Can tamsulosin facilitate expulsion of ureteral stones? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

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.

Role of Tamsulosin with or without Deflazacort to facilitate stone clearance after ESWL: a single-center randomized controlled study

Background

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is the treatment of choice for upper tract calculi of moderate size. After ESWL, various factors affect the passage of small fragments through ureter like fragment’s size and location. To facilitate fragment passage, a lot of medications have been tried and few have stood the test of the time. In this prospective study, we evaluated the role of Tamsulosin with or without Deflazacort versus no treatment after ESWL for ureteric and renal stones in terms of requirement of the number of ESWL sessions, stone clearance rate, stone expulsion time and analgesia requirements.

Results

Patients presenting between age-groups of 18–70 years with solitary renal/ureteric calculus of size between 6 and 15 mm in major axis with Hounsfield unit less than 1000 were recruited in one of the three groups (A, B and C) randomly. Patients in Group A were prescribed Tamsulosin (0.4 mg once daily) with Deflazacort (30 mg once daily), Group B were given Tamsulosin (0.4 mg once daily), and Group C received no treatment (analgesics SOS and hydration therapy) after undergoing ESWL. Two hundred and twenty-five patients were recruited in Group A, and 240 patients were recruited in Group B and Group C each. There was an insignificant difference for required mean ESWL sessions and stone clearance rate between three groups. There was an early clearance of stone fragments in Group A than in Groups B and C, and it was statistically significant between Group A and Group C, specifically in the subgroup of stone size 10.1–15 mm. The requirement of mean analgesic tablets difference was significant between Groups A and C.

Conclusions

Tamsulosin with Deflazacort decreases the number of required ESWL sessions and improves complete stone clearance, but the difference is not significant. There were significant improvement in facilitating early stone clearance and decrease in requirement of mean analgesic tablets after ESWL with Tamsulosin and Deflazacort. Thus, Tamsulosin with Deflazacort can be used safely to facilitate stone clearance without increased complication rate.

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).

Medical expulsive therapy for ureter stone using naftopidil: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial

Objectives

A prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the effects of naftopidil 75 mg for medical expulsive therapy for a single ureter stone.

Materials and methods

Patients diagnosed with a ureter stone were prescribed aceclofenac 100 mg or a combined medication of tramadol 37.5 mg and acetaminophen 325 mg. Patients then randomly received either naftopidil 75 mg or placebo. Primary endpoint was the stone passage rate at 14 days after medication.

Results

The 150 patients enrolled in 6 institutions randomly received either naftopidil (n = 75) or placebo (n = 75). The percentages of ureter stone passed spontaneously 14 days after medication was 60.9% in the naftopidil group and 53.3% in the placebo group. Stone-free rates and the total use of analgesics showed no significant differences between the two groups. Stone-free rates at 14 days after medication were decreased when maximal stone size was increased: 39.4% (≥ 5 mm), 15.5% (≥ 6 mm), and 7.0% (≥ 7 mm).

Conclusions

The use of naftopidil 75 mg once daily was not effective in increasing spontaneous stone passage rates or reducing analgesic use. The maximal stone size < 6 mm and the follow-up for two weeks would be appropriate for applying medical expulsive therapy to patients with a single ureter stone.

Use of drug therapy in the management of symptomatic ureteric stones in hospitalised adults: a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of a calcium channel blocker (nifedipine) and an alpha-blocker (tamsulosin) (the SUSPEND trial)

BACKGROUND

Ureteric colic, the term used to describe the pain felt when a stone passes down the ureter from the kidney to the bladder, is a frequent reason for people to seek emergency health care. Treatment with the muscle-relaxant drugs tamsulosin hydrochloride (Petyme, TEVA UK Ltd) and nifedipine (Coracten(®), UCB Pharma Ltd) as medical expulsive therapy (MET) is increasingly being used to improve the likelihood of spontaneous stone passage and lessen the need for interventional procedures. However, there remains considerable uncertainty around the effectiveness of these drugs for routine use.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether or not treatment with either tamsulosin 400 µg or nifedipine 30 mg for up to 4 weeks increases the rate of spontaneous stone passage for people with ureteric colic compared with placebo, and whether or not it is cost-effective for the UK NHS.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, randomised controlled trial comparing two active drugs, tamsulosin and nifedipine, against placebo. Participants, clinicians and trial staff were blinded to treatment allocation. A cost-utility analysis was performed using data gathered during trial participation.

SETTING

Urology departments in 24 UK NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged between 18 and 65 years admitted as an emergency with a single ureteric stone measuring ≤ 10 mm, localised by computerised tomography, who were able to take trial medications and complete trial procedures.

INTERVENTIONS

Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to take tamsulosin 400 µg, nifedipine 30 mg or placebo once daily for up to 4 weeks to make the following comparisons: tamsulosin or nifedipine (MET) versus placebo and tamsulosin versus nifedipine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone. This was defined as the lack of need for active intervention for ureteric stones at up to 4 weeks after randomisation. This was determined from 4- and 12-week case-report forms completed by research staff, and from the 4-week participant self-reported questionnaire. The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over 12 weeks. We estimated costs from NHS sources and calculated QALYs from participant completion of the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions health status questionnaire 3-level response (EQ-5D-3L™) at baseline, 4 weeks and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Primary outcome analysis included 97% of the 1167 participants randomised (378/391 tamsulosin, 379/387 nifedipine and 379/399 placebo participants). The proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone did not differ between MET and placebo [odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.43; absolute difference 0.8%, 95% CI -4.1% to 5.7%] or between tamsulosin and nifedipine [OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53; absolute difference 1%, 95% CI -4.6% to 6.6%]. There was no evidence of a difference in QALYs gained or in cost between the trial groups, which means that the use of MET would be very unlikely to be considered cost-effective. These findings were unchanged by extensive sensitivity analyses around predictors of stone passage, including sex, stone size and stone location.

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin and nifedipine did not increase the likelihood of stone passage over 4 weeks for people with ureteric colic, and use of these drugs is very unlikely to be cost-effective for the NHS. Further work is required to investigate the phenomenon of large, high-quality trials showing smaller effect size than meta-analysis of several small, lower-quality studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN69423238. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2010-019469-26.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Economic impact of urinary stones

Kidney stones have been rising in prevalence in the United States and worldwide, and represent a significant cost burden. Cost effectiveness research in this area may enable improvements in treatment efficiency that can benefit patients, providers and the healthcare system. There has been limited research in the cost effectiveness of surgical interventions for stone disease, despite the diverse treatment approaches that are available. Medical expulsive therapy (MET) has been shown to improve rates of stone passage for ureteral stones, and there is evidence that this practice should be liberalized from the standpoint of both clinical and cost effectiveness. While conservative treatment following a primary stone event appears to be cost effective, the economic impact of medical therapy for recurrent stone formers requires clarification despite its clinical efficacy. Future study regarding the cost effectiveness of prevention and interventions for stone disease are likely to improve both the quality and efficiency of care.

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 Alfuzosin as Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Alfuzosin has been widely used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatitis, and is claimed to be a selective agent for the lower urinary tract with low incidence of adverse side-effects and hypotensive changes. Recently, several randomized controlled trials have reported using Alfuzosin as an expulsive therapy of ureteral stones. Tamsulosin, another alpha blocker, has also been used as an agent for the expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. It is unclear whether alfuzosin has similar efficacy as Tamsulosin in the management of ureteral stones.

Objective

To perform a systematic review and analysis of literatures comparing Alfuzosin with Tamsulosin or standard conservative therapy for the treatment of ureteral stones less than 10 mm in diameter.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed in December 2014 using Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases to identify relevant studies. All randomized and controlled trials were included. A subgroup analysis was performed comparing Alfuzosin with control therapy on the management of distal ureteral stones.

Results

Alfuzosin provided a significantly higher stone-free rate than the control treatments (RR: 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35–2.55; p<0.001), and a shorter stone expulsion time (Weighted mean difference [WMD]: -4.20 d, 95%CI, -6.19 to -2.21; p<0.001), but it has a higher complication rate (RR: 2.02; 95% CI, 1.30–3.15; p<0.01). When Alfuzosin was compared to Tamsulosin, there was no significant difference in terms of stone-free rate (RR: 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79–1.02; p = 0.09) as well as the stone expulsion time (WMD: 0.52 d, 95%CI, -1.61 to 2.64; p = 0.63). The adverse effects of Alfuzosin were similar to those of Tamsulosin (RR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.61–1.26; p = 0.47).

Conclusions

Alfuzosin is a safe and effective agent for the expulsive therapy of ureteral stones smaller than 10 mm in size. It is more effective than therapeutic regiment without alpha blocker. It is equivalent to Tamsulosin in its effectiveness and safety profile. Adverse effects should always be kept in mind when use this class of drugs.

Naftopidil versus flopropione as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: results of a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, controlled trial

PURPOSE

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial was conducted to determine the efficacy of naftopidil as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for patients with distal ureteral stones.

METHODS

Ninety-two patients presenting with a single distal ureteral stone ≤10 mm were randomly assigned to receive either naftopidil (75 mg of naftopidil once in the morning and placebo twice a day) or flopropione (80 mg three times a day). The primary end point was time to stone expulsion calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Secondary end points were the percentages of patients who required analgesics, hospital admission, and surgery, the number of working days lost to the disease, and treatment safety.

RESULTS

Overall, three patients were excluded from the final analysis. No significant differences were noted in age, stone size, and stone side between the treatment arms. The median time to stone expulsion was 8 days [95 % confidence interval (CI), 3-16] for the naftopidil group, and this was significantly less than the 18 days (95 % CI, 11 to not reached) for the flopropione group (p = 0.03). On multivariate Cox regression analysis, the hazard of expulsion was 1.8-fold higher for the naftopidil group than for the flopropione group after adjustment for age, sex, stone side, and stone size. No significant differences were noted in the secondary end points.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of naftopidil significantly improved time to stone expulsion in patients with distal ureteral stones ≤10 mm. We believe that this is the first multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial demonstrating the efficacy of naftopidil for MET.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Tamsulosin: Ureteral Stones (Distal)

This Hospital Pharmacy feature is extracted from Off-Label Drug Facts, a publication available from Wolters Kluwer Health. Off-Label Drug Facts is a practitioner-oriented resource for information about specific drug uses that are unapproved by the US Food and Drug Administration. This new guide to the literature enables the health care professional or clinician to quickly identify published studies on off-label uses and determine if a specific use is rational in a patient care scenario. References direct the reader to the full literature for more comprehensive information before patient care decisions are made. Direct questions or comments regarding Off-Label Drug Uses to jgeneral@ku.edu .

Acute management of symptomatic nephrolithiasis

Over half a million patients present to emergency departments and nearly 3 million patients visit healthcare providers annually due to problems associated with urolithiasis. Despite updated guidelines from the American Urological Association and European Association of Urology for the evaluation and management of nephrolithiasis, considerable variability still exists regarding treatment for acute symptomatic upper urinary tract stones. Therefore, this article will review the current evaluation and management of acute symptomatic nephrolithiasis. Initial management includes analgesia and antiemetics. Additionally, a urinalysis and creatinine are required laboratory evaluations. Acute imaging with a non-contrast computed tomography (CT) scan is the diagnostic imaging modality of choice. However, concerns over radiation exposure have led towards low-dose and even ultra-low-dose protocols for the detection of urinary calculi. Low-dose non-contrast CT scans are now standard of care for the initial diagnosis of renal colic in patients with a body mass index ≤ 30. Medical expulsive therapy is recommended for patients with a ureteral calculus < 10 mm and no signs of infection. Emergency urinary decompression is mandatory for a specific subset of patients, especially those with infection. Although limited data exists, emergency ureteroscopy or even shock wave lithotripsy may also be therapeutic options.

A comparison of nifedipine and tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy for the management of lower ureteral stones without ESWL

Administration of nifedipine or tamsulosin has been suggested to augment stone expulsion rates. We aimed to compare the stone expulsion rates and adverse effects associated with the use of nifedipine or tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for the management of lower ureteral stones (LUS) without extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) via a literature review and meta-analysis. Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases. Finally, a total of 7 RCTs with 3897 patients were included. Our meta-analysis showed that tamsulosin could significantly increase the stone expulsion rate relative to nifedipine in patients with LUS (random-effects model; risk ratio [RR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75–0.88; P < 0.00001). The subgroup analysis indicated no statistically significant difference between the drugs with regard to minor or major adverse effects (fixed-effect model; RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.91–1.54, P = 0.20; and RR = 1.63, 95% CI = 0.22–11.82, P = 0.63, respectively). This meta-analysis demonstrated that tamsulosin was more effective than nifedipine in patients with LUS, as evidenced by the higher stone expulsion rate. Tamsulosin treatment should therefore be considered for patients with LUS.