Nifedipine and methylprednisolone in facilitating ureteral stone passage: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of urolithiasis in geriatric patients - differences, similarities and caveats in comparison to the general population

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Purpose of the review is to address management and prevention of urolithiasis in elderly patients examining the dynamic interplay between general measures, dietary adjustments, lifestyle modifications, and targeted pharmacological and/ or surgical interventions. The goal is to provide understanding of the evolving strategies required for effective urolithiasis prevention in the geriatric population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Age-specific diagnostic considerations are necessary because urolithiasis in the elderly population is characterized by bigger stones, greater peri-operative risks, and heightened symptom severity. When comorbidities are present, conservative treatments - especially analgesia - provide difficulties. Surgical procedures prove to be safe and effective, with complication rates and practical application comparable to younger cohorts. Prevention approaches that include lifestyle changes and the investigation of novel pharmaceutical options such as sodium-dependent glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT-2)-inhibitors are promising in the management of urolithiasis in the elderly population.

SUMMARY

Our review offers a thorough investigation of urolithiasis in the elderly population, elucidating distinct clinical manifestations, complex diagnostic issues, and treatment implications. The safety and effectiveness of ureteroscopy in older patients, as well as the possible prophylactic function of SGLT-2-I, offer crucial insights for clinicians. Subsequent studies are necessary to enhance age-specific therapies, addressing the distinct obstacles presented by urolithiasis in the elderly population within this rapidly growing demographic.

The Saudi urological association guidelines on urolithiasis

Aims

The Saudi Urolithiasis Guidelines are a set of recommendations for diagnosing, evaluating, and treating urolithiasis in the Saudi population. These guidelines are based on the latest evidence and expert consensus to improve patient outcomes and optimize care delivery. They cover the various aspects of urolithiasis, including risk factors, diagnosis, medical and surgical treatments, and prevention strategies. By following these guidelines, health-care professionals can improve care quality for individuals with urolithiasis in Saudi Arabia.

Panel

The Saudi Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel consists of urologists specialized in endourology with expertise in urolithiasis and consultation with a guideline methodologist. All panelists involved in this document have submitted statements disclosing any potential conflicts of interest.

Methods

The Saudi Guidelines on Urolithiasis were developed by relying primarily on established international guidelines to adopt or adapt the most appropriate guidance for the Saudi context. When necessary, the panel modified the phrasing of recommendations from different sources to ensure consistency within the document. To address areas less well covered in existing guidelines, the panel conducted a directed literature search for high quality evidence published in English, including meta analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective nonrandomized comparative studies. The panel also searched for locally relevant studies containing information unique to the Saudi Arabian population. The recommendations are formulated with a direction and strength of recommendation based on GRADE terminology and interpretation while relying on existing summaries of evidence from the existing guidelines.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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 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).

The economics of stone disease

The rising prevalence of kidney stone disease is associated with significant costs to healthcare systems worldwide. This is in part due to direct procedural and medical management costs, as well as indirect costs to health systems, patients, and families. A number of manuscripts evaulating the economics of stone disease have been published since the 2008s International Consultation on Stone Disease. These highlight costs associated with stone disease, including acute management, surgical management, and medical management. This work hopes to highlight optimization in care by reducing inefficient treatments and maximizing cost-efficient preventative strategies.

Pharmacologic Expulsive Treatment of Ureteral Calculi

Objective:

TO evaluate the role of nifedipine and the α1-adrenoreceptor antagonists tamsulosin, terazosin, and doxazosin in the expulsive treatment of ureteral calculi.

Data Sources:

Literature was searched via MEDLINE (1966–February 2006) with subsequent bibliographic review. MeSH headings included ureteral calculi, nifedipine, doxazosin, and adrenergic α-antagonists. Key terms were ureteral calculi, nifedipine, tamsulosin, terazosin, and doxazosin.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

Trials evaluating nifedipine, tamsulosin, terazosin, and doxazosin for expulsion of ureteral stones were reviewed. All were published in English-language, peer-reviewed journals.

Data Synthesis:

Several trials have evaluated the effects of nifedipine and tamsulosin on ureteral stone passage rates and mean time to stone passage in stones no larger than 15 mm. In 28 day trials, the rates of ureteral stone passage were 35–70% in the control groups compared with 77.1–80% in patients treated with nifedipine and 79.3–100% in patients treated with tamsulosin. Average number of days to stone passage in the control groups was 4.6–20, and the time to stone passage was only 5–9.3 days in patients receiving nifedipine and 2.7–7.9 days in those receiving tamsulosin. The stone passage rates and time to stone passage appeared to be similar in one trial that compared tamsulosin with terazosin and doxazosin. Limited data suggest that these agents may have a role as adjuncts to shock wave lithotripsy. Adverse drug reactions were uncommon.

Conclusions:

Nifedipine, tamsulosin, terazosin, and doxazosin are safe and effective options in enhancing ureteral stone expulsion in selected patients with uncomplicated presentations.

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.

Comparative efficacy of tamsulosin versus nifedipine for distal ureteral calculi: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systematically compare the therapeutic effect and safety of tamsulosin with nifedipine in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral calculi.

METHODS

Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trial Register Centers, were comprehensively searched. Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected, and quality assessment was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook. RevMan software was used to analyze the outcome measures, which consisted of expulsion rate, expulsion time, and complications.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs consisting of 4,961 patients were included (tamsulosin group, 2,489 cases; nifedipine group, 2,472 cases). Compared with nifedipine, tamsulosin significantly increased the expulsion rate (risk ratio =1.29, 95% CI [1.25, 1.33], P<0.0001) and reduced the expulsion time (standard mean difference =-0.39, 95% CI [-0.72, -0.05], P=0.02). Regarding safety, tamsulosin was associated with fewer complications than nifedipine (risk ratio =0.45, 95% CI [0.28, 0.72], P=0.0008), and further subgroup analysis showed that tamsulosin was associated with a lower risk of both mild and moderate-to-severe complications.

CONCLUSION

On the bias of current evidence, tamsulosin showed an overall superiority to nifedipine for distal ureteral calculi <10 mm in aspects of expulsion rate, expulsion time, and safety. Tamsulosin was supposed to be the first drug to be recommended to patients willing to receive medical expulsive therapy.

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.

The Effect of Lavender Oil in Patients with Renal Colic: A Prospective Controlled Study Using Objective and Subjective Outcome Measurements

OBJECTIVE

To assess the usability of lavender oil as an adjuvant in the medical treatment of pain due to renal stones.

METHODS

One hundred patients age 19-64 years diagnosed with renal colic were included in the study. Group 1 (n=50) received standard medical therapy (diclofenac sodium, 75 mg intramuscularly); group 2 (n=50) received aromatherapy (lavender oil) in addition to the standard medical treatment. In both groups, the severity of the pain was graded between 0 (no pain) and 10 (severe pain) by using the visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The VAS values at the beginning and at 10 and 30 minutes in group 1 were 7.70±1.61, 5.02±2.20, and 2.89±1.96, respectively; in group 2, the values were 7.83±2.02, 4.42±2.46, and 2.20±1.74, respectively. The VAS values for the male patients in group 1 at the beginning and at 10 and 30 minutes were 7.61±1.47, 4.80±2.00, and 2.67±1.74; in the female patients, the values were 7.81±1.80, 5.40±2.41, and 3.72±1.94. For the male patients in group 2, the VAS values at the beginning and at 10 and 30 minutes were 8.25±2.01, 4.93±2.72, and 2.96±1.90, respectively; for the female patients, the values were 7.52±1.94, 4.15±1.95, and 1.21±0.91, respectively. Results are presented as mean±SD. Although there was no significant difference between the VAS values at the beginning and at 10 minutes in both groups, the VAS values at 30 minutes in the group receiving aromatherapy plus conventional treatment were statistically significantly low.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that the use of aromatherapy, which is a nonpharmacologic treatment method, as an adjuvant to conventional treatment methods will help decrease pain, particularly in female patients.

Impact of colic pain as a significant factor for predicting the stone free rate of one-session shock wave lithotripsy for treating ureter stones: a Bayesian logistic regression model analysis

Purpose

This study was conducted to evaluate colic pain as a prognostic pretreatment factor that can influence ureter stone clearance and to estimate the probability of stone-free status in shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) patients with a ureter stone.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 1,418 patients who underwent their first SWL between 2005 and 2013. Among these patients, 551 had a ureter stone measuring 4–20 mm and were thus eligible for our analyses. The colic pain as the chief complaint was defined as either subjective flank pain during history taking and physical examination. Propensity-scores for established for colic pain was calculated for each patient using multivariate logistic regression based upon the following covariates: age, maximal stone length (MSL), and mean stone density (MSD). Each factor was evaluated as predictor for stone-free status by Bayesian and non-Bayesian logistic regression model.

Results

After propensity-score matching, 217 patients were extracted in each group from the total patient cohort. There were no statistical differences in variables used in propensity- score matching. One-session success and stone-free rate were also higher in the painful group (73.7% and 71.0%, respectively) than in the painless group (63.6% and 60.4%, respectively). In multivariate non-Bayesian and Bayesian logistic regression models, a painful stone, shorter MSL, and lower MSD were significant factors for one-session stone-free status in patients who underwent SWL.

Conclusions

Colic pain in patients with ureter calculi was one of the significant predicting factors including MSL and MSD for one-session stone-free status of SWL.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The effect of tamsulosin in the medical treatment of distal ureteral stones

INTRODUCTION

Renal stones are common disorders that affect approximately 5% to 10% of the population and the incidence of renal stones is rising. Treatment of ureteral stones is an important part of urologists and minimally invasive procedures such as ESWL and ureteroscopy effectiveness has been proven in various studies. However, these methods are not completely safe and are expensive and can be complicated. Purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of tamsulosin in the medical treatment of distal ureteral stones.

PATIENTS & METHODS

A total of 96 patients with distal ureteral stones or UVj are randomly divided into two study group (50 patients) and control group (46 patients). Patients in the control group allowed to freely consuming fluids (hydration) and indomethacin 100 mg PRN. Study group in addition to indomethacin and daily analgesic 0.4 mg tamsulosin was administered. All subjects in terms of analgesic dose, duration of expulsion and expulsion were studied.

RESULTS

Spontaneous expulsion of stone was occurred in 62.5% (30 patients out of 46) of control group patients and 82% (41 patients out of 50) that there was no significant difference (P>0.05). Average time to fix the stone in control group 4.7 ± 8.03 days (range 2 to 28 days) and in the study group, 3.7 ± 5.70 days (range 1 to 23 days) is significantly different (P>0.05). The average amount of analgesic consumption in the control group was 2.3 ± 4.31 and in the study group was 1.48 ± 2.15 that showed significant differences (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this study, although the addition of tamsulosin to conservative treatment of distal ureteral stones in the distal ureteral stone expulsion showed no significant difference between the two groups, but the reduction in the duration of expulsion, reduce pain and reduce the need for analgesic has been beneficial.

Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

The efficacy of tamsulosin vs. nifedipine for the medical expulsive therapy of distal ureteric stones: A randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare, in a randomised clinical trial, the efficacy of tamsulosin and nifedipine as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureterolithiasis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 128 symptomatic patients with stones in the juxtavesical tract of the ureter were randomly divided into group 1 (64 patients) receiving oral nifedipine sustained-release 30 mg/day, and group 2 (64 patients) receiving tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day. Both groups received oral prednisolone 30 mg/day for 10 days and diclofenac 75 mg intramuscularly on demand. Patients were assessed by weekly ultrasonography with or with no abdominal computed tomography, during a follow-up of 4 weeks. The stone passage rate and time, analgesic use, hospitalisation and endoscopic interventions were evaluated. The results were analysed statistically using appropriate tests.

RESULTS

The stone expulsion rate was 55% for group 1 and 80% for group 2 (P = 0.004). The mean stone size was 8.59 and 8.85 mm in groups 1 and 2, respectively. The mean expulsion time was 23 days for group 1 and 9 days for group 2 (P < 0.001). The mean number of diclofenac injections was 1.19 for group 1 and 0.42 for group 2 (P < 0.001). Eleven patients in group 1 vs. two in group 2 were hospitalised (P = 0.001). Twenty-six patients in group 1 and 13 in group 2 underwent ureteroscopy (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical expulsive therapy with tamsulosin should be considered as a first-line treatment for index cases of distal ureterolithiasis with no complications. The use of tamsulosin provides better stone expulsion than does nifedipine.

Comparing the efficacy of tamsulosin and silodosin in the medical expulsion therapy for ureteral calculi

BACKGROUND

Urolithiasis is a chronic disease of mankind, which has enormous public health importance and it accounts for a substantial economic burden on our society. Hence, it becomes all the more important to formulate cheaper and easier means for treating this condition. The past few years have seen a number of drugs being introduced and successfully used in the medical expulsion therapy of small, uncomplicated ureteral calculi, with each drug claiming to provide better results than the others. Ours is perhaps the first study which has compared the efficacy of tamsulosin and silodosin in the medical expulsion therapy for ureteral calculi.

AIMS

To compare the efficacy of tamsulosin (0.4mg) vs silodosin (8mg), both in terms of the stone expulsion rate and the time to stone expulsion.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

A prospective and a randomized controlled study was conducted in the Department of Urology, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal, Manipur, India.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From February to August 2012, 100 patients who were between the age group of 18-50 years, who had unilateral, uncomplicated middle or lower ureteral stones </= 1cm were enrolled and they were divided into two groups. Group 1 received tamsulosin (0.4mg) daily, whereas Group 2 received silodosin (8mg) daily for a maximum period of 4 weeks. The patients were followed up weekly or biweekly with imaging studies. The primary endpoint was the stone expulsion rate and the secondary endpoints were the stone expulsion time, the rate of the interventions and the side effects.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The statistical analysis was performed by using the Student's t-test and the Chi-squared test. A p value of < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. The SPSS-16 software was used for the statistical analysis of the data.

RESULTS

A spontaneous stone expulsion was observed in 58% of the patients in group 1 and in 82% of the patients in Group 2, which was statistically significant. There was also a significant difference between the groups with regards to the mean stone expulsion time. A lower analgesic use was found in Group 2.

CONCLUSION

In our study, silodosin was found to be clinically superior to tamsulosin, both in terms of the stone expulsion rate and the stone expulsion time.

Randomized controlled trial to compare the safety and efficacy of naftopidil and tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy in combination with prednisolone for distal ureteral stones

Purpose

To compare the safety and efficacy of naftopidil and tamsulosin with prednisolone as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones.

Materials and Methods

Between July 2010 and March 2012, 120 adult patients presenting with distal ureteric stones of size 5 to 10 mm were randomized equally to tamsulosin (group A), naftopidil (group B) or watchful waiting (group C). Tamsulosin or naftopidil was given for a maximum of four weeks. In addition patients in group A and B were given 5 mg prednisolone once daily (maximum one week). Stone expulsion rate, time to stone expulsion, analgesic use, number of hospital visits for pain, follow-up and endoscopic treatment and adverse effects of drugs were noted. Statistical analyses were done using chi-square test, Mann-Whitney test and analysis of variance.

Results

There was a statistically higher expulsion rate in groups A (70%) and B (87.5%) as compared to group C (32.5%) (p<0.001). The expulsion rates were not statistically different between groups A and B (p=0.056). The mean time to expulsion was comparable between groups A and B but longer in group C. Analgesic use was significantly lower in groups A and B. Average number of hospital visits for pain, follow-up and endoscopic treatment was similar in all groups. There was no serious adverse event.

Conclusions

Medical expulsive therapy for the distal ureteric stones using either naftopidil or tamsulosin in combination with prednisolone is safe and efficacious.

Medical management of renal stone

Kidney stone is a common clinical problem faced by clinicians. The prevalence of the disease is increasing worldwide. As the affected population is getting younger and recurrence rates are high, dietary modifications, lifestyle changes, and medical management are essential. Patients with recurrent stone disease need careful evaluation for underlying metabolic disorder. Medical management should be used judiciously in all patients with kidney stones, with appropriate individualization. This chapter focuses on medical management of kidney stones.

Emergency management of ureteral stones: Recent advances

Most ureteral stones can be observed with reasonable expectation of uneventful stone passage. When an active ureteral stone treatment is warranted, the best procedure to choose is dependent on several factors, besides stone size and location, including operators’ experience, patients’ preference, available equipment and related costs. Placement of double-J stent or nephrostomy tube represents the classical procedures performed in a renal colic due to acute ureteral obstruction when the conservative drug therapy does not resolve the symptoms. These maneuvers are usually followed by ureteroscopy or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, which currently represent the mainstay of treatment for ureteral stones. In this review paper a literature search was performed to identify reports dealing with emergency management of renal colic due to ureteral stones. The main aspects related to this debated issue are analyzed and the advantages and disadvantages of each treatment option are carefully discussed.

Management of ureteral calculi and medical expulsive therapy in emergency departments

Introduction:

Ureteral stones are a common problem in daily emergency department practice. Patients may be offered medical expulsive therapy (MET1) to facilitate stone expulsion and this should be offered as a treatment for patients with distal ureteral calculi, who are amenable to waiting management. Emergency department clinicians and family practitioners are often in the front line regarding the diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic nephrolithiasis and this commentary is dedicated to them because their decisions directly influence the outcome of the acute stone episode and appropriate referral patterns.

Materials and Methods:

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to understand the role of MET in the treatment of obstructing ureteral calculi. A bibliographic search covering the period from January 1980 to March 2010 was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE. The searches were restricted to publications in English. This analysis is based on the 21 studies that fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria.

Results:

A metaregression analysis of expulsion time showed a statistically significant advantage in the experimental group, in which the mean expulsion time was 6.2 days compared to 10.3 days in controls. The treatment effect on expulsion rate (P = 0.53) was partially lost as the size of the stones decreased because of the high spontaneous expulsion rate of small stones and the expulsion time was not influenced by pharmacological treatment (P = 0.76) if the stone size was smaller than 5 mm. Analysis of the tamsulosin database. A total of 1283 participants were included in the 17 studies. These studies showed that compared to standard therapy or placebo, tamsulosin had significant benefits, being associated with both a higher stone expulsion rate (P < 0.001) and reduction of the expulsion time (P = 0.02). Reductions in the need for analgesic therapy, hospitalization and surgery are also shown. Analysis of the nifedipine database. The number of participants in each trial ranged from 25 to 70. Compared to standard therapy, the use of nifedipine significantly improved the spontaneous stone expulsion rate (P < 0.001). The mean expulsion time was slightly, but not statistically significantly, different (P = 0.19) between the treatment and control groups. A possible benefit of nifedipine, in terms of significantly reducing the doses of analgesics required, was reported in three studies. There was no difference between the tamsulosin- and nifedipine-treated groups with regard to expulsion time (P = 0.17) or expulsion rate (P = 0.79).

Conclusions:

Despite all its advantages, MET is rarely used, representing a failure of the translation of medical science into practice. These data raise concerns not only about the quality of care of patients who could benefit from resolution of stones without anaesthetic and surgical risks but also with regard to potential cost savings. MET should be offered as a treatment for patients with distal ureteral calculi who are amenable to a waiting management.

Randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of isosorbide-SR addition to current treatment in medical expulsive therapy for ureteral calculi

It has been suggested that nitrates are potent smooth muscle relaxants that may reduce pain and facilitate ureteral stone passage; therefore it may be an option for medical expulsive therapy in ureteral stones. In a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial, we evaluated the efficacy of medical expulsive therapy with isosorbide-SR 40 mg in patients with ureteral stones (≤10 mm). The patients with ureteral stones in KUB or urinary tract ultrasonography were randomized to receive methylprednisolone plus celecoxib without (control group), and with isosorbide-SR 40 mg (treatment group) for 21 days. 66 patients [33(50%) in control, 33(50%) in treatment group] were entered randomly to our study. The stone expulsion rate was not significantly different between two groups (54.5 vs. 45.5%) (P = 0.497). The need for surgical procedures were more common in control group within 21 days (9.4 vs. 6.1%) and more common in treatment group after 21 days (33.3 vs. 21.9%) (P = 0.756).Patients in the treatment group experienced more intractable pain (27.3 vs. 6.1%), intractable vomiting (3 vs. 0%) (P = 0.046) and hospitalization (3 vs. 0%) (P = 0.314). Drug side effects including headache and dizziness were more common in treatment group (39.4 vs. 9.1%) (P = 0.004). In our study, the use of isosorbide-SR in treatment group did not improve the stone expulsion rate in patients with ureteral stones (≤10 mm) but developed more side effects. Then it may not an appropriate alternative for medical expulsive therapy. Of course, further trials are recommended.

Tamsulosin as an expulsive therapy for steinstrasse after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

Steinstrasse is a well-known complication following extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of tamsulosin as a management of steinstrasse.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

88 patients with unilateral steinstrasse were treated between January 2005 and December 2008. The patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups. There were no significant differences between groups for age, gender, stone location, stone length or stone fragment size (p > 0.05). Patients in group 1 (study group) received a single daily morning dose of tamsulosin (0.4 mg) for a maximum of 4 weeks, in addition to pain-relieving therapy. Patients in group 2 (control group) received only the pain-relieving therapy. All patients were checked weekly with a plain X-ray of the urinary tract, urinary ultrasonography, urine analysis and serum creatinine. Pain episodes, day of spontaneous stone expulsion, total analgesic dosage and drug side-effects were recorded.

RESULTS

Stone expulsion occurred in 32 of the 44 patients (72.7%) receiving tamsulosin and in 25 of the 44 patients (56.8%) in the control group. Patients receiving tamsulosin had a significantly higher stone expulsion rate (p = 0.017). There were no significant differences between groups for mean stone expulsion time or number of analgesics used. Twelve patients (27.3%) in the group receiving tamsulosin and 19 patients (43.3%) in the control group needed hospitalization; the group difference was statistically significant (p = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with no treatment, tamsulosin can significantly facilitate expulsion of retained ureteral stone fragments following ESWL.

Does tamsulosin change the management of proximally located ureteral stones?

The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of an alpha-1 adrenergic receptor blocking agent on the spontaneous passage of proximal ureteral calculi < or =10 mm. 92 patients having single radio-opaque proximal ureteral stone < or =10 mm were randomized into two groups. Group 1 patients (n = 50) were followed with classical conservative approach and patients in Group 2 (n = 42) additionally received tamsulosin, 0.4 mg/day during 4 weeks follow-up. The stone passage rates, stone expulsion time, VAS score, change in colic episodes, and hospital re-admission rates for colicky pain were compared. The patients were furthermore stratified according to stone diameters <5 and 5-10 mm. The data of these subgroups were also compared. Stone expulsion rates showed statistically significant difference between tamsulosin receivers and non-receivers (35.7 vs 30%, p = 0.04). Time to stone expulsion period was also shortened in those receiving tamsulosin (8.4 +/- 3.3 vs 11.6 +/- 4.1 days, p = 0.015). Likewise, the mean VAS score and renal colic episodes during follow-up period were significantly diminished in Group 2 patients (4.5 +/- 2.3 vs 8.8 +/- 2.9, p < 0.01 and 66.6 vs 36%, p = 0.001, respectively). Among the stones <5 mm, tamsulosin receiving patients had higher spontaneous passage rate (71.4 vs 50%, p < 0.001). The prominent effect of tamsulosin on the 5-10 mm stones was the relocation of the stones to a more distal part of ureter (39.3 vs 18.7%, p = 0.001). Administration of tamsulosin in the medical management of proximal ureteral calculi can facilitate the spontaneous passage rate in the stone <5 mm and the relocation of the stones between 5 and 10 mm to more distal part of the ureter.