Update on medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: Beyond alpha-blockers

Optimal duration of medical expulsive therapy for lower ureteral stones: a critical evaluation

To evaluate the optimal duration of Medical Expulsive Therapy (MET) application for distal ureteric stones on a time period based manner. 89 patients with 5-10 mm distal ureter stones received tamsulosin (0.4 mg) for MET and diclofenac sodium (75 mg) for analgesia. Patients were evaluated once a week for 4 weeks. Radiologic stone passage was evaluated by kidney ureter bladder (KUB) and ultasonography where non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) was also performed if needed. While 23 cases (28.4%) were SF after first week, 23 were SF (28.4%) after 2 weeks, 9 cases (11.1%) after 3 and lastly 7 cases (8.6%) became SF after four weeks. Nineteen (23.5%) cases were not SF after 4 weeks. A positive relationship was found between the time period elapsed for stone passage and ureteral wall thickness (UWT) along with the degree of hydronephrosis. In addition, mean number of renal colics and emergency department (ED) visits were found to be higher in patients passing stones in the 4th week along with the ones who could not despite MET. SFR for distal ureteric stones sizing 5-10 mm was higher within the first 3 weeks under MET application. Thus, waiting for a longer period of time may result in increased analgesic and unnecessary MET treatment with increased risk of emergency department visits and additional costs as well. We believe that other options could be considered in such cases who are not SF at the end of the first 3 weeks.

A Comparison of Boron Supplement and Tamsulosin as Medical Expulsive Therapy for Urinary Stones After Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Treatment with alpha-blockers has been used in many studies to facilitate stone clearance after extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), based on mediating ureteral wall relaxation. Ureteral wall edema is another barrier against the stone passage. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of boron supplement (due to its anti-inflammatory effect) and tamsulosin in the passage of stone fragments after ESWL. Eligible patients after ESWL were randomly assigned to two groups and were treated with boron supplement (10 mg/BD) or tamsulosin (0.4 mg per night) for 2 weeks. The primary outcome was the stone expulsion rate according to the remained fragmented stone burden. The secondary outcomes were the time of stone clearance, pain intensity, drug side effects, and the need for auxiliary procedures. In this randomized control trial, 200 eligible patients were treated with boron supplement or tamsulosin. Finally, 89 and 81 patients in the two groups completed the study, respectively. The expulsion rate was 46.6% in the boron and 38.7% in the tamsulosin group, which there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.003), as well as the time of stone clearance (7.47 ± 22.4 vs 6.52 ± 18.45, days, p = 0.648, respectively), after 2-week follow-up. Moreover, pain intensity was the same in both groups. No Significant side effects were reported in the two groups. Boron supplement could be effective as adjuvant medical expulsive therapy after ESWL with no significant side effects in short-term follow-up. Iranian Clinical Trial Registration number and date of registration: IRCT20191026045244N3, 07/29/2020.

Efficacy of a Multicomponent Nutraceutical Formulation for the Prevention and Treatment of Urinary Tract Stones

Urolithiasis is a complex and multifactorial disease characterized by the formation of calculi at the urinary tract level. Conventional therapeutic prophylaxis relies on the use of Ca-blockers, alkalis, diuretics, and anti-edema agents, but their prolonged utilization is often limited by several side effects. In this scenario, the aim of the present work was the design of an innovative multi-component nutraceutical formulation (NF) for the management of urinary stones consisting of a synergistic combination of natural aqueous extracts of Oreganum vulgare L. (1% of saponin), Urtica dioica (0.8% of β-sitosterol), Phyllanthus niruri (15% of tannins w/w), and Ceterach officinarum in association with bromelain, K, and Mg citrate. To assess the potential of NF also in the treatment of uric acid (UA) stones, the effects on the expression of the cellular UA transporters OAT1 and URAT1 were investigated in a renal tubular cell line. In addition, the myorelaxant effect of NF was investigated in a human pulmonary artery smooth muscle cell (HPASMC) model resulting in a decreased muscle contractility of -49.4% (p < 0.01) compared to the control. The treatment with NF also showed a valuable inhibition of in vitro calcium-oxalate crystal formation, both in prevention (-52.3% vs. control, p < 0.01) and treatment (-70.8% vs. control, p < 0.01) experiments. Finally, an ischemic reperfusion rat model was used to evaluate the NF anti-edema effects, resulting in a reduction in the edema-related vascular permeability (Normalized Gray Levels, NGL = 0.40 ± 0.09, p < 0.01, -67.1% vs. untreated rats). In conclusion, the present NF has shown to be a promising natural alternative for managing urinary tract stones.

Evolving Role of Silodosin for the Treatment of Urological Disorders – A Narrative Review

Use of α-androgenic receptor blockers remains a mainstay therapeutic approach for the treatment of urological diseases. Silodosin is recommended over other α-blockers for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), due to its high α_1A uroselectivity. Current research data suggest that silodosin is efficacious in the management of various urological diseases. Thus, we herein review the current evidence of silodosin related to its efficacy and tolerability and appraise the available literature that might ultimately aid in management of various urological conditions at routine clinical practice. Literature reveals that silodosin is beneficial in improving nocturia events related to LUTS/BPH. Silodosin exerts effect on relaxing muscles involved in detrusor obstruction, therefore prolonging the need for patients undergoing invasive surgery. Silodosin treatment, either as a monotherapy or combination, significantly improves International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) including both storage and voiding symptoms in patients with BPH/LUTS. Patients on other treatment therapies such as phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors or other α-blockers are well managed with this drug. Steadily, silodosin has proved beneficial in the treatment of other urological disorders such as chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS), overactive bladder/acute urinary retention (AUR), premature ejaculation (PE), and prostate cancer post brachytherapy-induced progression. In patients with distal ureteral stones, silodosin treatment is beneficial in decreasing stone expulsion time without affecting stone expulsion rate or analgesic need. Moreover, there were significant improvements in intravaginal ejaculation latency time, quality of life scores, and decrease in PE profile among patients with PE. Silodosin has also demonstrated promising results in increasing the likelihood of successful trial without catheter in patients with AUR and those taking antihypertensive drugs. Reports from Phase II studies have shown promising role of silodosin in the treatment of CP/CPPS as well as facilitating ureteral stone passage. From the robust data in this review, further silodosin treatment strategies in the management of different urological conditions need to be focused on.

Medical Treatment and Prevention of Urinary Stone Disease

The pathophysiology underlying urinary stone formation remains an area of active investigation. There are many pharmacotherapies aimed at optimizing metabolic factors and reducing urinary supersaturation of stone components that play an important role in urinary stone prevention. In addition, medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones and medical dissolution therapy for uric acid-based urinary stones are helpful treatment tools and are used alongside surgical treatments in the management of urinary stones.

Medical evaluation and pharmacotherapeutical strategies in management of urolithiasis

Treatment of urolithiasis depends on several important factors which include stone location, size, composition, and patient symptoms. Although significant advancements have been made in the surgical management of urolithiasis in the last decade, pharmacotherapy which can prevent the formation of new stones and decrease the recurrence of urolithiasis has not experienced the same level of success. Currently, urolithiasis is regarded as a complicated syndrome that is determined by numerous factors, and any treatment plan for urolithiasis should be individualized while considering any potential damage arising from stone-forming factors. This review introduces the most popular methods currently used to evaluate urolithiasis and the pharmacotherapy of urolithiasis based on patient-specific factors.

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.

Role of silodosin as medical expulsive therapy in ureteral calculi: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The objective of this study is to investigate the efficacy of silodosin in medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteral stones. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of silodosin in MET for ureteral calculi. We searched PubMed, Embase, Medline, Central (the Cochrane Library, Issue 1,2013), Google Scholar from the inception to March 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing silodosin with tamsulosin or control on ureteral stone passage. Eight RCTs with a total of 1145 ureteral stone patients (300 patients in the control group, 287 patients in the tamsulosin group, 558 patients in the silodosin group) were included in this meta-analysis. When compared with control, silodosin significantly improved expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones (RR: 1.42; 95% CI, 1.21-1.67; P < 0.0001), while there was no significant difference between silodosin and the control in expulsion rate of proximal (RR: 0.99; 95% CI, 0.69-1.43; P < 0.97) or mid (RR: 1.13; 95% CI, 0.60-2.16; P < 0.0001) ureteral stones. There was no significant difference between silodosin and tamsulosin in terms of expulsion time (WMD: -2.47; 95% CI, -5.32 to 0.39; P = 0.09), analgesic use (WMD: -0.39; 95% CI, -0.91 to 0.13; P  = 0.14) and retrograde ejaculation rate (RR: 1.85; 95% CI, 0.95-3.59; P = 0.07) in MET for distal ureteral stones. However, silodosin provided a significantly higher expulsion rate (RR: 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.37; P < 0.0001) than tamsulosin for distal ureteral stones. Silodosin significantly improved expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones and was clinically superior to tamsulosin. Silodosin was ineffective in MET for proximal and mid ureteral stones. More RCT studies are needed to compare the efficacy of silodosin versus tamsulosin in MET for distal ureteral stones.

Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of previous randomised controlled trials concluded that the smooth muscle relaxant drugs tamsulosin and nifedipine assisted stone passage for people managed expectantly for ureteric colic, but emphasised the need for high-quality trials with wide inclusion criteria. We aimed to fulfil this need by testing effectiveness of these drugs in a standard clinical care setting.

METHODS

For this multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited adults (aged 18-65 years) undergoing expectant management for a single ureteric stone identified by CT at 24 UK hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned by a remote randomisation system to tamsulosin 400 μg, nifedipine 30 mg, or placebo taken daily for up to 4 weeks, using an algorithm with centre, stone size (≤5 mm or >5 mm), and stone location (upper, mid, or lower ureter) as minimisation covariates. Participants, clinicians, and trial personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who did not need further intervention for stone clearance within 4 weeks of randomisation, analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population defined as all eligible patients for whom we had primary outcome data. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT number 2010-019469-26, and as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 69423238.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 11, 2011, and Dec 20, 2013, we randomly assigned 1167 participants, 1136 (97%) of whom were included in the primary analysis (17 were excluded because of ineligibility and 14 participants were lost to follow-up). 303 (80%) of 379 participants in the placebo group did not need further intervention by 4 weeks, compared with 307 (81%) of 378 in the tamsulosin group (adjusted risk difference 1·3% [95% CI -5·7 to 8·3]; p=0·73) and 304 (80%) of 379 in the nifedipine group (0·5% [-5·6 to 6·5]; p=0·88). No difference was noted between active treatment and placebo (p=0·78), or between tamsulosin and nifedipine (p=0·77). Serious adverse events were reported in three participants in the nifedipine group (one had right loin pain, diarrhoea, and vomiting; one had malaise, headache, and chest pain; and one had severe chest pain, difficulty breathing, and left arm pain) and in one participant in the placebo group (headache, dizziness, lightheadedness, and chronic abdominal pain).

INTERPRETATION

Tamsulosin 400 μg and nifedipine 30 mg are not effective at decreasing the need for further treatment to achieve stone clearance in 4 weeks for patients with expectantly managed ureteric colic.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.