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

Visible-light photocatalyzed C-N bond activation of tertiary amines: a three-component approach to synthesize quinazolines

A metal-free three-component approach has been developed to prepare 2,4-disubstituted quinazolines from o-acylanilines, trialkylamines and ammonium chloride under visible-light using eosin Y as the photocatalyst. The notable features of this work include (i) the use of tertiary amines as an alkyl synthon and triethanolamine as a C2-OH synthon; (ii) good functional group tolerance with 52%-98% yields; (iii) proof of concept with o-amino benzaldehyde as a substrate to deliver 2-methyl quinazoline 3pa; and (iv) gram-scale synthesis of compounds 3ga, 3ja and 3ma. A reductive quenching mechanism was proposed based on the control studies and redox potential values.

Efficacy of mirabegron for ureteral stones: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: Medical expulsive therapy demonstrates efficacy in managing ureteral stones in patients amenable to conservative interventions. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mirabegron in the treatment of ureteral stones. Methods: From conception to November 2023, we examined PubMed databases, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid, Scopus, and trial registries for this systematic review and meta-analysis. We chose relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of mirabegron as an expulsive treatment for ureteral stones. The Cochrane risk of bias method was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Outcome measures, which included the stone expulsion rate (SER), expulsion time, and pain episodes, were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 17. Results: Seven RCTs (N = 701) had enough information and were ultimately included. In patients with ureteral stones, mirabegron-treated patients had a substantially higher SER [odds ratio (OR) = 2.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.41-4.68, p = 0.002] than placebo-treated patients. Subgroup analysis revealed that mirabegron was superior to placebo in patients with small ureteral stones (OR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.05-4.87, p = 0.04), with no heterogeneity between studies (p = 0.54; I2 = 0%). Mirabegron patients had a higher SER than the control group for distal ureteral stones (DUSs) (OR = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.31-4.68, p = 0.005). However, there was no difference in stone ejection time or pain episodes between groups. Conclusion: Mirabegron considerably improves SER in patients with ureteral stones, and the effect appears to be more pronounced for small and DUSs. Nevertheless, mirabegron treatment was not associated with improved stone expulsion time or pain management.

Meta-Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of α-Adrenergic Blockers for Pediatric Urolithiasis in the Distal Ureter

OBJECTIVE

Pediatric urolithiasis is a common condition, and medical expulsive therapy has grown to be accepted by many parents. We carried out a meta-analysis to identify the efficacy and safety of α-adrenergic blockers for the treatment of pediatric urolithiasis.

METHODS

We identified related articles from the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. All published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) describing the use of α-adrenergic blockers and placebo treatment for pediatric distal urolithiasis were involved. The outcomes included stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, pain episodes, need for analgesia, adverse events, and related subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

A total of nine RCTs were involved in our study, including 586 patients. We found that α-adrenergic blockers could significantly increase the rate of stone expulsion [odds ratio (OR), 3.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.38-5.12; p < 0.00001], reduce the stone expulsion time [mean difference (MD), -5.15; 95% CI, -8.51 to -1.80; p = 0.003], and decrease pain episodes (MD, -1.02; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.72; p < 0.00001) and analgesia demand (MD, -0.92; 95% CI, -1.32 to -0.53; p < 0.00001) but had a higher incidence of side effects (MD, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.55 to 5.15; p = 0.0007). During subgroup analyses, different medications (tamsulosin, doxazosin, and silodosin) also exhibited better efficiencies than placebo, except for doxazosin, which showed no difference in expulsion time (MD, -1.23; 95% CI, -2.98 to 0.51; p = 0.17). The three kinds of α-adrenergic blockers also appeared to be better tolerated, except for tamsulosin with its greater number of adverse events (MD, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.34 to 6.03; p = 0.006). Silodosin led to a better expulsion rate than tamsulosin (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.92; p = 0.03). In addition, α-adrenergic blockers increased the stone expulsion rate regardless of stone size and decreased the expulsion time of stones measuring <5 mm (MD, -1.71; 95% CI, -2.91 to -0.52; p = 0.005), which was not the case for stones measuring >5 mm in expulsion time (MD, -3.61; 95% CI, -10.17 to 2.96; p = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

Our review suggests that α-adrenergic blockers are well-tolerated and efficient for treating pediatric distal urolithiasis. We also conclude that silodosin is the best choice of drug, offering a better expulsion rate, but it remains to be evaluated further by future studies.

The evaluation of the effectiveness of Gilaburu (Viburnum opulus L.) extract in the medical expulsive treatment of distal ureteral stones

OBJECTIVE

Medical expulsive therapy is an important non-invasive treatment modality that facilitates the passage of ureteral stones. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of Gilaburu (Viburnum opulus) extract in the treatment of distal ureteral stones <10 mm.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data of 103 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: those given V. opulus 1000 mg peroral 3×2 and diclofenac 50 mg peroral on-demand (n=53) and those given only diclofenac sodium 50 mg peroral on-demand (n=50). Comparisons of stone expulsion rates and the elapsed time until the expulsion between the groups were determined as primary outcome measures. The comparison of the need for additional treatment [ureteroscopy (URS) or extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL)], the need for emergency admission, analgesic requirement, and the complication rates in additional treatment were determined as secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 45.8±14.5 years. The rate of stone expulsion was significantly higher (82% vs. 66%, p=0.026), and elapsed time to stone expulsion was significantly shorter (9±1.8 vs. 14±2.3 day, p=0.018) in the V. opulus group. The need for additional treatment (URS and ESWL) and analgesic requirement was less in the V. opulus group (9.4% vs. 20%, p=0.038 and 24.5% vs. 44%, p=0.042, respectively).

CONCLUSION

V. opulus is an herbal treatment alternative that facilitates the passage of ureteral stones <10 mm. Prospective, randomized studies are needed to support these results.

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).

Efficacy and Safety of Alpha-Blockers for Kidney Stones in Adults

Objective: To review the literature for α-blocker treatment of kidney stones. Data Sources: PubMed search performed November 15, 2017, using the following search terms: alpha-blocker, alfuzosin, silodosin, or tamsulosin AND kidney or ureteral stones. Additional studies found through references of primary and tertiary literature. Inclusion criteria included English language, randomized controlled trials (not included in meta-analyses), and meta-analyses evaluating US available alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy with or without lithotripsy in adults with renal or ureteral stones, and no date limits. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 case-control trial, and 6 meta-analyses were found and included in this review. Two RCTs and 4 meta-analyses evaluated alpha-blockers without lithotripsy. Five RCTs, 1 case-control trial, and 2 meta-analyses evaluated their use post-lithotripsy. The primary endpoint was stone clearance rate in most studies. Data Synthesis: For ureteral stones ≤10 mm treated without lithotripsy, alpha-blockers increased clearance in all meta-analyses and one RCT versus control. For ureteral or renal stones treated with lithotripsy, 4 RCTs and all meta-analyses found benefit with alpha-blockers compared with control. When results were stratified by stone size, alpha-blockers performed better for stones 10 to 20 mm, while there was no difference for stones <10 mm. Conclusion: Alpha-blockers are beneficial without lithotripsy for ureteral stones 5 to 10 mm. They are beneficial post-lithotripsy for renal or ureteral stones >10 mm. They can be considered post-lithotripsy for stones 5 to 10 mm, but little benefit may be seen. Although all uroselective alpha-blockers have been found to be effective, most data are with tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily.

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.

Medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones: Analysing the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analysis of powered double-blinded randomised controlled trials

Objective

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of medical expulsive therapy (MET) in low risk of bias (RoB) randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

A Cochrane style systematic review was conducted on published literature from 1990 to 2016, to include low RoB and a power calculation. A pooled meta-analysis was conducted.

Results

The MET group included 1387 vs 1381 patients in the control group. The analysis reveals α-blockers increased stone expulsion rates (78% vs 74%) (P < 0.001), whilst calcium channel blockers (CCBs) had no effect compared to controls (79% vs 75%) (P = 0.38). In the subgroup analysis, α-blockers had a shorter time to stone expulsion vs the control group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in expulsion rates between the treatment groups and control group for stones <5 mm in size (P = 0.48), proximal or mid-ureteric stones (P = 0.63 and P = 0.22, respectively). However, α-blockers increased stone expulsion in stones >5 mm (P = 0.02), as well as distal ureteric stones (P < 0.001). The α-blocker group developed more side-effects (6.6% of patients; P < 0.001). The numbers needed to treat for α-blockers was one in 14, for stones >5 mm one in eight, and for distal stones one in 10.

Conclusion

The primary findings show a small overall benefit for α-blockers as MET for ureteric stones but no benefit with CCBs. α-blockers show a greater benefit for large (>5 mm) ureteric stones and those located in the distal ureter, but no benefit for smaller or more proximal stones. α-blockers are associated with a greater risk of side-effects compared to placebo or CCBs.

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.