The effect of tamsulosin in the medical treatment of distal ureteral stones

Comparison of efficacy of various drugs used for medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

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.

Comparison of efficacy of three commonly used alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

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.

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.

Efficacy of Tamsulosin alone versus Tamsulosin Phloroglucinol combination therapy for medical expulsion of lower Ureteral calculi

Objective

To see whether phloroglucinol-added tamsulosin therapy exhibits better efficacy than tamsulosin alone in medical expulsion of lower ureteral stone (LUS).

Methods

Sixty four consecutive adult patients presented in a urological setting at Sialkot, Pakistan between January 2015 and December 2016 with solitary, unilateral 3-8mm sized lower ureteral stone (reported by noncontrast computed tomography of the kidney-ureter-bladder) were documented. Group either study or control was allotted, randomly. Same 0.4 mg tamsulosin, once daily was given to all the participants. However, additional 40 mg phloroglucinol, thrice daily was advised for study group (n = 32). The therapy terminated on confirmation of stone expulsion otherwise continued for 6 weeks. Patients were asked to use 50 mg diclophenac Na on colic episode.

Results

Demographic characteristics revealed 81.2% (n = 52) male patients while age statistics as M = 42.3, SD = 5.93 (range 32-60) years. The study group showed higher stone expulsion rate (100%) and time to expulsion (M = 10.34 days) than control. The values were statistically significant (p = .02 and p = .0001; χ² test in SPSS). Similarly, combination therapy had advantage on mono therapy for reporting statistically lesser numbers of colic episode (p = .03) and consumption of analgesic (p = .02). A marked difference in rate of adverse effects i.e. 68.8 vs. 90.6% was observed in study and control groups.

Conclusion

Phloroglucinol-added therapy is a better choice for expulsion of LUS than tamsulosin alone with reference to stone expulsion rate and medication time.

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 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.