Tamsulosin versus nifedipin in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones and the predictive value of Hounsfield unit in stone expulsion

Can the Hounsfield unit predict the success of medical expulsive therapy using silodosin in 4- to 10-mm distal ureteral stones?

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the predictive ability of the Hounsfield unit (HU) on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) for the success of medical expulsive therapy (MET) using silodosin in distal ureteric stones of 4-10 mm.

METHODOLOGY

The data of patients who underwent MET were retrospectively screened. The patients were divided into two groups as Groups 1 and 2 depending on the presence or absence of stone expulsion, respectively. In addition to HU calculated using the NCCT images, state of the collecting systems, daily fluid intake, number of emergency department visits, and number of pain attacks were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients were included in the study. Sixty-four patients (72.7%) expelled the stone after MET while the treatment was not successful in 24 patients (27.3%). The stone area was significantly larger in Group 2 (28.4 ± 15.7 mm² vs 46.8 ± 16.1 mm² ; P < .001). NCCT-HU was calculated as 542.5 ± 256.8 for Group 1 and 873.1 ± 335.2 for Group 2, indicating a significant difference (P < .001). The mean number of pain attacks was 1.5 ± 1.2 in Group 1 and 2.2 ± 1.4 in Group 2 (P = .048). The number of visits to the emergency department significantly differed between Groups 1 and 2 (1.1 ± 1.0 and 1.8 ± 1.3, respectively; P = .010).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, HU and stone area values calculated on NCCT were found to be effective factors in predicting the treatment success for MET. Therefore, we consider that it would be useful to consider these parameters in the selection of an appropriate treatment for distal ureteric stones.

Can ureteral wall thickness (UWT) be used as a potential parameter for decision-making in uncomplicated distal ureteral stones 5-10 mm in size? A prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the correlation between ureteral wall thickness (UWT) and stone passage (SP) and its cut-off value in distal uncomplicated ureteral stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the prospective study from January 2019 to January 2020 at a tertiary care hospital, we reviewed 212 patients aged above 18 years with single, symptomatic, radiopaque, and distal ureteric stone sized 5-10 mm, who were treated with MET (Silodosin 8 mg once daily) until SP or a maximum of 4 weeks. There were 2 groups: responders and non-responders. Demographic data of the patients and all stone radiological parameters including stone size, laterality, density, UWT, the diameter of the ureter proximal to the stone (PUD), and the degree of hydronephrosis were recorded and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

There were 126 (59.4%) in the responder group and 86 (40.6%) in the non-responder group. On univariate analysis, gender, stone density, stone size, PUD, UWT, and the degree of hydronephrosis were significant factors for stone passage. However, using multivariate analysis, only UWT and the degree of hydronephrosis were significant. ROC analysis showed that 3.75 mm is the cut-off value for UWT, with 86% and 87.3% sensitivity and specificity, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

UWT and hydronephrosis can be used as potential predictors for SP and can help with decision-making in patients with uncomplicated 5-10 mm lower ureteric stones.

Is tamsulosin effective for the passage of symptomatic ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some trials have stated that there is no benefit to tamsulosin administration for clearing ureteral stones, which is contrary to previous studies. To confirm the efficacy of tamsulosin for treating symptomatic ureteral stones, we performed this review.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all studied variables, including tamsulosin, urinary stones, expulsion, and side effects. In addition, for all patients and different stone sizes, the treatment efficacy, expulsion rate, and expulsion time were also recorded for this treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies involving 6436 patients met the inclusion criteria. The data synthesized from these studies indicated that tamsulosin improved the renal stone clearance rate (80.5% vs 70.5%; mean difference (MD), 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-1.19; P <.00001) and reduced the expulsion time (MD, -3.61; 95% CI, -3.77 to -3.46; P ≤.00001). Regarding complications, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups in terms of the total side effects (MD, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.35; P = .10) or divided complications, including retrograde ejaculation (P = .01), hypotension (P = .52), dizziness (P = .07), diarrhea (P = .58), vomiting (P = .88), headache (P = .84), nausea (P = .91), and fatigue (P = .10).

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin should be strongly recommended for patients with ureteral stones to increase treatment efficacy. The side effects were not significantly different between the tamsulosin and control treatments.

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).

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.

Comparative efficacy of tamsulosin versus nifedipine for distal ureteral calculi: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systematically compare the therapeutic effect and safety of tamsulosin with nifedipine in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral calculi.

METHODS

Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trial Register Centers, were comprehensively searched. Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected, and quality assessment was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook. RevMan software was used to analyze the outcome measures, which consisted of expulsion rate, expulsion time, and complications.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs consisting of 4,961 patients were included (tamsulosin group, 2,489 cases; nifedipine group, 2,472 cases). Compared with nifedipine, tamsulosin significantly increased the expulsion rate (risk ratio =1.29, 95% CI [1.25, 1.33], P<0.0001) and reduced the expulsion time (standard mean difference =-0.39, 95% CI [-0.72, -0.05], P=0.02). Regarding safety, tamsulosin was associated with fewer complications than nifedipine (risk ratio =0.45, 95% CI [0.28, 0.72], P=0.0008), and further subgroup analysis showed that tamsulosin was associated with a lower risk of both mild and moderate-to-severe complications.

CONCLUSION

On the bias of current evidence, tamsulosin showed an overall superiority to nifedipine for distal ureteral calculi <10 mm in aspects of expulsion rate, expulsion time, and safety. Tamsulosin was supposed to be the first drug to be recommended to patients willing to receive medical expulsive therapy.