OR 0.55, CI 95% 0.38;0.80, p=0.02, I2=52%) and the same efficacy in SET (MD 1.07, CI 95% -0.25; 2.39, p=0.11, I2=84%). No differences were found when comparing side effects as headache, backache, dizziness, and orthostatic hypotension.

CONCLUSION

Tadalafil has a higher stone expulsion rate than tamsulosin as a medical expulsive therapy for patients with distal stones from 5 to 10 mm without differences in side effects.

A Comparison Between Silodosin and Tamsulosin for Medical Expulsive Therapy of Distal Ureteric Calculus

INTRODUCTION

Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is an established treatment option for distal ureteric stones. Tamsulosin, a selective alpha-1 blocker, has been used for MET with good results, while silodosin, a more selective alpha-1a blocker, is more effective than tamsulosin for MET. Thus, this study aimed to compare the efficacy of silodosin with tamsulosin.

METHODS

This prospective randomized study was conducted at the Department of Urology, Government Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital, Tamil Nadu, India. Eighty patients who presented with ureteric colic and were radiologically diagnosed with distal ureteric calculus of size <10mm were included. Participants in the silodosin group received tablet silodosin 8mg OD until the passage of the stone, not more than two weeks, and analgesics as per demand. And participants in the tamsulosin group received tablet tamsulosin 0.4mg OD until the passage of the stone, not more than two weeks, and analgesics as per demand.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients were included in the study. Forty patients in the silodosin group and forty patients in the tamsulosin group were included. In the silodosin group, out of 40 patients, 38 expelled the calculus. In the tamsulosin group, out of 40 patients, 28 expelled the calculus. The silodosin group had a significantly higher rate of expulsion, with a p-value of 0.003. Stone expulsion time was shorter in the silodosin group when compared with the tamsulosin group (10.15 vs. 13.4 days). Analgesic usage during medical expulsive therapy was lower in the silodosin group (5.68 vs. 8.4). We observed significant differences in comparing the outcome, stone expulsion time, and analgesic requirement between the silodosin and tamsulosin groups. We observed no significant difference between the groups for age-wise and gender-wise comparisons. Furthermore, non-expulsion of calculus in four patients and pain in eight patients were the reasons for intervention in the tamsulosin group. The reason for intervention in the silodosin group was the non-expulsion of calculus in two patients.

CONCLUSION

Using silodosin for MET of distal ureteric calculus, we found to have a better stone expulsion rate, early expulsion time, and reduced analgesic requirement.

Is low-dose tadalafil better than tamsulosin? A randomized controlled trial in shockwave lithotripsy for solitary upper tract calculi

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain whether low-dose tadalafil (5 mg) is more efficient than tamsulosin (0.4 mg) in facilitating calculus expulsion in those receiving extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for solitary upper urinary tract calculi.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a triple-blinded, prospective, superiority, randomized controlled, single-centre trial. A total of 250 patients with solitary renal or ureteric calculus measuring 6-24 mm were randomized (1:1) to receive either 0.4 mg tamsulosin or 5 mg tadalafil daily for 30 days or until calculus clearance, whichever was earlier.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the primary outcome, namely, calculus expulsion rate at 30 days (tamsulosin vs tadalafil, n (%) 99 [81.1%] vs 98 [80.3%] respectively, 95% confidence interval = 0.8% [-9.0, 10.7], P = 0.874). Similarly, a lack of difference was also noted in the secondary outcome, number of days to expulsion (tamsulosin vs tadalafil, geometric mean [SD] 13.59 [2.39] vs 13.74 [2.39] respectively, P = 0.928). Four patients discontinued the drug due to adverse drug reactions in the tadalafil group.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose tadalafil is not superior to tamsulosin in improving calculus expulsion when used as an adjunct to shockwave lithotripsy. In this study, we also noted that tadalafil was less tolerated.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

An update on efficacy and safety of alpha-blockers in the treatment of distal ureteric stones: narrative review

Background

Alpha-blockers prescribed as medical expulsion therapy (MET) have replaced minimally invasive procedures as the primary line of treatment for minor ureteric stones. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of MET with alpha-blockers in terms of stone expulsion rate and time and evaluate the safety of several alpha-blockers.

Methodology

Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for relevant publications using keywords published between December 2013 and August 2021. Additional relevant research was found by looking through the references in the articles.

Results

To determine the efficacy and safety of alpha-blockers as a medical expulsive therapy for the management of distal ureteral stones, 15 studies were included, 12 randomized control trials, 2 retrospective observational studies, and 1 prospective study. The most commonly studied primary endpoint was stone expulsion rate and time. According to findings, silodosin appears to be more effective than other alpha-blockers. The data revealed no life-threatening adverse effects were associated with alpha-blockers.

Conclusion

Alpha-blockers are recommended as the first-line therapy for distal ureteral stones. Silodosin was the most efficacious medicine, according to the data. The side effects of alpha-blockers, on the other hand, were minor, consisting primarily of orthostatic hypotension. The alpha-blocker choice differs from urologist to urologist in the management of MET, depending on their experience and the patient's condition.

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

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

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

Introduction:

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

Materials and Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Efficacy of silodosin or mirabegron in medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: a prospective, randomized-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of silodosin or mirabegron as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones in adults.

PATIENTS-METHOD

This is a prospective, randomized multicentric study. Patients who had ureter stones in size between 4 and 10 mm were assessed prospectively. Patients were divided into three groups with equal randomization. Group 1 was the control group; group 2 took silodosin 8 mg, and group 3 took mirabegron 50 mg once daily.

RESULTS

All 169 patients were included in the final analysis. The spontaneous expulsion rate was similar between groups. In patients with distal localization, the stone expulsion interval was shorter in the silodosin group (7.1 ± 4.5 days) than the control (12 ± 8.7) (p = 0.034). In patients with stone size smaller than 6 mm, the stone expulsion interval was shorter in the silodosin group (5.8 ± 4) than the control (12.2 ± 2.8) (p = 0.004); the analgesic requirement was less in the silodosin group (1.4 ± 1.3) than in the control (3.6 ± 2.8) (p = 0.028). Mirabegron had no effect on stone expulsion interval in any analysis. In patients with distal localization or stone size bigger or equal to 6 mm, the need for an analgesic was less in the mirabegron group (1.8 ± 1.9) (1.9 ± 1.8) than in the control (3.6 ± 2.3) (3.2 ± 1.8), respectively (p = 0.004) (p = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Silodosin or mirabegron does not improve the stone expulsion rate. Silodosin improves the stone expulsion interval and decreases the need for an analgesic or < 6 mm stones. Mirabegron has no effect on the stone expulsion interval, but decreases the need for an analgesic in patients with distal or sized ≥ 6 mm stones.

Hounsfield unit and its correlation with spontaneous expulsion of lower ureteric stone

Background:

Hounsfield unit (HU) is the measure of stone density, and is utilized in the predetermination of type of stone. The purpose of this study was to identify some factors in noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) of kidney, ureter, and bladder (KUB) that are easily extractable and can be used to determine the outcome of expectant management.

Methods:

All patients 18–50 years of age who presented with flank pain and diagnosed as having lower ureteric calculi of size 5–10 mm by NCCT KUB were included in the study. HU of stone was calculated from the mean HU at three different regions of interest. We prescribed tamsulosin for 4 weeks as medical expulsive therapy. We divided the patients into two groups: group A included patients with successful expulsion of stone, and group B included patients who failed to pass stone. We compared age, gender, laterality, stone size in axial and coronal section of NCCT, HU of stone, blood urea, creatinine, and renal parenchymal thickness.

Results:

A total of 180 patients with lower ureteric calculus were included in the study. The mean age of patients was 34 years, with male:female ratio of 2.3:1. Of these 180 patients, 119 (66%) successfully expelled the stone and were included in group A, with the remaining 61 (34%) forming group B. In univariate analysis, longitudinal diameter of stone (p < 0.001), transverse diameter of stone (p < 0.001) and high HU (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with failure of expulsion. However, in multivariate analysis only longitudinal diameter of stone (p < 0.001) differed significantly among groups. Differences in HU (p = 0.179) and transverse diameter of stone (p = 0.108) did not reach significance level.

Conclusions:

Lower ureteric calculi are definitely amenable to conservative management. Longitudinal diameter of stone can be a useful parameter; however, HU and its derivatives cannot be used as a predictor of outcome.

Efficacy and safety of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi of 5 to 10 mm in size: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

To evaluate the Efficacy and safety of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors as a medical therapy for distal ureteral calculi by means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched the Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published before May, 2017. Stone passage rate as the primary outcome. We used random effects model for pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian random effects model for NMA. We evaluated the quality of evidence by the GRADE framework for each network estimate. Five RCTs (861 patients) comparing four different interventions. The results of NMA showed that compared with tamsulosin alone, tamsulosin combined with tadalafil group was associated with significantly higher stone passage rate (odds radio [OR] 2.55, 95% credible intervals [Crl] 1.11 to 5.89). When considering stone expulsion rate, compared with tamsulosin, silodosin was ranked best (OR 3.58, 95% Crl 1.13 to 11.91), followed by tamsulosin combined with tadalafil (OR 2.55, 95% Crl 1.11 to 5.89) and tadalafil alone (OR 1.86, 95% Crl 0.95 to 4.25). No significant difference was found considering safety profiles between any interventions. This meta-analysis indicates that tamsulosin combined with tadalafil is an effective treatment option for ureteral stones with a low occurrence of side effects. Clinicians should take all known safety and compliance of patients into account when choosing an optimal strategy. Since sample size of included studies, further RCTs are strongly encouraged to address the clinical question.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

FUNDING

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

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

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

Efficacy and safety of PDE5-Is and α-1 blockers for treating lower ureteric stones or LUTS: a meta-analysis of RCTs

BACKGROUND

Lower ureteric stones and lower urinary tract symptoms are common in urology.Drug treatment is one of standard therapy,but the efficacy was controversial.Thus we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of monotherapy or combination therapy of adrenoceptor1 blockers and phosphodiesterase5 inhibitors for treatment.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials up to November 2016 were retrieved from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Embase. A total of 17 studies were included. We analyzed data through random or fixed effect models. The heterogeneity between studies was assessed by the I² test statistic.

RESULTS

As for lower ureter stones, our analysis demonstrated tadalafil had a significantly lower incidence of abnormal ejaculation than adrenoceptor1 blockers (2.31 95%CI 0.22to0.84, P = 0.01),while combination therapy had a higher expulsion rate (2.49 95%CI 1.44to4.29, P = 0.001) and shorter expulsion time (- 1.98 95%CI -3.08to0.88, P = 0.0004) than tamsulosin. As for lower urinary tract symptoms, our analysis indicated adrenoceptor1 blockers was more effective than phosphodiesterase5 inhibitors on decreasing International Prostate Symptom Score (1.96 95%CI 0.03to3.89, P = 0.05) and Post-Void Residual (9.41 95%CI 1.40to14.41, P = 0.02) and phosphodiesterase5 inhibitors showed a greater effect than adrenoceptor1 blockers on improving Erectile Dysfunction (2.23 95%CI 1.24to3.22, P<0.0001).Combination therapy had a significantly better effect on International Prostate Symptom Score (1.47 95%CI 1.25to1.69, P<0.0001), Maximum flow rate (0.87 95%CI 0.71to1.04, P<0.0001), Post-Void Residual (10.74 95%CI 3.53to17.96,P = 0.004) and Quality of life (0.59 95%CI 0.22to0.97, P = 0.002) but was associated with higher incidences of adverse events (3.40 95%CI 1.82to6.36, P = 0.0001) than adrenoceptor1 blockers. Combination therapy had a significantly better effect on International Prostate Symptom Score (4.19 95%CI 3.34to5.04, P<0.0001), Maximum flow rate (1.86 95%CI 1.32to2.39, P<0.0001), Post-Void Residual (22.58 95%CI 9.13to36.04, P = 0.001) and Quality of life (0.68 95%CI 0.37to1.00, P<0.0001) without higher incidences of adverse events than PDE5-Is.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggested combination therapy had a best efficacy of therapy for lower ureteric stones or lower urinary tract symptoms correlated with benign prostatic hyperplasia than monotherapy. Adrenoceptor1 blockers was more effective than phosphodiesterase5 inhibitors on International Prostate Symptom Score and Post-Void Residual. Both monotherapy and combination therapy were safe.

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).

Potassium Citrate is Better in Reducing Salt and Increasing Urine pH than Oral Intake of Lemonade: A Cross-Over Study

BACKGROUND Urine solute supersaturation leads to the formation of urinary tract caliceal stones. Many parameters can be involved in the supersaturation of solutes in urine, such as pH. Uric acid has pKa ≤5.5, and it is solubilized at pH ≥5.5. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effects of potassium citrate and lemonade supplementation in pediatric patients with urolithiasis. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 126 children who had lower ureteral stones calculi and fragments with severe colic pain participated in this cross-over study. Children drank lemonade (2 mEq/kg/day citrate) in 3 divided doses for 5 days. After a 15-day washout period, children drank 2 mEq/kg/day of potassium citrate in 3 divided doses for 5 days. On the sixth of the day of individual intervention, a 24-h urine sample was collected and evaluated for pH, urine volume, citrate level, uric acid level, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and sodium. Urinary parameters for 1-day urine collection measurements after each supplementation were compared with baseline using the Mann-Whitney test following Tukey post hoc test at 95% confidence level. RESULTS Potassium citrate supplementation resulted in reduction of sodium concentration (p=0.0337; q=3.76) and increased pH of urine (p=0.0118; q=4.389). However, urine volume, citrate level, and uric acid level, as well as elemental magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium, remained unchanged after 5 days of supplementation with potassium citrate or lemonade. CONCLUSIONS Potassium citrate supplementation is an effective therapy for preventing pediatric urolithiasis, with acceptable adverse effects.

Safety and efficacy of silodosin and tadalafil in ease of negotiation of large ureteroscope in the management of ureteral stone: A prosective randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of silodosin and tadalafil in ease of negotiation of large size ureteroscope (8/9.8 Fr) in the management of ureteral stone.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between June 2015 and May 2016, 86 patients presented with ureteral stone of size 6-15 mm were on consent randomly assigned to 1 of 3 outpatient treatment arms: silodosin (Group A), tadalafil (Group B), and placebo (Group C). After two weeks of therapy 67 patients underwent ureteroscopy, and ureteral orifice configuration, ureteroscopic negotiation, ureteral dilatation, operating time, procedural complication and drug related side effects were noted in each group.

RESULTS

Ureteral negotiation was significantly better in Groups A (73.9%) and B (69.6%) as compared to Group C (38.1%) (p<0.01). Statistically significant difference was noted in the requirement for dilatation in Group C (71.4%) as compared to Groups A (26.1%) and B (39.1%) (p<0.01). Ureteral orifice was found to be more dilated in Groups A (69.6%) and B (60.9%) as compared to Group C (28.6%). Mean operating time was statistically lower in Groups A (35.2 min) and B (34.91 min) as compared to Group C (41.14 min) (p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Both silodosin and tadalafil not only relax ureteral smooth muscle but also help in forward propagation of large size ureteroscope (8/9.8 Fr) without any significant risk of adverse events.

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

Introduction

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

Material and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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.

Tadalafil Facilitates the Distal Ureteral Stone Expulsion: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of tadalafil in facilitating the spontaneous passage of distal ureteral stones.

METHODS

The relevant studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to November 2016. Randomized controlled trials evaluating effects of tadalafil for distal ureteral stones were included.

RESULTS

Six publications involving 921 patients were included. Compared with tamsulosin monotherapy, tadalafil monotherapy or combined with tamsulosin has a significantly higher stone expulsion rate (relative risk [RR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 1.29; p = 0.004; RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.42; p = 0.001, respectively) and shorter time to stone expulsion (mean difference [MD], -1.33 days; 95% CI, -2.44 to -0.23; p = 0.02; MD, -1.98 days; 95% CI, -3.08 to -0.88; p = 0.0004, respectively). Statistically significant differences were noted in pain episodes and analgesic use in favor of group tadalafil alone compared to group tamsulosin alone. The analgesic use was significantly lower in the combined group than in the tamsulosin alone group. Although the occurrence of drug-related adverse events in the tadalafil alone or combined with tamsulosin was higher than that in the use of tamsulosin-alone group, the most common adverse events were mild and tolerable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested that medical expulsive therapy for the distal ureteral stones using tadalafil alone or combined with tamsulosin is safe, efficacious, and well tolerated.

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.

Efficacy of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine the efficacy of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search strategy was conducted in the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase databases. Searches were also conducted in other databases and unpublished literature. Clinical trials were included without language restrictions. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. An analysis of random effects due to statistical heterogeneity was conducted. The primary outcome was the expulsion rate of the distal ureteral calculus in 28 days. The secondary outcomes were the time to expulsion, side effects of treatment, and amount (mg) of nonopioid analgesia. The measure of the effect was the risk difference (RD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The planned interventions were PDE5i vs. placebo, tadalafil vs. placebo, and tadalafil vs. tamsulosin.

RESULTS

Four articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Records of 580 patients were found among the four studies. A low risk of bias was shown for the majority of the study items. The calculi expulsion rate had an RD of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.15-0.37) and a less prolonged expulsion as a secondary outcome with a mean difference of -4.39 days (95% CI, -6.69 to -2.09) in favor of PDE5i compared with the placebo. No significant difference was found for these outcomes when comparing tadalafil with tamsulosin.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with a placebo, PDE5i could be effective as MET for the treatment of distal ureter calculi.

Tamsulosin versus tadalafil as a medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: A prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of tamsulosin and tadalafil as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective randomized study was conducted at the Department of Urology of Bir Hospital over a period of 12 months in patients with distal ureteral stones sized 5 to 10 mm. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: group A received tamsulosin 0.4 mg and group B received tadalafil 10 mg at bedtime for 2 weeks. Stone expulsion rate, number of ureteric colic episodes and pain score, analgesic requirements, and adverse drug effects were noted in both groups. Statistical analyses were performed by using Student t-test and chi-square test.

RESULTS

Altogether 85 patients, 41 in group A and 44 in group B, were enrolled in the study. The patients' average age was 31.72±12.63 years, and the male-to-female ratio was 1.5:1. Demographic profiles, stone size, and baseline investigations were comparable between the 2 groups. The stone expulsion rate was significantly higher in the tadalafil group than in the tamsulosin group (84.1% vs. 61.0%, p=0.017). Although the occurrence of side effects was higher with tadalafil, this difference was not significant (p=0.099). There were no serious adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Tadalafil has a significantly higher stone expulsion rate than tamsulosin when used as a medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones sized 5-10 mm. Both drugs are safe, effective, and well tolerated with minor side effects.

Evolving Guidance on Ureteric Calculi Management in the Acute Setting

Ureteric colic is a common presentation to acute emergency services. The gold standard test for the diagnosis of acute ureteric colic is a non-contrast computer tomography of the kidneys ureters and bladder (CT KUB). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) should be used as first-line analgesia, with studies showing that there is no role for steroid or phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. There is emerging evidence that a high body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor. The drugs used to facilitate stone passage are known as medical expulsive therapy (MET). The most evaluated being alpha-blockers. The Spontaneous Urinary Stone Passage Enabled by Drugs (SUSPEND) trial was designed to evaluate the use of MET (tamsulosin and nifedipine). This trial showed that there was no difference with MET and placebo for the spontaneous passage of ureteric stones. There is an emerging role for the use of primary ureteroscopy in the management of non-infective ureteric stones.

BET 2: Tadalafil medical expulsive therapy in ureteral calculi: a new kid on the block?

A short cut review was carried out to see if tadalafil, a phosphodiesterase type-5 (PDE5) inhibitor, was superior to standard α-adrenergic antagonists at promoting spontaneous ureteric calculi excretion. Two relevant papers were found, published by the same research group. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results study weaknesses of these papers are tabulated. Tadalafil was not shown to have significant superiority in terms of efficacy or adverse effects compared with standard treatment.

Comparative efficacy of tadalafil versus tamsulosin as the medical expulsive therapy in lower ureteric stone: a prospective randomized trial

Introduction

In recent years, medical expulsive therapy has been used in the management of distal ureteric stones as a supplement to conservative treatment. Therefore, we conducted a prospective randomized study to evaluate the possible role of tadalafil individually in comparison with proven tamsulosin therapy in ureteric stone expulsion.

The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor (tadalafil) and an α-1 blocker (tamsulosin) as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric calculi.

Material and methods

Between August 2014 and October 2015, 207 patients who presented with distal ureteric stones of size 5–10 mm were randomly divided into two groups: tadalafil (Group A) and tamsulosin (Group B). Therapy was given for a maximum of 4 weeks. Stone expulsion rate, time to stone expulsion, analgesic use, number of hospital visits for pain, follow-up, endoscopic treatment and adverse effects of drugs were noted. Both groups were compared for normally distributed data by percentage, analysis of variance, and T-test. All the classified and categorical data were analyzed for both groups using the chi-square test.

Results

A statistically significant expulsion rate of 84.0% in Group A compared with 68.0% in Group B (P value = 0.0130), and shorter stone expulsion time in Group A (14.7±3.8) in comparison to Group B (16.8 ±4.5) was observed. Statistically significant differences were noted in renal colic episodes and analgesic requirement in Group A than Group B. No serious adverse effects were noted.

Conclusions

Tadalafil is safe, efficacious, and well tolerated as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones. This study showed that tadalafil increases ureteric stone expulsion quite significantly along with better control of pain and significantly lower analgesic requirement.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Sildenafil citrate as a medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones: A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study

Objective

To study the effect of sildenafil citrate on spontaneous passage of distal ureteric stones (DUS).

Patients and methods

This was a randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled study of 100 patients with DUS. Inclusion criteria were: male, age 18–65 years, normal renal function, and a single radiopaque unilateral DUS of 5–10 mm. Patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups, one that received placebo and the other that received 50 mg sildenafil citrate once daily. Both investigators and patients were masked to the type of treatment. Patients self-administered the medication until spontaneous passage of the DUS. In patients where there was uncontrolled pain, fever, an increase in serum creatinine of >1.8 mg/dL, progressive hydronephrosis or no further progress after 4 weeks, a decision was taken for further treatment.

Results

In all, 47 and 49 patients were available for analysis in both the placebo and sildenafil citrate groups; respectively. Both groups were comparable for age and stone characteristics. Spontaneous expulsion occurred in 19 of 47 patients (40.4%) in the placebo group and in 33 of 49 (67.3%) in the sildenafil citrate group (P = 0.014). The mean time to stone expulsion was significantly shorter in the sildenafil citrate group (P < 0.001). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model showed that receiving sildenafil citrate was the only independent factor that had a significant impact on stone passage with a hazard ratio of 2.7 (95% confidence interval 1.5–4.8; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Sildenafil citrate enhances spontaneous passage of 5–10 mm DUS.

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.