1
|
Sharma G, Kaundal P, Pareek T, Tyagi S, Sharma AP, Devana SK, Singh SK. Comparison of efficacy of various drugs used for medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pract 2021; 75:e14214. [PMID: 33825273 DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.14214] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gopal Sharma
- Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Pawan Kaundal
- Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Tarun Pareek
- Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Shantanu Tyagi
- Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Aditya P Sharma
- Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Sudheer K Devana
- Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Shrawan K Singh
- Department of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sharma G, Pareek T, Kaundal P, Tyagi S, Singh S, Yashaswi T, Devan SK, Sharma AP. Comparison of efficacy of three commonly used alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int Braz J Urol 2021; 48:742-759. [PMID: 34003612 PMCID: PMC9388169 DOI: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2020.0548] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2020] [Accepted: 08/20/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gopal Sharma
- Department of Urology, Advanced Urology Centre, Level II, B-Block, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India
| | - Tarun Pareek
- Department of Urology, Advanced Urology Centre, Level II, B-Block, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India
| | - Pawan Kaundal
- Department of Urology, Advanced Urology Centre, Level II, B-Block, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India
| | - Shantanu Tyagi
- Department of Urology, Advanced Urology Centre, Level II, B-Block, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India
| | - Saket Singh
- Department of Urology, Advanced Urology Centre, Level II, B-Block, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India
| | - Thummala Yashaswi
- Department of Urology, Advanced Urology Centre, Level II, B-Block, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India
| | - Sudheer Kumar Devan
- Department of Urology, Advanced Urology Centre, Level II, B-Block, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India
| | - Aditya Prakash Sharma
- Department of Urology, Advanced Urology Centre, Level II, B-Block, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ju M, Yu X, Wu W, Qu J, Zheng J. Efficacy of combination terazosin and nifedipine therapy in postoperative treatment of distal ureteral stones after transurethral ureteroscopic lithotripsy. J Int Med Res 2020; 48:300060520904851. [PMID: 32237945 PMCID: PMC7132568 DOI: 10.1177/0300060520904851] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective Methods Results Conclusion
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Min Ju
- Department of Urology, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
| | - Xiuyue Yu
- Department of Urology, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
| | - Weiwei Wu
- Department of Urology, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
| | - Jingkun Qu
- Department of Urology, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
| | - Jin Zheng
- Department of Urology, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Medical Expulsive Therapy for Urinary Stones: Future Trends and Knowledge Gaps. Eur Urol 2019; 76:658-666. [DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.07.053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2019] [Accepted: 07/31/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
|
5
|
What Is the Role of α-Blockers for Medical Expulsive Therapy? Results From a Meta-analysis of 60 Randomized Trials and Over 9500 Patients. Urology 2018; 119:5-16. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.03.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2018] [Revised: 03/16/2018] [Accepted: 03/22/2018] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|
6
|
Yallappa S, Amer T, Jones P, Greco F, Tailly T, Somani BK, Umez-Eronini N, Aboumarzouk OM. Natural History of Conservatively Managed Ureteral Stones: Analysis of 6600 Patients. J Endourol 2018; 32:371-379. [DOI: 10.1089/end.2017.0848] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Sachin Yallappa
- Glasgow Urological Research Unit, Department of Urology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom
- Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
| | - Tarik Amer
- Glasgow Urological Research Unit, Department of Urology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom
- Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
| | - Patrick Jones
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Francesco Greco
- Department of Urology, EAU Young Academic Urologists Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Thomas Tailly
- Department of Urology, EAU Young Academic Urologists Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Bhaskar K. Somani
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom
- Department of Urology, EAU Young Academic Urologists Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Nkem Umez-Eronini
- Glasgow Urological Research Unit, Department of Urology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom
| | - Omar M. Aboumarzouk
- Glasgow Urological Research Unit, Department of Urology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom
- Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
- Department of Urology, EAU Young Academic Urologists Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Islamic Universities of Gaza, College of Medicine, Gaza, Palestine
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Campschroer T, Zhu X, Vernooij RWM, Lock MTWT. Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 4:CD008509. [PMID: 29620795 PMCID: PMC6494465 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008509.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
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).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thijs Campschroer
- Radboud University Nijmegen Medical CenterDepartment of UrologyGeert Grooteplein Zuid 10NijmegenGelderlandNetherlands6525 GA
| | - Xiaoye Zhu
- University Medical Center UtrechtDepartment of UrologyUtrechtNetherlands
| | - Robin WM Vernooij
- Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL)Department of ResearchGodebaldkwartier 419UtrechtNetherlands3511 DT
| | - MTW Tycho Lock
- University Medical Center UtrechtDepartment of UrologyUtrechtNetherlands
- Central Military HospitalDepartment of UrologyUtrechtNetherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Sridharan K, Sivaramakrishnan G. Efficacy and safety of alpha blockers in medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: a mixed treatment network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2018; 11:291-307. [DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2018.1424537] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Kannan Sridharan
- Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain
| | - Gowri Sivaramakrishnan
- Assistant Professor in Prosthodontics, School of Oral Health, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji Islands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Singal R, Bhatia G, Mittal A, Singal S, Zaman M. To compare the efficacy of tamsulosin and alfuzosin as medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones. Avicenna J Med 2017; 7:115-120. [PMID: 28791244 PMCID: PMC5525465 DOI: 10.4103/ajm.ajm_87_16] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Aims and Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of tamsulosin and alfuzosin for the distal ureteral stone. This study assessed the spontaneous passage and expulsion of the stone. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in the Department of Surgery at Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala, from May 2013 to May 2014. A total number of 136 patients diagnosed as distal ureteric stone (US) of size <10 mm were included in this study. It was divided into two groups (I and II) out of which 36 cases were excluded. Group I received tablet tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day, and Group II received alfuzosin 10 mg/day. The efficacy of tamsulosin and alfuzosin as an adjunctive medical therapy was determined. Results: Both the drugs can be safely used for the distal USs. The stone expulsion rate was seen in 36 patients (72.0%) in Group I, and in 34 patients (68.0%) in Group II (P = 0.545). The passage of stones noticed by 32 patients in each Groups I and II (P = 1.000). The mean number of pain attacks was 2.91 ± 1.01 for Group I, and 1.8 ± 0.83 for Group II (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). Thus, we propagate the use of alfuzosin significantly lower number of pain attacks. The drug-related side-effects were postural hypertension (four in Group I and one in Group II) and retrograde ejaculation (eight in Group I, and one in Group II). Thus, the difference was statistically significant in terms of retrograde ejaculation but insignificant for postural hypotension. Conclusion: There is no difference between both medications in term of efficacy (passing stones) for the management of distal ureteral stones. Both medications are safe and effective. In addition, alfuzosin was better tolerated than tamsulosin as it has fewer side effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rikki Singal
- Department of Surgery, Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India
| | - Gaurav Bhatia
- Department of Surgery, Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India
| | - Amit Mittal
- Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India
| | - Samita Singal
- Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India
| | - Muzzafar Zaman
- Department of Surgery, Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana, India
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Sridharan K, Sivaramakrishnan G. Medical expulsive therapy in urolithiasis: a mixed treatment comparison network meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2017; 18:1421-1431. [DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2017.1362393] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Kannan Sridharan
- School of Health Sciences, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji Islands
| | - Gowri Sivaramakrishnan
- School of Oral Health, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji Islands
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Amer T, Osman B, Johnstone A, Mariappan M, Gupta A, Brattis N, Jones G, Somani BK, Keeley FX, Aboumarzouk OM. Medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones: Analysing the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analysis of powered double-blinded randomised controlled trials. Arab J Urol 2017; 15:83-93. [PMID: 29071136 PMCID: PMC5653615 DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2017.03.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2017] [Revised: 03/23/2017] [Accepted: 03/27/2017] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Banan Osman
- Bristol Urological Institutes, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | | | | | | | - Nikolaos Brattis
- Bristol Urological Institutes, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | | | | | - Francis X Keeley
- Bristol Urological Institutes, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Omar M Aboumarzouk
- Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.,Bristol Urological Institutes, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.,Queen Elizabeth University Hospitals, Glasgow, UK.,Islamic Universities of Gaza, College of Medicine, Gaza, Palestine
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
|
13
|
Raison N, Ahmed K, Brunckhorst O, Dasgupta P. Alpha blockers in the management of ureteric lithiasis: A meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pract 2017; 71. [PMID: 28097758 DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.12917] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2016] [Accepted: 11/08/2016] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas Raison
- MRC Centre for Transplantation, Division of Transplantation Immunology & Mucosal Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK
| | - Kamran Ahmed
- MRC Centre for Transplantation, Division of Transplantation Immunology & Mucosal Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK
| | - Oliver Brunckhorst
- GKT School Of Medical Education, King's College London, The Strand, London, UK
| | - Prokar Dasgupta
- MRC Centre for Transplantation, Division of Transplantation Immunology & Mucosal Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Hollingsworth JM, Canales BK, Rogers MAM, Sukumar S, Yan P, Kuntz GM, Dahm P. Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2016; 355:i6112. [PMID: 27908918 PMCID: PMC5131734 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i6112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 86] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John M Hollingsworth
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Building 16, 1st Floor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
| | - Benjamin K Canales
- Department of Urology, University of Florida, 1600 SW Archer Rd, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA
| | - Mary A M Rogers
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Building 16, 4th Floor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
| | - Shyam Sukumar
- Minneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System and Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Mayo Memorial Building, 420 Delaware St SE, MMC 394, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
| | - Phyllis Yan
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Building 16, 1st Floor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
| | - Gretchen M Kuntz
- Borland Library, University of Florida, 653-1 W 8th St, Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA
| | - Philipp Dahm
- Minneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System and Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Mayo Memorial Building, 420 Delaware St SE, MMC 394, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Liu C, Zeng G, Kang R, Wu W, Li J, Chen K, Wan SP. Efficacy and Safety of Alfuzosin as Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0134589. [PMID: 26244843 PMCID: PMC4526635 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134589] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2015] [Accepted: 07/11/2015] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chenli Liu
- Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangdong, China
| | - Guohua Zeng
- Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangdong, China
- * E-mail:
| | - Ran Kang
- Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangdong, China
| | - Wenqi Wu
- Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangdong, China
| | - Jiasheng Li
- Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangdong, China
| | - Kang Chen
- Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangdong, China
| | - Show P. Wan
- Department of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Guangdong, China
| |
Collapse
|