Alpha-blockers after shock wave lithotripsy for renal or ureteral stones in adults

BACKGROUND

Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a widely used method to treat renal and ureteral stone. It fragments stones into smaller pieces that are then able to pass spontaneously down the ureter and into the bladder. Alpha-blockers may assist in promoting the passage of stone fragments, but their effectiveness remains uncertain.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of alpha-blockers as adjuvant medical expulsive therapy plus usual care compared to placebo and usual care or usual care alone in adults undergoing shock wave lithotripsy for renal or ureteral stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, several clinical trial registries and grey literature for published and unpublished studies irrespective of language. The date of the most recent search was 27 February 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing SWL. Participants in the intervention group had to have received an alpha-blocker as adjuvant medical expulsive therapy plus usual care. For the comparator group, we considered studies in which participants received placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion/exclusion, and performed data abstraction and risk of bias assessment. We conducted meta-analysis for the identified dichotomous and continuous outcomes using RevManWeb according to Cochrane methods using a random-effects model. We judged the certainty of evidence on a per outcome basis using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 studies with 4793 participants randomized to usual care and an alpha-blocker versus usual care alone. Only four studies were placebo controlled. The mean age of participants was 28.6 to 56.8 years and the mean stone size prior to SWL was 7.1 mm to 13.2 mm. The most widely used alpha-blocker was tamsulosin; others were silodosin, doxazosin, terazosin and alfuzosin.  Alpha-blockers may improve clearance of stone fragments after SWL (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.23; I² = 78%; studies = 36; participants = 4084; low certainty evidence). Based on the stone clearance rate of 69.3% observed in the control arm, an alpha-blocker may increase stone clearance to 80.4%. This corresponds to 111 more (62 more to 159 more) participants per 1000 clearing their stone fragments. Alpha-blockers may reduce the need for auxiliary treatments after SWL (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; I² = 16%; studies = 12; participants = 1251; low certainty evidence), but also includes the possibility of no effect. Based on a rate of auxiliary treatments in the usual care arm of 9.7%, alpha-blockers may reduce the rate to 6.5%. This corresponds 32 fewer (53 fewer to 0 fewer) participants per 1000 undergoing auxiliary treatments. Alpha-blockers may reduce major adverse events (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80; I² = 0%; studies = 7; participants = 747; low certainty evidence). Major adverse events occurred in 25.8% of participants in the usual care group; alpha-blockers would reduce this to 15.5%. This corresponds to 103 fewer (139 fewer to 52 fewer) major adverse events per 1000 with alpha-blocker treatment. None of the reported major adverse events appeared drug-related; most were emergency room visits or rehospitalizations. Alpha-blockers may reduce stone clearance time in days (mean difference (MD) -3.74, 95% CI -5.25 to -2.23; I² = 86%; studies = 14; participants = 1790; low certainty evidence). We found no evidence for the outcome of quality of life. For those outcomes for which we were able to perform subgroup analyses, we found no evidence of interaction with stone location, stone size or type of alpha-blocker. We were unable to conduct an analysis by lithotripter type. The results were also largely unchanged when the analyses were limited to placebo controlled studies and those in which participants explicitly only received a single SWL session.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low certainty evidence, adjuvant alpha-blocker therapy following SWL in addition to usual care may result in improved stone clearance, less need for auxiliary treatments, fewer major adverse events and a reduced stone clearance time compared to usual care alone. We did not find evidence for quality of life. The low certainty of evidence means that our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.

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 as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones

BACKGROUND

Urinary stone disease is one of the most common reasons for patients visiting a urology practice, affecting about 5% to 10% of the population. Annual costs for stone disease have rapidly increased over the years and most patients with ureteral colic or other symptoms seek medical care. Stone size and location are important predictors of stone passage. In most cases medical expulsive therapy is an appropriate treatment modality and most studies have been performed with alpha-blockers. Alpha-blockers tend to decrease intra-ureteral pressure and increase fluid passage which might increase stone passage. Faster stone expulsion will decrease the rate of complications, the need for invasive interventions and eventually decrease healthcare costs. A study on the effect of alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy in ureteral stones is therefore warranted.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to answer the following question: does medical treatment with alpha-blockers compared to other pharmacotherapy or placebo impact on stone clearance rate, in adult patients presenting with symptoms of ureteral stones less than 10 mm confirmed by imaging? Other clinically relevant outcomes such as stone expulsion time, hospitalisation, pain scores, analgesic use and adverse effects have also been explored.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 9 July 2012 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, handsearching conference proceedings, and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing alpha-blockers with other pharmacotherapy or placebo on ureteral stone passage in adult patients were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Reporting bias was investigated using funnel plots. Subgroup analysis was used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed removing studies of poor methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-two studies (5864 participants) were included. The stone-free rates were significantly higher in the alpha-blocker group (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.64) when compared to standard therapy. Stone expulsion time was 2.91 days shorter with the use of alpha-blockers (MD -2.91, 95% CI -4.00 to -1.81). Use of alpha-blockers reduced the number of pain episodes (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.01), the need for analgesic medication (diclofenac) (MD -38.17 mg, 95% CI -74.93 to -1.41) and hospitalisation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.97). Patients using alpha-blockers were more likely to experience adverse effects when compared to standard therapy (RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.45) or placebo (RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.96). Most adverse effects were mild of origin and did not lead to cessation of therapy, and several studies reported no adverse events in either the treatment or control group.In 7/32 studies patients and doctors were both blinded. In the other studies blinding was not described in the methods or no blinding had taken place. Two studies described incomplete data and only one study showed a relatively high number of patients who withdrew from the study. These factors limited the methodological strength of the evidence found.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of alpha-blockers in patients with ureteral stones results in a higher stone-free rate and a shorter time to stone expulsion. Alpha-blockers should therefore be offered as part of medical expulsive therapy as one of the primary treatment modalities.

The effect of terpene combination on ureter calculus expulsion after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Purpose

Terpene combination (Rowatinex) is known to help with the expulsion of urinary stones. The aim of this study was to determine how Rowatinex affects the expulsion of remnant stones after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL).

Materials and Methods

Clinical data were collected retrospectively from 499 patients with a diagnosis of ureteral stones who underwent SWL from January 2009 to August 2012. Ureteral stones were diagnosed in all patients by kidney, ureter, and bladder x-ray and abdominal computed tomography (CT). The progress of patients was documented every 2 weeks to confirm remnant stones after SWL. The patients with remnant stones underwent SWL again. Group 1 consisted of patients who were prescribed an analgesic, Tamsulosin 0.2 mg, and Rowatinex. Group 2 consisted of patients who were prescribed only an analgesic and Tamsulosin 0.2 mg. The expulsion rate of urinary stones was compared between groups.

Results

The expulsion rate of urinary stones was not significantly different between the two groups after 2 weeks. However, after 4 weeks, group 1 had a significantly higher expulsion rate (72.2% compared with 61.1%, p=0.022). Fifteen patients (10.2%) in group 1 and 40 (11.4%) in group 2 had to undergo ureteroscopic removal of the stone (p=0.756). Acute pyelonephritis occurred in one patient (0.7%) in group 1 and in one patient (0.3%) in group 2 (p=0.503).

Conclusions

The long-term administration of Rowatinex for 4 weeks increased the expulsion rate of urinary stones after SWL.

A prospective randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of tamsulosin after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for a single proximal ureteral stone

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of tamsulosin on stone clearance after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in patients with a single proximal ureteral stone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective randomized controlled trial was performed on 88 patients with a single proximal ureteral stone. After consenting with a doctor, the patients were allocated to the treatment (tamsulosin 0.2 mg once a day) or control (no medication) group, and the efficacy of tamsulosin was evaluated. The primary outcome of this study was the stone-free rate, and the secondary outcomes were the period until clearance, pain intensity, analgesic requirement, and incidence of complications.

RESULTS

A stone-free state was reported in 37 patients (84.1%) in the treatment group and 29 (65.9%) in the control group (p=0.049). The mean expulsion period of the stone fragments was 10.0 days in the treatment group and 13.2 days in the control group (p=0.012). There were no statistically significant differences in aceclofenac requirement or pain score between the two groups. Only one patient in the treatment group experienced transient dizziness associated with medical expulsive therapy, and this adverse event disappeared spontaneously.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this prospective randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of tamsulosin after ESWL for a single proximal ureteral stone suggest that tamsulosin helps in the earlier clearance of stone fragments and reduces the expulsion period of stone fragments after ESWL.

Impact of tamsulosin on ureter stone expulsion in korean patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Purpose

Using meta-analysis, the study's aim was to evaluate the efficacy of tamsulosin, an alpha-blocker, in the treatment of ureteral stones with or without shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in Korean patients.

Materials and Methods

Relevant randomized controlled studies published through June 2011 were identified in a search of MEDLINE, KoreaMed, and the Korean Medical Database. No language restriction was applied. Only randomized controlled trials conducted with Korean patients were eligible for the analysis. The primary outcome assessed was the stone clearance rate. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the study and extracted the data. Meta-analysis was conducted by using R, version 2.13.0.

Results

A total of 6 articles were selected as being suitable for evaluation. Pooling of the trials demonstrated a 43% higher expulsion rate for tamsulosin treatment compared to a control group (risk ratio [RR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24 to 1.65). Similar results were obtained in all subgroup analyses according to stone location (upper: RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.68, lower: RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.88) or concomitant SWL (yes: RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.68, no: RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.83).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies provides a high level of evidence supporting the suggestion that treatment with tamsulosin augments the stone expulsion rate for ureter stones with or without SWL in a Korean population. However, a high-quality, large-scale, multicenter, randomized controlled trial is warranted to fully support this hypothesis.

Tamsulosin for ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy of tamsulosin as a medical expulsive therapy of ureteral stones.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ISI-Science Citation Index up to December 2011. All randomized controlled trials were identified in which patients were randomized to receive either tamsulosin or standard therapy with/without placebo for ureteral stones. Outcome measures assessed were overall stone expulsion rate (primary) and expulsion time, and the number of pain episodes (secondary). Three authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. All data were analyzed using RevMan 5.0.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine trials with a total of 2,763 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis showed a 19% improvement in stone clearance with tamsulosin. According to the doses of tamsulosin, the pooling effects of tamsulosin were analyzed, with a higher expulsion rate obtained than in controls. Compared with calcium channel blockers, there was a higher stone expulsion rate in tamsulosin. In addition, a shorter expulsion time, fewer colic episodes and adverse effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin is a safe and effective medical expulsive therapy choice for ureteral stones. It should be recommended for most patients with distal ureteral stones before stones are 10 mm in size. In future, high-quality multicenter, randomized and placebo-controlled trials are needed to evaluate the outcome.

Comparison and efficacy of low-dose and standard-dose tamsulosin and alfuzosin in medical expulsive therapy for lower ureteral calculi: prospective, randomized, comparative study

PURPOSE

Typically in Korea, for a standard dose (0.4 mg) of tamsulosin, two low doses (0.2 mg) are administered. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of tamsulosin (0.2 mg and 0.4 mg) and alfuzosin (10 mg) in the treatment of lower ureteral stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 141 patients presenting with a single 4- to 10-mm sized lower ureteral stone were randomly assigned to 4 groups. Patients in group 1 (n=41) and group 2 (n=30) received an oral dose of 0.2 mg tamsulosin once and twice daily, respectively, and patients in group 3 (n=36) received a daily oral dose of 10 mg alfuzosin. Patients in group 4 (n=34) received trospium chloride only. The spontaneous passage of stones, the stone expulsion time, and adverse effects were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in patient background, including age, sex, BMI, stone size, stone side, and symptom duration. The spontaneous stone passage rate through the ureter was higher and the stone expulsion time was faster in groups 1, 2, and 3 than in group 4. There were no statistically different changes in groups 1, 2, and 3. The adverse effects observed in all groups were comparable and were mild.

CONCLUSIONS

Tamsulosin at 0.2 mg and 0.4 mg and alfuzosin (10 mg) proved to be safe and effective. A first cycle of medical expulsive therapy with tamsulosin 0.2 mg could be considered as an option in the management of single lower ureteral stone.

Expectant Management of Ureter Stones: Outcome and Clinical Factors of Spontaneous Passage in a Single Institution's Experience

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of ureter stones with expectant management and the clinical factors associated with stone passage in Koreans.

Materials and Methods

We reviewed the charts of patients who visited the emergency room or urological office of our institution with acute renal colic between 2001 and 2008. A total of 656 ureter stone formers were enrolled in this study who had decided to be treated by expectant management. Clinical data such as gender, age, size and location of the stone, body mass index, and previous stone history were analyzed to find the factors related to spontaneous passage of ureter stones.

Results

Of the 656 ureter stones, 566 stones (86.3%) were spontaneously expelled. Mean duration of follow-up was 17.5 days (range, 1 to 100 days). Mean time to stone passage was 6.8 days for stones less than 2 mm in size, 12.6 days for stones 2 to 4 mm, 14.8 days for stones 4 to 6 mm, and 21.8 days for stones 6 to 8 mm (p<0.001). The cumulative spontaneous passage rate was 55.3% in 7 days, 73.7% in 14 days, 88.5% in 28 days, and 97.7% in 60 days after the first attack. A total of 90 patients (13.7%) required interventions because of symptom relapse or renal deterioration that was related to the location and size of the stone (each, p<0.001). The more proximal the location and the larger the stone was than 6 mm, the less the chance of spontaneous passage (each, p<0.001).

Conclusions

Size and location of ureter stones are the most important factors for predicting the spontaneous passage of the stone. If a patient has a distal ureter stone of less than 6 mm in size, it is acceptable for the urologist to observe for spontaneous passage for 2 months.