Doxazosin for the Management of Distal-Ureteral Stones

Medical Expulsive Therapy for Pediatric Ureteral Stones: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteral stones in pediatric patients, Cochrane, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the reference list of retrieved studies were searched up to September 2022 to identify RCTs on the efficacy of MET. The protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022339093). Articles were reviewed, data were extracted by two reviewers, and the differences were resolved by the third reviewer. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2. The outcomes, including the stone expulsion rate (SER), stone expulsion time (SET), episode of pain, analgesic consumption, and adverse effects, were evaluated. Six RCTs enrolling 415 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The duration of MET ranged from 19 to 28 days. The investigated medications included tamsulosin, silodosin, and doxazosin. The stone-free rate after 4 weeks in the MET group was 1.42 times that of the control group (RR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.26-1.61, p < 0.001). The stone expulsion time also decreased by an average of 5.18 days (95% CI: -8.46/-1.89, p = 0.002). Adverse effects were more commonly observed in the MET group (RR: 2.18; 95% CI: 1.28-3.69, p = 0.004). The subgroup analysis evaluating the influence of the type of medication, the stone size, and the age of patients failed to reveal any impact of the aforementioned factors on the stone expulsion rate or stone expulsion time. Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy among pediatric patients are efficient and safe. They increase the stone expulsion rate and decrease the stone expulsion time; however, this included a higher rate of adverse effects, which include headache, dizziness, or nasal congestion.

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).

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

Objective:

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

Patients and Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

The efficacy and safety of adrenergic alpha-antagonists in treatment of distal ureteral stones in pediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adrenergic alpha-antagonists as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones in pediatric patients.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases were searched up to January 2016. All randomized controlled trials and all cohort studies in which patients were randomized to receive either adrenergic alpha-antagonists or placebo for ureteral stones were identified. The outcome measures assessed were overall stone expulsion rate (primary), expulsion time (secondary), and treatment-emergent adverse events.

RESULTS

Five trials with a total of 406 pediatric patients met the inclusion criteria. According to the doses of adrenergic alpha-antagonists, the pooling effects of adrenergic alpha-antagonists were analyzed, with a higher expulsion rate obtained than in controls, the stone expulsion rate (OR=2.70, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.91, P=0.001). Adrenergic alpha-antagonists statistically did not significantly decrease the number of the stone expulsion time with the placebo, the stone expulsion time (SMD=-4.65, 95% CI -9.76 to 0.45, P=0.07). Safety assessments included common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (OR=2.01, 95% CI 0.74 to 5.48, P=0.17). Compared with placebos, there was a higher stone expulsion rate with the adrenergic alpha-antagonists; in addition, fewer adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis may suggest that adrenergic alpha-antagonists are a safe and effective medical expulsive therapy choice for ureteral stones in pediatric patients. As the level of classification of evidence-based medicine, the level of evidence of our article is Ia. But it remains to need a large-scale multicenter randomized controlled study to be further confirmed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

The level of evidence of our study is V.

Alpha blockers in the management of ureteric lithiasis: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Effective medical expulsion for ureteric stones with α-blockers offers numerous advantages over surgical alternatives. However, its effectiveness remains uncertain and with the publication of new trial data, the available evidence requires reappraisal.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of α-blockers the management of ureteric lithiasis.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature, with predefined search criteria, was conducted using PubMed and Embase. All randomised trials comparing α-blocker monotherapy to placebo or standard therapy were included. Stone expulsion rate was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were time to stone expulsion, analgesic usage and pain scores. Subgroup analyses assessed individual adrenergic antagonists and variations in standard therapy. Sensitivity analysis was based on stone location, stone size, Cochrane Risk of Bias score and study protocol. Summary effects were calculated using a random-effect model and presented as Relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD) for dichotomous and continuous outcome measures, respectively.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies randomising 6654 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Stone expulsion rates improved with α-blockers (RR, 1.49; 95% CI 1.38-1.61). Contrast enhanced funnel showed evidence of publication bias. Stone expulsion time was 3.99 days (CI -4.75 to -3.23) shorter with α-blockers. Similarly, patients required 106.53 mg [CI -148.20 to -64.86] less diclofenac compared with control/placebo, and had 0.80 [CI -1.07 to -0.54] fewer pain episodes. Visual Analogue Scores were also reduced, -2.43 [CI -3.87 to -0.99]. All formulations of α-antagonists all demonstrated beneficial effects over conservative treatment/placebo. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated significant effects of stone location, stone size and study design.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Despite the opposing results of recently published trial, current evidence continues to demonstrate a potential benefit of α-blocker treatment particularly for distal stones over 5 mm.

Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

 To investigate the efficacy and safety of alpha blockers in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones.

DESIGN

 Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, LILACS, and Medline databases and scientific meeting abstracts to July 2016.

REVIEW METHODS

 Randomized controlled trials of alpha blockers compared with placebo or control for treatment of ureteric stones were eligible. : Two team members independently extracted data from each included study. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who passed their stone. Secondary outcomes were the time to passage; the number of pain episodes; and the proportions of patients who underwent surgery, required admission to hospital, and experienced an adverse event. Pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the primary outcome with profile likelihood random effects models. Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and the GRADE approach were used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarize conclusions.

RESULTS

 55 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate quality evidence that alpha blockers facilitate passage of ureteric stones (risk ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 1.61). Based on a priori subgroup analysis, there seemed to be no benefit to treatment with alpha blocker among patients with smaller ureteric stones (1.19, 1.00 to 1.48). Patients with larger stones treated with an alpha blocker, however, had a 57% higher risk of stone passage compared with controls (1.57, 1.17 to 2.27). The effect of alpha blockers was independent of stone location (1.48 (1.05 to 2.10) for upper or middle stones; 1.49 (1.38 to 1.63) for lower stones). Compared with controls, patients who received alpha blockers had significantly shorter times to stone passage (mean difference -3.79 days, -4.45 to -3.14; moderate quality evidence), fewer episodes of pain (-0.74 episodes, -1.28 to -0.21; low quality evidence), lower risks of surgical intervention (risk ratio 0.44, 0.37 to 0.52; moderate quality evidence), and lower risks of admission to hospital (0.37, 0.22 to 0.64; moderate quality evidence). The risk of a serious adverse event was similar between treatment and control groups (1.49, 0.24 to 9.35; low quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

 Alpha blockers seem efficacious in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones who are amenable to conservative management. The greatest benefit might be among those with larger stones. These results support current guideline recommendations advocating a role for alpha blockers in patients with ureteric stones.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

 PROSPERO registration No CRD42015024169.

Managing Small Ureteral Stones: A Retrospective Study on Follow-Up, Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Conservative Management vs. Early Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The management of ureteral calculi has evolved over the past decades with the advent of new surgical and medical treatments. The current guidelines support conservative management as a possible approach for ureteral stones sized = 10 mm.

OBJECTIVES

We purport to follow the natural history of ureteral stones managed conservatively in this retrospective study, and attempt to ascribe an estimated health-care and cost-effectiveness, from presentation to time of being stone-free.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

192 male and female patients with a single ureteral stone sized = 10 mm were included in this study. The clinical and cost-related outcome was analyzed for different stone sizes (0-4, 4-6 and 6-10 mm). The effectiveness of selected follow-up (FU) scans was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Stone size was found to be related to the degree of hydronephrosis and to the likelihood of need for a surgical management. Conservative management was found to be clinically effective, as 88% of the patients did not require surgery for their stone. 96.1% of the patients with a stone 0-4mm managed to expel their ureteral stone. Bigger ureteral stones were found to be more costly. The cost-effectiveness of the single FU scans was found to be related to their efficiency, while the global cost-effectiveness of conservative management vs. early surgery was higher for smaller stones (26.8 vs. 17.32% for stones 0-4 vs. 6-10 mm).

CONCLUSION

Conservative management is clinically effective with a significant cost-benefit, particularly for the subgroup of stones sized 0-4 mm, where a need for FU scans is in dispute.

Urolithiasis--an interdisciplinary diagnostic, therapeutic and secondary preventive challenge

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of urolithiasis in Germany is 4.7%; its incidence has trebled in the last three decades. The risk of recurrence is 50-80%, depending on the type of stone, unless secondary prevention is instituted. Risk-adapted secondary prevention lowers this risk to 10-15%.

METHODS

This review is based on publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed using the key words "urolithiasis," "urinary stones," "epidemiology," "lithogenesis," "biominerals," "risk factors," and "diagnosis, therapy, metaphylaxis." These publications were evaluated with the aid of the urolithiasis guideline of the European Association of Urology.

RESULTS

Acute renal colic can usually be diagnosed without sophisticated equipment. Stones can be dealt with by a variety of techniques depending on their size and location, including extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy, percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy, and open surgery. Most ureteric stones of diameter up to 5 mm pass spontaneously. 75% of patients have no complications. The basic evaluation needed for secondary prevention can be carried out by any physician on an ambulatory basis. In the 25% of patients who have complications, a more extensive interdisciplinary evaluation of metabolic parameters should be performed in a clinical center for urinary stones.

CONCLUSION

Urolithiasis has many causes and can be treated in many different ways. An extensive metabolic work-up is often necessary for secondary prevention. The various treatment options must be considered for their suitability in each individual patient. Robust data are now available on surgical and interventional methods, but there are as yet no high-quality trials of secondary prevention. Further research should concentrate on the etiology and pathogenesis of urolithiasis.

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.

Androgen receptor enhances kidney stone-CaOx crystal formation via modulation of oxalate biosynthesis & oxidative stress

Males develop kidney stones far more frequently than females with a ratio of 2–3:1, suggesting that androgen receptor (AR) signaling might play a key role in the development of nephrolithiasis. Using the cre-loxP system to selectively knock out AR in glyoxylate-induced calcium oxalate (CaOx) crystal mouse models, we found that the mice lacking hepatic AR had less oxalate biosynthesis, which might lead to lower CaOx crystal formation, and that the mice lacking kidney proximal or distal epithelial AR also had lower CaOx crystal formation. We found that AR could directly up-regulate hepatic glycolate oxidase and kidney epithelial NADPH oxidase subunit p22-PHOX at the transcriptional level. This up-regulation might then increase oxalate biosynthesis and oxidative stress that resulted in induction of kidney tubular injury. Targeting AR with the AR degradation enhancer ASC-J9 led to suppression of CaOx crystal formation via modulation of oxalate biosynthesis and oxidative stress in both in vitro and in vivo studies. Taken together, these results established the roles of AR in CaOx crystal formation.

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.

Transfer of doxazosin into breast milk

To the best of our knowledge, there have been no published studies of doxazosin transfer into human milk. In rats, milk concentrations twentyfold higher than in plasma have been reported. Based on these animal data, some references advise to avoid breastfeeding during doxazosin therapy. However, the physicochemical properties of doxazosin suggest low transfer into human milk. A 37-year-old breastfeeding woman who was administered doxazosin 4 mg daily for 2 doses was studied. Doxazosin concentrations in milk and plasma were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The milk/plasma area under the concentration-time curve (AUC0-18 hours) ratio was 0.1. This finding is consistent with what could be predicted based on the physicochemical properties of doxazosin. The average and maximum milk concentrations were 2.9 and 4.2 µg/L. These values correspond to estimated relative infant doses of 0.06% and 0.09%, respectively, assuming standard infant milk intake. These values are well below the generally accepted cutoff of 10% for predicting safety during breastfeeding. A low relative infant dose of < 0.1% suggests that maternal doxazosin therapy may be compatible with breastfeeding after careful individual risk-benefit analysis.

Tamsulosin versus Alfuzosin in the Treatment of Patients with Distal Ureteral Stones: Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Study

Purpose

We evaluated and compared the efficacy of tamsulosin and alfuzosin in the medical treatment of symptomatic, uncomplicated distal ureteral stones.

Materials and Methods

A total of 87 patients with distal ureteral stones of ≤10 mm were randomly divided into 3 groups. Group I patients (n=29) received 0.4 mg tamsulosin daily, group II patients (n=30) received 10 mg alfuzosin daily, and group III patients (n=28) were not given tamsulosin or alfuzosin. Patients in all groups received Diclofenac sodium regularly for 1 week and then on demand. Follow-up was done on a weekly basis for 30 days.

Results

The mean stone size was comparable in the 3 groups (4.97±2.24, 5.47±2.13, and 5.39±1.81 mm, respectively). The stone expulsion rate was 86.2%, 76.6%, and 50% in groups I, II, and III, respectively. The difference in groups I and II with respect to group III was significant (p=0.0028 and 0.035). The mean expulsion time for groups I to III was 7.52±7.06, 8.26±7.34, and 13.90±6.99 days, respectively. The expulsion time was significantly shorter in groups I and II than in group III (p=0.0097 and 0.026). Patients taking tamsulosin and alfuzosin had fewer pain attacks than did group III patients (1.24±0.57 vs. 1.43±0.67 vs. 1.75±1.17). Only 3 cases of drug side effects, 2 in group I and 1 in group II, were recorded.

Conclusions

The use of tamsulosin or alfuzosin for the medical treatment of lower ureteric stones proved to be safe and effective. Moreover, tamsulosin did not have any significant benefits over alfuzosin.

Medical therapy to facilitate the passage of stones: what is the evidence?

CONTEXT

Medical expulsive therapy (MET) for urolithiasis has gained increasing attention in the last years. It has been suggested that the administration of alpha-adrenoreceptor antagonists (alpha-blockers) or calcium channel blockers augments stone expulsion rates and reduces colic events.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of MET with alpha-blockers and calcium channel blockers for upper urinary tract stones with and without prior extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the literature was performed in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews searched through 31 December 2008 without time limit. Efficacy and safety end points were evaluated in 47 randomised, controlled trials assessing the role of MET. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager (RevMan) v.5.0 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Pooling of alpha-blocker and calcium channel blocker studies demonstrated a higher and faster expulsion rate compared to a control group (risk ratio [RR]: 1.45 vs 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-1.57 vs 1.33-1.66). Similar results have been obtained after ESWL (RR: 1.29 vs 1.57; 95% CI: 1.16-1.43 vs 1.21-2.04). Additionally, lower analgesic requirements, fewer colic episodes, and fewer hospitalisations were observed within treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled analyses suggest that MET with alpha-blockers or calcium channel blockers augments stone expulsion rates, reduces the time to stone expulsion, and lowers analgesia requirements for ureteral stones with and without ESWL for stones < or = 10 mm. There is some evidence that a combination of alpha-blockers and corticosteroids might be more effective than treatment with alpha-blockers alone. Renal stones after ESWL also seem to profit from MET. The vast majority of randomised studies incorporated into the present systematic review are small, single-centre studies, limiting the strength of our conclusions. Therefore, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trials are needed.

[Ureter drugs]

Many improvements have been made recently in the field of the ureteral smooth muscle pharmacology. After a brief summary on physiological basis, we review what is known about effects on ureter of different drugs class. In a second part, we review clinical applications for renal colic analgesia, calculi expulsive medical therapy, ESWL adjuvant treatment and preoperative treatment before retrograde access. There are now sufficient data on NSAID and alpha-blockers. beta-agonists, especially for beta3 selective ones, and topical drugs before retrograde access are interesting and should be further evaluated.