The efficacy and safety of silodosin for the treatment of ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Does mirabegron have a potential role as a medical expulsive therapy in the treatment of distal ureteral stones? A prospective randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

The existence of β3 receptors in the bladder and ureter was documented in many studies on animals and humans, it was documented that relaxation of the lower ureteral segment is achieved by the stimulation of these receptors. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of mirabegron as a medical expulsive therapy (MET) for distal ureteral stones in comparison with silodosin and placebo.

METHODS

One hundred eighty patients with distal ureteral stone of 5-10 mm size were included in our study. They were divided into three groups, and each one consisted of 60 patients. Group I was given silodosin 8 mg, group II mirabegron 50 mg and group III placebo once daily. The treatment was prescribed for all the cases till stone expulsion or a maximum duration of 4 weeks. Primary outcome was the stone expulsion rate (SER). While secondary outcomes were stone expulsion time, side effects of the used drugs, hospital visits number for pain, and amount of analgesic taken.

RESULTS

We found that the SER was significantly higher in silodosin than mirabegron and placebo groups (61%, 38.6%, and 36.7%, respectively) (p = 0.013). Also, the stone expulsion interval was significantly shorter in silodosin than mirabegron and control groups (p < 0.001). While hospital visits number for pain, and amount of analgesic taken were comparable. There was no difference between the studied medications in terms of the adverse effects except for retrograde ejaculation (silodosin = 63.3%, mirabegron = 0%, and placebo = 0%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Mirabegron has no medical expulsive effect. While silodosin improves SER and stone expulsion time. However, retrograde ejaculation was its main side effect and occurred in 63.3% of the male patients. Therefore, more research is needed to discover a more tolerable MET.

Effect of α1D-adrenoceptor blocker for the reduction of ureteral contractions

PURPOSE

Urolithiasis is a common urinary tract disease with growing prevalence. Alpha1-adrenoceptors (α1-ARs) are abundant in ureteral smooth muscle, distributed with different α1-AR subtypes. α1D-AR is the most widely distributed in the ureter. However, the effect of α1D-AR blockade on ureteric contraction remains unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We dissected smooth muscle tissues (3 mm×3 mm) from the rat bladder and human ureter, tied silk strips on both tissue ends, and measured contraction in an organ bath chamber. Contraction activity in ureteral smooth muscle cells (USMCs) was immunocytochemically examined using primary rat and human USMC cultures.

RESULTS

Using the organ bath system, we determined the inhibitory effects of silodosin, tamsulosin, and naftopidil. Naftopidil significantly decreased contractility of rat bladder tissue; similar results were observed in human ureteral tissue. To confirm ex vivo experimental results in vitro , we examined the phosphorylation of myosin light chain (MLC), a marker of contractility, in a primary human USMC culture. The examined drugs decreased phospho-MLC levels in human USMCs; however, naftopidil profoundly increased MLC dephosphorylation.

CONCLUSIONS

We studied the effects of naftopidil, an α1D-AR inhibitor, on the ureter. Compared with alpha-blockers, naftopidil significantly relaxed ureteral smooth muscle. Therefore, naftopidil could be an effective therapy for patients with ureteral stones.

Furosemide improves the stone clearance rate of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for kidney stones but not ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

We conducted a meta-analysis (MA) to investigate the effects of furosemide on the prognosis of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) therapy to remove renal (RS) and ureteric stones (US).

Methods

We screened scientific databases including PubMed, Clinicalkey, Google Scholar, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane, from the date of establishment until March 2022, to search for randomized controlled trials evaluating SWL, in combination with furosemide (experimental group) or with SWL alone (control group), in treating RS or US. Our search terms included furosemide, extracorporeal SWL, and urolithiasis. For this MA, we employed the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan version 5.3.0.

Results

Six trials, involving 1344 participants, with RS (n = 1097) and/or US (n = 247), met our predefined criteria. This included 137 proximal ureteral stones (PUSs), 35 mid-ureteral stones (MUS), and 75 distal ureteral stones (DUS). In case of RS, the experimental group exhibited significantly enhanced clearance, relative to controls (risk ratio [RR] = 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-1.25, p = 0.0002), yet there was no obvious difference in the PUS, MUS, and DUS (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.97-1.33, p = 0.10; odds ratio [OR] = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.40-3.95, p = 0.69; RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.99-1.49, p = 0.06). There was also no marked difference between fragmentations in either group. Only reports of SWL treatment of RS provided adequate data on shocks, sessions, and complications for our analysis. Unfortunately, there was no significant alteration between the two groups.

Conclusion

According to our analysis, furosemide strongly accelerates the clearance rate of SWL-treated RS. However, it does not enhance the fragmentation rate. Given this evidence, we propose that furosemide does not significantly improve the efficacy of SWL therapy in removing US.

Registration

Our work is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020204780).

Silodosin versus Tamsulosin as Medical Expulsive Therapy for Children with Lower-Third Ureteric Stones: Prospective Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of silodosin versus tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy for stones of lower-third ureter in children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective single-blind placebo-controlled randomized study included 167 pediatric patients who presented with distal ureteric stone (DUS) less than 1 cm. Patients were randomized into 3 groups; group I received silodosin 4 mg once daily, and group II received tamsulosin 0.4 mg while those in group III had placebo. The side effects of the used drugs, both rate and time of stone expulsion, and number of pain episodes were compared among the study groups for a maximum of 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Follow-up data of our patients after treatment revealed that the stone expulsion rate was significantly higher and the time to stone expulsion was significantly shorter in group I (89.3%, 12.4 ± 2.3 days) and group II (74.5%, 16.2 ± 4.2 days) compared to group III (51.8%, 21.2 ± 5.6). However, a statistically significant difference between silodosin and tamsulosin groups in favor of the former one was reported regarding the 2 studied items. Meanwhile, pain episodes requiring analgesia were statistically fewer in group I and II in contrast to placebo group. Adverse events were comparable among all groups.

CONCLUSION

Silodosin provides significantly better stone expulsion rate and shorter expulsion time than tamsulosin for treatment of DUS. Both medications showed good safety profiles in children. However, further studies are required on a larger scale to confirm our results. Assessment of drug safety on younger age-group is still needed.

The efficacy and safety of diuretics on extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment of urolithiasis: A systematic review and meta analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of diuretics on extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment of urolithiasis.

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register of Controlled Trials from January 1980 until November 2019 were searched to identify randomized controlled trials that referred to the use of diuretics on extracorporeal SWL treatment of urolithiasis.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials containing 1344 patients were included in this meta-analysis, which compared diuretics with placebo on extracorporeal SWL treatment of urolithiasis. In the analysis, we found that diuretics on extracorporeal SWL treatment were more effective for the management of urinary stones. Compared with placebo, patients who received diuretics during extracorporeal SWL treatment had significantly higher successful stone clearance rate (Odds ratio; 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI); 1.35 to 2.21, P < .0001), higher stone fragmentation rate (odds ratio; 2.83, 95% CI; 1.30 to 6.16, P = .009), less average number of sessions per stone (mean difference; -0.13; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.01, P = .03) and similar average number of shocks per stone (mean difference; -126.89; 95% CI, -394.53 to 140.76, P = .35).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that diuretics during extracorporeal SWL was effective in the management of urolithiasis with lower risk of complications.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

PATIENTS-METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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