Efficacy of selective α1A adrenoceptor antagonist silodosin in the medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones

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

OBJECTIVE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Effect of alpha-adrenoceptor antagonists on sexual function. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Alpha-adrenoreceptor antagonists or alpha-blockers are used in the treatment of hypertension, in the therapy of benign prostatic hyperplasia and in medical expulsive treatment of ureteral stones. These agents may affect the sexual function, with differences between drugs within the same class, depending on their selectivity for receptor subtypes. The aim of this review was to analyze the effects of alpha-blockers on sexual function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE and other databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting sexual adverse effects in patients treated with alpha-blockers. Odds ratios for sexual dysfunction were calculated using random effects Mantel-Haenszel statistics.

RESULTS

Out of 608 records retrieved, 75 eligible RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, alphablockers were associated with increased odds of ejaculatory disorders both in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (OR: 7.53, 95% CI: 3.77-15.02, Z = 5.73, p < 0.00001, I2 = 55%) and in patients with ureteral stones (OR: 2.88, 95% CI: 1.50-5.44, Z = 3.19, p < 0.001, I2 = 31%). Uroselective alpha-blockers showed higher odds of ejaculatory disorders. Conversely, nonselective alpha-blockers were not associated with higher odds of ejaculatory dysfunction. Silodosin was associated with increased odds of ejaculatory dysfunction compared with tamsulosin (OR: 3.52, 95% CI: 2.18-5.68, 15 series, 1512 participants, Z = 5.15, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Naftopidil and alfuzosin showed lower odds of ejaculatory dysfunction compared to uroselective alpha-blockers.No statistically significant differences in the odds of erectile dysfunction were observed when alpha-blockers were compared to placebo.

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.

Effect of perioperative selective alpha-1 blockers in non-stented ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for ureteric stones: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this studywas to assess the efficacy of perioperative alpha-1 blockers on improving the success rate and decreasing complications of non-stented ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for ureteric stones.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomized control trial was conducted at two high volume urological centers from September 2017 to December 2018. We enrolled 150 patients with lower ureteric stones. They were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in group A, underwent non-stented ureteroscopy using Ho-YAG laser for stone disintegration and received alpha-1 blockers for one week preoperatively and another two weeks postoperatively. Patients in group B, underwent non-stented ureteroscopy and laser and received a placebo.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty patients were available for analysis at the end of our study. There was no statistically significant difference found between both groups regarding demographic data and stone parameters. The need for intraoperative ureteric dilatation was 32.7% and 51.6% for both groups A and B respectively with a statistically significant difference. The incidence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and the need for analgesics were higher in group B with a statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of perioperative tamsulosin seems to not only to significantly decrease the need for intra-operative dilatation and hence operative time, but also leads to a significant decrease in the development of postoperative LUTs, postoperative pain and the need for analgesia and hospital stay.

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 Distal Ureteral Stones: Tamsulosin Versus Silodosin in the Turkish Population

Introduction

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

Material and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Role of silodosin as medical expulsive therapy in ureteral calculi: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The objective of this study is to investigate the efficacy of silodosin in medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteral stones. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of silodosin in MET for ureteral calculi. We searched PubMed, Embase, Medline, Central (the Cochrane Library, Issue 1,2013), Google Scholar from the inception to March 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing silodosin with tamsulosin or control on ureteral stone passage. Eight RCTs with a total of 1145 ureteral stone patients (300 patients in the control group, 287 patients in the tamsulosin group, 558 patients in the silodosin group) were included in this meta-analysis. When compared with control, silodosin significantly improved expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones (RR: 1.42; 95% CI, 1.21-1.67; P < 0.0001), while there was no significant difference between silodosin and the control in expulsion rate of proximal (RR: 0.99; 95% CI, 0.69-1.43; P < 0.97) or mid (RR: 1.13; 95% CI, 0.60-2.16; P < 0.0001) ureteral stones. There was no significant difference between silodosin and tamsulosin in terms of expulsion time (WMD: -2.47; 95% CI, -5.32 to 0.39; P = 0.09), analgesic use (WMD: -0.39; 95% CI, -0.91 to 0.13; P  = 0.14) and retrograde ejaculation rate (RR: 1.85; 95% CI, 0.95-3.59; P = 0.07) in MET for distal ureteral stones. However, silodosin provided a significantly higher expulsion rate (RR: 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.37; P < 0.0001) than tamsulosin for distal ureteral stones. Silodosin significantly improved expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones and was clinically superior to tamsulosin. Silodosin was ineffective in MET for proximal and mid ureteral stones. More RCT studies are needed to compare the efficacy of silodosin versus tamsulosin in MET for distal ureteral stones.

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.

Outcome of α-blockers, with or without methylprednisolone combination, in medical expulsive therapy for lower ureteric stones: A prospective randomised study

Objectives

To compare the safety and efficacy of tamsulosin, alfuzosin, and their combinations with methylprednisolone, in the medical management of lower ureteric stones.

Patients and methods

Between September 2012 and June 2014, patients diagnosed with a single lower ureteric stone of ⩽10 mm (longest dimension) were enrolled. Patients with urinary tract infection, severe hydronephrosis, pregnancy, hypertension, diabetes, ulcer disease, or renal insufficiency were excluded. According to the medication added to the analgesic anti-inflammatory, patients were stratified into four groups, with 53 patients in each. Group I patients received tamsulosin 0.4 mg and those in Group II received tamsulosin 0.4 mg and methylprednisolone 8 mg. Group III patients received alfuzosin 10 mg and those in Group IV received alfuzosin 10 mg and methylprednisolone 8 mg. Treatment was continued until stone expulsion or to a maximum of 2 weeks. The patients’ demographics, stone criteria, and stone-free rates were calculated and analysed.

Results

The mean (SD) maximum stone dimension was 7.8 (1.5), 8.1 (1.3), 7.9 (1.6) and 8.0 (1.4) mm in Groups I, II, III and IV, respectively. Groups II and IV had significantly higher stone-free rates than Groups I and III (P < 0.05), whilst there were no statistically significant differences between Groups I and III or between Groups II and IV. There was no statistical difference among the four groups for the time to stone expulsion. Three patients in Group II and two patients in Group IV developed transient hyperglycaemia, which resolved after cessation of methylprednisolone.

Conclusions

The combination of alfuzosin or tamsulosin with methylprednisolone seems to be effective and safe for managing lower ureteric stones of <1 cm.

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.

Effects by silodosin on the partially obstructed rat ureter in vivo and on human and rat isolated ureters

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

α1 -adrenoceptor (-AR) antagonists may facilitate ureter stone passage in humans. We aimed to study effects by the α1 A -AR selective antagonist silodosin (compared to tamsulosin and prazosin) on ureter pressures in a rat model of ureter obstruction, and on contractions of human and rat isolated ureters.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

After ethical approval, ureters of male rats were cannulated beneath the kidney pelvis for in vivo ureteral intraluminal recording of autonomous peristaltic pressure waves. A partial ureter obstruction was applied to the distal ureter. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) was recorded. Approximate clinical and triple clinical doses of the α1 -AR antagonists were given intravenously. Effects by the α1 -AR antagonists on isolated human and rat ureters were studied in organ baths.

KEY RESULTS

Intravenous silodosin (0.1-0.3 mg kg(-1) ) or prazosin (0.03-0.1 mg kg(-1) ) reduced obstruction-induced increases in intraluminal ureter pressures by 21-37% or 18-40% respectively. Corresponding effects by tamsulosin (0.01 or 0.03 mg kg(-1) ) were 9-20%. Silodosin, prazosin and tamsulosin reduced MAP by 10-12%, 25-26% (P < 0.05), or 18-25% (P < 0.05) respectively. When effects by the α1 A -AR antagonists on obstruction-induced ureter pressures were expressed as a function of MAP, silodosin had six- to eightfold and 2.5- to eightfold better efficacy than tamsulosin or prazosin respectively. Silodosin effectively reduced contractions of both human and rat isolated ureters.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Silodosin inhibits contractions of the rat and human isolated ureters and has excellent functional selectivity in vivo to relieve pressure-load of the rat obstructed ureter. Silodosin as pharmacological ureter stone expulsive therapy should be clinically further explored.

Efficacy of alfuzosin after shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of ureteral calculi

PURPOSE

We evaluated the efficacy of alfuzosin for the treatment of ureteral calculi less than 10 mm in diameter after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized, single-blind clinical trial was performed prospectively by one physician between June 2010 and August 2011. A total of 84 patients with ureteral calculi 5 to 10 mm in diameter were divided into two groups. Alfuzosin 10 mg (once daily) and loxoprofen sodium 68.1 mg (as needed) were prescribed to group 1 (n=41), and loxoprofen sodium 68.1 mg (as needed) only was prescribed to group 2 (n=44). The drug administration began immediately after ESWL and continued until stone expulsion was confirmed up to a maximum of 42 days after the procedure.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine of 41 (95.1%) patients in group 1 and 40 of 43 (93.0%) patients in group 2 ultimately passed stones (p=0.96). The number of ESWL sessions was 1.34±0.65 and 1.41±0.85 in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.33). The patients who required analgesics after ESWL were 8 (19.5%) in group 1 and 13 (30.2%) in group 2 (p=0.31). Visual analogue scale pain severity scores were 5.33±1.22 and 6.43±1.36 in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.056). The time to stone expulsion in groups 1 and 2 was 9.5±4.8 days and 14.7±9.8 days, respectively (p=0.005). No significant adverse effects occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of alfuzosin in combination with ESWL seems to facilitate stone passage and to reduce the time of stone expulsion but does not affect the stone-free rate.