Tamsulosin As a Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Yu Cui,Jinbo Chen,Feng Zeng,Peihua Liu,Jiao Hu,Huihuang Li,Chao Li,Cheng Xu,Minfeng Chen,Yangle Li,Yang Li,Zhongqing Yang,Zhiyong Chen,Harripersaud Chand,Hequn Chen,Xiongbing Zu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000000029
2019-01-01
Abstract:No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 May 2019Tamsulosin as a Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled TrialsThis article is commented on by the following:Editorial CommentEditorial Comment Yu Cui, Jinbo Chen, Feng Zeng, Peihua Liu, Jiao Hu, Huihuang Li, Chao Li, Xu Cheng, Minfeng Chen, Yangle Li, Yang Li, Zhongqing Yang, Zhiyong Chen, Harripersaud Chand, Hequn Chen, and Xiongbing Zu Yu CuiYu Cui Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China Equal study contribution. More articles by this author , Jinbo ChenJinbo Chen Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China Equal study contribution. More articles by this author , Feng ZengFeng Zeng Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author , Peihua LiuPeihua Liu Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author , Jiao HuJiao Hu Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author , Huihuang LiHuihuang Li Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author , Chao LiChao Li Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author , Xu ChengXu Cheng Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author , Minfeng ChenMinfeng Chen Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author , Yangle LiYangle Li Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author , Yang LiYang Li Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author , Zhongqing YangZhongqing Yang Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author , Zhiyong ChenZhiyong Chen Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author , Harripersaud ChandHarripersaud Chand Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author , Hequn ChenHequn Chen †Correspondence: Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha410008, China (telephone: +86-731-8975-3011; FAX: +86-731-8975-3280; e-mail: E-mail Address: [email protected], E-mail Address: [email protected]). Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author , and Xiongbing ZuXiongbing Zu †Correspondence: Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha410008, China (telephone: +86-731-8975-3011; FAX: +86-731-8975-3280; e-mail: E-mail Address: [email protected], E-mail Address: [email protected]). Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000029AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: Tamsulosin is widely administered as a medical expulsive therapy to facilitate stone passage in patients with ureteral calculi. Recently several large, multicenter, randomized controlled trials revealed conflicting results, which led to considerable uncertainty about the efficacy of tamsulosin in the management of ureteral stones. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin in the management of ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar™ and the Cochrane Central Search Library databases up to June 2018. Two reviewers independently evaluated eligible randomized controlled trials of the efficacy of tamsulosin to treat ureteral stones. Study quality was assessed with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity. Results: Included in study were 56 randomized controlled trials in a total of 9,395 patients. The observed treatment effect indicated that tamsulosin was associated with a higher stone expulsion rate (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.35-1.55, p <0.01), a shorter stone expulsion time (weighted mean difference –0.73, 95% CI –1.00-–0.45, p <0.01), a lesser incidence of ureteral colic (weighted mean difference –0.81, 95% CI –1.24-–0.39, p <0.01) and fewer incidences of requiring subsequent intervention (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93, p = 0.017). Treatment with tamsulosin did not differ from a control group in the overall incidence of side effects (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86-1.51, p = 0.36). On subgroup analysis we observed a significant benefit in the stone expulsion rate for tamsulosin among patients with stones greater than 5 mm (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.22-1.68, p <0.01) but no effect for stones 5 mm or less (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.99-1.68, p <0.01). Conclusions: Our current meta-analysis results indicate that tamsulosin is effective and relatively safe in patients with ureteral stone as a medical expulsive therapy to facilitate stone passage. It is suggested to administer it selectively in patients with 5 to 10 mm ureteral stones. References 1. : EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 468. Google Scholar 2. : Trends in urological stone disease. BJU Int 2012; 109: 1082. Google Scholar 3. : The economics of stone disease. World J Urol 2017; 35: 1321. Google Scholar 4. : Cost-effectiveness of medical expulsive therapy using alpha-blockers for the treatment of distal ureteral stones. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 411. Google Scholar 5. : 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 2007; 178: 2418. Link, Google Scholar 6. : Tamsulosin for ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Urol Int 2012; 89: 107. Google Scholar 7. : Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 386: 341. Google Scholar 8. : Effect of tamsulosin on passage of symptomatic ureteral stones: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2018; 178: 1051. Google Scholar 9. : Distal ureteric stones and tamsulosin: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trial. Ann Emerg Med 2016; 67: 86. Google Scholar 10. : Efficacy and safety of tamsulosin in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones with renal colic: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Eur Urol 2017; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.10.033. Crossref, Google Scholar 11. : Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264. Google Scholar 12. : Nifedipine versus tamsulosin for the management of lower ureteral stones. J Urol 2004; 172: 568. Link, Google Scholar 13. : Is there a role for tamsulosin in the treatment of distal ureteral stones of 7 mm or less? Results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Eur Urol 2009; 56: 407. Google Scholar 14. : Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2016; 355: i6112. Google Scholar 15. : Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2006; 368: 1171. Google Scholar 16. : Longitudinal stone diameter on coronal reconstruction of computed tomography as a predictor of ureteral stone expulsion in medical expulsive therapy. Urology 2012; 80: 784. Google Scholar 17. : Effect of tamsulosin on stone passage for ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med 2017; 69: 353. Google Scholar Supported Natural Science Foundation of China Grant 81572523, Hunan Province Funds for Distinguished Young Scientists of China Grant 2016JJ1026, the Key Research and Development Project of Hunan Provincial Science and Technology Department Grant 2016JC2041 and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University Grant 2016zzts121. © 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byHall M, Thiel J, Dunmire B, Samson P, Kessler R, Sunaryo P, Sweet R, Metzler I, Chang H, Gunn M, Dighe M, Anderson L, Popchoi C, Managuli R, Cunitz B, Burke B, Ding L, Gutierrez B, Liu Z, Sorensen M, Wessells H, Bailey M and Harper J (2022) First Series Using Ultrasonic Propulsion and Burst Wave Lithotripsy to Treat Ureteral StonesJournal of Urology, VOL. 208, NO. 5, (1075-1082), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2022.Stensland K, Malinconico L and Canes D (2019) Tamsulosin and Distal Ureteral Stones—How Much Evidence is Enough? Exploring Value of Information in UrologyJournal of Urology, VOL. 202, NO. 3, (465-466), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2019.Related articlesJournal of Urology8 Apr 2019Editorial CommentJournal of Urology8 Apr 2019Editorial Comment Volume 201Issue 5May 2019Page: 950-955Supplementary Materials Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.KeywordsChinaureteral calculiurolithiasistamsulosindrug therapyMetricsAuthor Information Yu Cui Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Jinbo Chen Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Feng Zeng Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author Peihua Liu Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author Jiao Hu Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author Huihuang Li Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author Chao Li Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author Xu Cheng Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author Minfeng Chen Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author Yangle Li Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author Yang Li Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author Zhongqing Yang Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author Zhiyong Chen Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author Harripersaud Chand Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China More articles by this author Hequn Chen Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China †Correspondence: Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha410008, China (telephone: +86-731-8975-3011; FAX: +86-731-8975-3280; e-mail: E-mail Address: [email protected], E-mail Address: [email protected]). More articles by this author Xiongbing Zu Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China †Correspondence: Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha410008, China (telephone: +86-731-8975-3011; FAX: +86-731-8975-3280; e-mail: E-mail Address: [email protected], E-mail Address: [email protected]). More articles by this author Expand All Supported Natural Science Foundation of China Grant 81572523, Hunan Province Funds for Distinguished Young Scientists of China Grant 2016JJ1026, the Key Research and Development Project of Hunan Provincial Science and Technology Department Grant 2016JC2041 and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University Grant 2016zzts121. Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
-
Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Calculi with Tamsulosin: Evidence from A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
XIONG Wei,WANG Kun-jie,WANG Li,WANG Jia,WEI Qiang,LI Hong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-2531.2007.07.007
2007-01-01
Abstract:Objective To assess the efficacy of medical expulsive therapy for ureteral calcul i with tamsulosin. Methods We searched PubMed,MEDLINE,EMBASE, BIOSIS,International Pharmaceutical Abstracts(IPA)Database, The Cochrane Library and Chinese Journal Full-text Database from 1995 to September 2006,as well as the proceedings of urological scientificconferences from 2000 to 2006.Randomized controlled trials(RCTs)comparing tamsulosin and other therapies for ureteral calculi among adults were included.Data were extracted by two reviewers independently and synthesized by STATA 9.0 software.Results A total of 16 studies involving 1 521 patients with distal or juxtavesical ureteral calcul i were included.Compared with conservative therapy,tamsulosin showed higher expulsion rate[RR 1.50,95%CI(1.20 to 1.87), P0.000 1],shorter expulsion time[SMD–1.29,95%CI(–2.27, –0.31)]and fewer patients requiring ESWL or ureteroscopy[RR 0.40,95%CI(0.27,0.59),P0.05].Compared with conservative therapy,the combination of tamsulosin plus deflazacort also showed higher expulsion rate[RR 1.59,95%CI(1.31,1.93)], shorter expulsion time[SMD–0.8,95%CI(–1.18,–0.42)] and fewer patients requiring ESWL or ureteroscopy[RR 0.13,95%CI(0.06,0.31),P0.05].Compared with deflazacort alone, the combination of tamsulosin plus deflazacort demonstrated similar expulsion rate[RR 1.31,95%CI(0.78,2.23),P=0.31], but significantly reduced the dosage of analgesics[SMD 15.20,95%CI(14.98,15.52)]and decreased the proportion of patients requiring ESWL or ureteroscopy[RR 0.09,, 95%CI(0.02,0.47),P0.05].Compared with deflazacort plus nifedi pine,the combination of tamsulosin plus deflazacort showed higher expulsion rate[RR 1.20,95%CI(1.07,1.35), P=0.002],but similar expulsion time[SMD–1.34,95%CI(– 3.47,0.79)]and proportion of patients requiring ESWL or ureteroscopy[RR 0.34,95%CI(0.05,2.22),P0.05].As for side effects,tamsulosin-based treatment and conservative therapy were comparable(P0.05).Conclusions Tamsulosin has a beneficial effect on the expulsion of ureteral calculi,especially for distal and juxtavesical ureteral calcul i.Tamsulosin- based medical expulsive therapy at the dosage of 0.4mg daily is effective and safe for patients with distal ureteral calcul i. More large-scale studies are required to define the efficacy of combination therapy of tamsulosin plus deflazacort.
-
Tamsulosin for ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of a randomized controlled trial.
Zeping Lu,Zhilong Dong,Hui Ding,Hanzhang Wang,Baoliang Ma,Zhiping Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000338909
2012-01-01
Urologia Internationalis
Abstract: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. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
-
Is tamsulosin effective for the passage of symptomatic ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Yi Sun,Guo-Lin Lei,Lu Yang,Qiang Wei,Xin Wei
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014796
IF: 1.6
2019-01-01
Medicine
Abstract: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 and safety of medical expulsion therapy for ureteral calculi: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Yige Bao,Haiyang Bian,Shi Qiu,Chengyi Huang,Liangren Liu,Zhenhua Liu,Lu Yang,Qiang Wei
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33242-7
IF: 202.731
2017-01-01
The Lancet
Abstract:Abstract Background The effectiveness of medical expulsive therapy for the non-invasive management of patients with ureteral calculi has been called into question. We aimed to evaluate the benefits and harms of various medical expulsive therapies using a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Methods We incorporated both direct and indirect evidence from relevant trials. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Embase, and the reference lists of relevant articles for randomised controlled trials published up to Oct 1, 2016, of medical expulsive therapy. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who did not need further intervention for stone clearance within 4 weeks of randomisation, stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, and adverse events. We did pairwise meta-analyses by random effects model and network meta-analysis by Bayesian random effects model. We assessed the quality of evidence contributing to each network estimate using the GRADE framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number 42016051277. Findings From a total of 1873 citations, 65 randomised trials with a total of 10 493 participants were included in this network meta-analysis. 14 strategies for medical expulsive therapy published between 2000 and 2016 were considered. Tamsulosin plus tadalafil (relative risk [RR] 7·31, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1·83–14·37), surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 0·90) was ranked the best, followed by alfuzosin (6·50, 3·50–12·2, SUCRA 0·81), tadalafil (6·39, 2·15–10·02, SUCRA 0·77), doxazosin (6·13, 3·50–11·5, SUCRA 0·75), and tamsulosin (5·89, 1·50–9·42, SUCRA 0·69) considering stone expulsion rate. Alfuzosin showed significant superiority over nifedipine (RR 6·19, 95% CrI 2·72–13·57) and ramsulosin (2·19, 1·18–4·04) in terms of stone expulsion rate. Tamsulosin plus tadalafil was significantly more effective than nifedipine (standardised mean difference [SMD] −0·89, 95 % CI −1·19 to −0·60), Tamsulosin (−2·36, −4·61 to −0·81), and placebo (SMD −3·20, −5·19 to −2·21) in terms of stone expulsion time. No significant difference between any group of medical expulsive therapy was found in terms of further intervention need for stone clearance and adverse events. Out results showed the same significance in the subgroup analysis of stone size ( vs u003e5 mm) and stone location (upper and lower ureteral). Interpretation In adults with ureteral stones smaller than 10 mm in size, tamsulosin plus tadalafil and alfuzosin are safe and effective for expulsive therapy. Nevertheless, these results should be considered together with all known safety and economic information when selecting the strategy for individual patients. Head-to-head comparisons of medical expulsive therapy are limited, but still needed to confirm the findings. Funding Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award 2013, National Natural Science Foundation of China (81300627 and 81370855), and Programs from Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province (2013SZ0006 and 2014JY0219).
-
Tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy for lower ureterolithiasis:A meta-analysis
hongjian liu,chaodong liu,wentao wei,z liu,xianli tang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1000-1948(13)60002-7
2012-01-01
Journal of Medical Colleges of PLA
Abstract:Objective: To review the evidence for tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy in enhancing the effectiveness of distal ureteral stone clearance rate. Methods: We searched Pubmed/Medline, Embase, CBM and the Cochrane Library up to October 2011. All randomized controlled trials in which tamsulosin was evaluated with distal ureterolithiasis were eligible for the analysis. Outcome measure assessed was stone clearance rate. Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. All data were analyzed using RevMan 5.1. Results: Thirteen studies involving 1067 participants met the inclusion criteria. Study duration ranged from 7 to 42 d. The pooled analysis showed an improvement of 41% in stone clearance rate of tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral calculi (RR=1.41, 95% CI=1.18 to 1.70). According to stone size (6 mm<size<10 mm, 5 mm<size<6 mm, size <5 mm), the pooling effects of tamsulosin were analyzed, with a higher stone expulsion rate obtained than control (RR=1.52, 1.75, 1.05, 95% CI=1.30 to 1.77, 1.25 to 2.45, 0.95 to 1.16, respectively). Adverse effects of tamsulosin, mainly retrograde ejaculation, dizziness and hypotension, were reported in 7 included trials. Conclusion: Treatment with tamsulosin appears to be a safe and effective medical expulsion therapy for distal ureterolithiasis. To make a definite clinical recommendation to use tamsulosin as medical expulsive treatment for distal ureteral calculi, high quality multicentric, randomized, double blinded, controlled trials are necessary to prove its efficacy.
-
Efficacy and Safety of Tamsulosin in Medical Expulsive Therapy for Distal Ureteral Stones with Renal Colic: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial.
Zhangqun Ye,Guohua Zeng,Huan Yang,Kun Tang,Xiaochun Zhang,Hong Li,Weibing Li,Zhong Wu,Lingwu Chen,Xingfa Chen,Xiankui Liu,Yaoliang Deng,Tiejun Pan,Jinchun Xing,Shusheng Wang,Yue Cheng,Xiaojian Gu,Wenxi Gao,Jianggen Yang,Yonghai Zhang,Qiwu Mi,Lin Qi,Jiongming Li,Weilie Hu,Peiyu Liang,Zhaolin Sun,Changbao Xu,Yongfu Long,Yongbin Liao,Siping Liu,Guoqing Liu,Xun Xu,Wei He,Zhiqiang Chen,Hua Xu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.10.033
IF: 24.267
2017-01-01
European Urology
Abstract:BACKGROUND:Recent large high-quality trials have questioned the clinical effectiveness of medical expulsive therapy using tamsulosin for ureteral stones. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin for distal ureteral stones compared with placebo. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 3296 patients with distal ureteral stones, across 30 centers, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin. INTERVENTION:Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) into tamsulosin (0.4mg) or placebo groups for 4 wk. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:The primary end point of analysis was the overall stone expulsion rate, defined as stone expulsion, confirmed by negative findings on computed tomography, over a 28-d surveillance period. Secondary end points included time to stone expulsion, use of analgesics, and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:Among 3450 patients randomized between September 1, 2011, and August 31, 2013, 3296 (96%) were included in the primary analysis. Tamsulosin benefits from a higher stone expulsion rate than the placebo (86% vs 79%; p<0.001) for distal ureteral stones. Subgroup analysis identified a specific benefit of tamsulosin for the treatment of large distal ureteral stones (>5mm). Considering the secondary end points, tamsulosin-treated patients reported a shorter time to expulsion (p<0.001), required lower use of analgesics compared with placebo (p<0.001), and significantly relieved renal colic (p<0.001). No differences in the incidence of adverse events were identified between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:Our data suggest that tamsulosin use benefits distal ureteral stones in facilitating stone passage and relieving renal colic. Subgroup analyses find that tamsulosin provides a superior expulsion rate for stones >5mm, but no effect for stones ≤5mm. PATIENT SUMMARY:In this report, we looked at the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin for the treatment of distal ureteral stones. We find that tamsulosin significantly facilitates the passage of distal ureteral stones and relieves renal colic.
-
Can Tamsulosin Facilitate Expulsion Of Ureteral Stones? A Meta-Analysis Of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bo Fan,Deyong Yang,Jianbo Wang,Xiangyu Che,Xiancheng Li,Lina Wang,Feng Chen,Tiezheng Wang,Xishuang Song
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12048
2013-01-01
International Journal of Urology
Abstract:Objectives: To determine the efficacy and safety of the adrenergic alpha-antagonist tamsulosin in facilitating ureteral stones expulsion.Methods: A literature search was carried out using the PubMed database, Medline via Ovid, Embase and the Cochrane Library database to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficiency of tamsulosin in the treatment of ureteral stones. Meta-analysis and forest plots were carried out by use of Review Manager version 5.1 software (Cochrane Collaboration).Results: Compared with the control group, the tamsulosin group had an increase in expulsion rate of 51% and a decrease in expulsion time of 2.63 days. Furthermore, tamsulosin was found to reduce the risk of ureteral colic during treatment by 40% and also the risk of requirement of auxiliary procedures during follow up by 60%. In terms of safety, the tamsulosin group had a 117% increase in the incidence of side-effects compared with the control group, especially for incidence of dizziness.Conclusion: Tamsulosin facilitates the expulsion of ureteral calculi by providing a higher expulsion rate, a shorter expulsion time, a lower incidence of ureteral colic during treatment and a lower requirement of auxiliary procedures. However, the incidence of dizziness occurring during tamsulosin treatment is significantly higher in this setting.
-
Tamsulosin As Adjunctive Treatment after Shockwave Lithotripsy in Patients with Upper Urinary Tract Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Shuo Zheng,Liang Ren Liu,Hai Chao Yuan,Qiang Wei
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/00365599.2010.523014
2010-01-01
Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology
Abstract:Abstract Objective. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of tamsulosin as an α1-blocker in the treatment of the renal and ureteral stones after shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). Material and methods. Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified by electronic and document searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Chinese Biomedical Disk and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until April 2010. No language restriction was applied. Trials were included if patients were randomized to receive either tamsulosin or standard therapy with or without placebo after SWL. The main outcome was the stone clearance rate. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted with Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.0. Results. Fifteen studies involving 1326 subjects met the inclusion criteria. Study duration ranged from 2 weeks to 3 months. The pooled analysis showed a 24% [risk ratio (RR) = 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 1.37] improvement in stone clearance tamsulosin. According to stone locations (renal, upper ureteral and lower ureteral), the pooling effects of tamsulosin were analysed, with a higher expulsion rate obtained than control (RR = 1.38, 1.83, 1.43, and 95% CI 1.17 to 1.61, 1.20 to 2.78, 1.13 to 1.81, respectively). Tamsulosin 0.4 mg had a high possibility of achieving successful outcome (RR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.47). In addition, a shorter expulsion time, lower analgesic requirements, fewer colic episodes and adverse effects were observed. Conclusions. Tamsulosin is a safe and effective therapy for renal and ureteral stones after SWL. Further, high-quality randomized trials are necessary to confirm its efficacy.
-
Pooled-analysis of tadalafil and tamsulosin for ureteral calculi
Fengze Sun,Hongquan Liu,Gang Wu,Ming Liu,Shangjing Liu,Lin Wang,Qingsong Zou,Yuanshan Cui,Jitao Wu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1351312
IF: 5.6
2024-05-30
Frontiers in Pharmacology
Abstract:Objective: Urolithiasis is a common urological diseases and affects the daily life of patients. Medical expulsive therapy has become acceptable for many parents. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of tadalafil compared with tamsulosin for treating distal ureteral stones less than 10 mm in length. Methods: Related studies were identified via searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. All the articles that described the use of tadalafil and tamsulosin for treating distal ureteral stones were collected. Results: A total of 14 studies were included in our meta-analysis. Our results revealed that tadalafil enhanced expulsion rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47 to 0.98, p = 0.04]; reduced expulsion time [mean difference (MD) = 1.22, 95% CI (0.13, 2.30), p = 0.03]; lowered analgesia use [MD = 38.66, 95% CI (7.56, 69.77), p = 0.01] and hospital visits [MD = 0.14, 95% CI (0.06, 0.22), p = 0.0006]. According to our subgroup analysis, either tadalafil 5 mg or 10 mg did not promote expulsion rate and accelerate expulsion time compared with tamsulosin. But patients receiving 5 mg tadalafil decreased analgesia usage [MD = 101.04, 95% CI (67.56, 134.01), p < 0.00001]. Conclusion: Compared with tamsulosin, tadalafil demonstrates a higher expulsion rate and less expulsion time for patients with distal ureteral stones less than 10 mm with a favorable safety profile.
pharmacology & pharmacy
-
Tamsulosin vs. Tadalafil as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Mikhael Belkovsky,Giulia Veneziani Zogaib,Carlo Camargo Passerotti,Everson Luiz de Almeida Artifon,José Pinhata Otoch,José Arnaldo Shiomi da Cruz
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2023.0345
Abstract:Purpose: Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is recommended for distal ureteral stones from 5 to 10 mm. The best drug for MET is still uncertain. In this review, we aim to compare the effectiveness of tadalafil and tamsulosin for distal ureteral stones from 5 to 10 mm in terms of stone expulsion rate (SER), stone expulsion time (SET) and the side effect profile. Materials and methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception until April 2023. Only randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. Results: Eleven publications with 1,330 patients were included. We observed that tadalafil has a higher SER (OR 0.55, CI 95% 0.38;0.80, p=0.02, I2=52%) and the same efficacy in SET (MD 1.07, CI 95% -0.25; 2.39, p=0.11, I2=84%). No differences were found when comparing side effects as headache, backache, dizziness, and orthostatic hypotension. Conclusion: Tadalafil has a higher stone expulsion rate than tamsulosin as a medical expulsive therapy for patients with distal stones from 5 to 10 mm without differences in side effects.
-
Tamsulosin Versus Nifedipine To Facilitate Urinary Stone Passage: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis
Yongqiang Zhang,Dongbo Yuan,Haofu Rao,Tianfei Cheng,Boshi Luan,Wei Wang,Jiaming Su,Yuanlin Wang,Zhaolin Sun,Guiping Ouyang,Jianguo Zhu
2018-01-01
Abstract:Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of Tamsulosin versus Nifedipine, as an expulsive agent, for both intact ureteral stones and stones after shock wave lithotripsy. Methods: Relevant studies were searched for in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane database libraries. All randomized controlled trials comparing Tamsulosin to Nifedipine for the treatment of ureteral stones (intact or after shock wave lithotripsy), were included in the study. The primary outcome was the proportion of the patients who passed the stones. Results: Ten randomized trials (RCT), with a total of 4816 patients that underwent medical therapy only, were included in this meta-analysis. Tamsulosin was associated with a higher risk of stone passage rate (SPR) (OR = 2.67, 95% CI 1.31-5.44, P<0.05), and with a shorter average stone-expulsion time, in tamsulosin groups (WMD: -1.95; 95% CI: -3.73-0.17; P = 0.03). There were no statistically significant differences in the side effects between these groups (OR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.60-1.02, P = 0.07). Three trials comprised of 199 patients who had the expulsive therapy after shock wave lithotripsy. No statistically significant differences were detected in the SPR, between the two groups (OR = 1.56, 95% CI 0.82-2.96, P = 0.17). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggested that Tamsulosin was more effective and quicker than Nifedipine as an expulsive agent for the intact ureteral stones.
-
Efficacy and Safety of Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Distal Ureteral Calculi of 5-10Mm in Size: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Jia-Kun Li,Shi Qiu,Kun Jin,Xiao-Nan Zheng,Xiang Tu,Si-Wei Bi,Xin-Yang Liao,Yi-Ge Bao,Lu Yang,Qiang Wei
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1569-9056(17)32168-1
2019-01-01
The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences
Abstract:To evaluate the Efficacy and safety of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors as a medical therapy for distal ureteral calculi by means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched the Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published before May, 2017. Stone passage rate as the primary outcome. We used random effects model for pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian random effects model for NMA. We evaluated the quality of evidence by the GRADE framework for each network estimate. Five RCTs (861 patients) comparing four different interventions. The results of NMA showed that compared with tamsulosin alone, tamsulosin combined with tadalafil group was associated with significantly higher stone passage rate (odds radio [OR] 2.55, 95% credible intervals [Crl] 1.11 to 5.89). When considering stone expulsion rate, compared with tamsulosin, silodosin was ranked best (OR 3.58, 95% Crl 1.13 to 11.91), followed by tamsulosin combined with tadalafil (OR 2.55, 95% Crl 1.11 to 5.89) and tadalafil alone (OR 1.86, 95% Crl 0.95 to 4.25). No significant difference was found considering safety profiles between any interventions. This meta-analysis indicates that tamsulosin combined with tadalafil is an effective treatment option for ureteral stones with a low occurrence of side effects. Clinicians should take all known safety and compliance of patients into account when choosing an optimal strategy. Since sample size of included studies, further RCTs are strongly encouraged to address the clinical question.
-
Comparative Study of Efficacy and Safety of Tamsulosin plus Tadalafil Combination Therapy versus Tamsulosin Monotherapy as Medical Expulsive Therapy of Ureteric Stone
Arun Kumar,Saajid Hameed,Manish Kumar,Lalit Mohan,Vijoy Kumar,Harihar Dikshit
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47583/ijpsrr.2022.v74i02.029
2022-06-15
International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Review and Research
Abstract:Introduction: If surgical intervention is not indicated, current international guidelines and evidences recommend medical expulsive therapy (MET) involving the administration of drugs to improve spontaneous stone passage. Medical expulsive therapy has now become an established modality of treatment, and employs the use of various drugs that act on the ureter with different mechanisms. It is hypothesised that elevation of cyclic guanosine monophosphate in ureteral smooth muscle by phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors may result in ureteral relaxation and increased stone clearance. Aims/ objective: To investigate whether we can achieve better ureteric relaxation and reduction in intramural pressure in order to facilitate stone passage by tamsulosin plus tadalafil combination therapy. Materials and Method: Stone expulsion rate of tamsulosin + tadalafil when compared to tamsulosin was our primary endpoint. (Assessed by subjective response and confirmed by repeat plain X ray abdomen and if needed CT scan abdomen). The efficacy of the individual drugs was analysed and compared with the help of Pearson chi square test. p value <0.05 were considered as statistically significant. Results: 33 patients (66%) receiving tamsulosin and 43 patients (86%) receiving combination therapy showed positive outcome (expulsion of stones). So, tamsulosin plus tadalafil combination therapy had significantly better efficacy. In tamsulosin group 30 patients among 33 (90.9%) expelled the stone in less than 5 days. In tamsulosin plus tadalafil group, 37 patients among 43 (86%) expelled in less than 5 days. But the difference was not statistically significant. Both drugs were well tolerated by the study patients. Conclusion: Tamsulosin plus tadalafil is more efficacious, and well tolerated as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones compared to tamsulosin. Medical expulsive therapy also doesn’t carry post-operative morbidities as compared to surgical methods.
-
A comparison of nifedipine and tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy for the management of lower ureteral stones without ESWL
Dehong Cao,Lu Yang,Liangren Liu,Haichao Yuan,Shenqiang Qian,Xiao Lv,Pin Han,Qiang Wei
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep05254
IF: 4.6
2014-01-01
Scientific Reports
Abstract:Administration of nifedipine or tamsulosin has been suggested to augment stone expulsion rates. We aimed to compare the stone expulsion rates and adverse effects associated with the use of nifedipine or tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for the management of lower ureteral stones (LUS) without extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) via a literature review and meta-analysis. Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases. Finally, a total of 7 RCTs with 3897 patients were included. Our meta-analysis showed that tamsulosin could significantly increase the stone expulsion rate relative to nifedipine in patients with LUS (random-effects model; risk ratio [RR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75–0.88; P < 0.00001). The subgroup analysis indicated no statistically significant difference between the drugs with regard to minor or major adverse effects (fixed-effect model; RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.91–1.54, P = 0.20; and RR = 1.63, 95% CI = 0.22–11.82, P = 0.63, respectively). This meta-analysis demonstrated that tamsulosin was more effective than nifedipine in patients with LUS, as evidenced by the higher stone expulsion rate. Tamsulosin treatment should therefore be considered for patients with LUS.
-
Efficacy of tamsulosin for single renal stone after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review
Xiao Hu,Hongbing Lu,Feilun Cui,Chao Qin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2015.11.035
2015-01-01
Abstract:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of tamsulosin for patients with single renal stone after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).MethodsDatabases including Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched and randomized controlled trials in which tamsulosin were evaluated for single renal stone after ESWL were included. Methodological quality was evaluated for each included study and stone clearance rate and mean expulsion time were assessed.ResultsSeven randomized controlled trials with low methodological quality and 866 patients in total were included. The results of Meta-analysis showed that compared with the blank or placebo group tamsulosin could increase significantly the stone clearance rate for the single renal stone after ESWL at 4 weeks,RR=1.59, 95% confidence interval (1.19, 2.14), and 12 weeks,RR=1.17, 95% confidence interval (1.04, 1.31).Conclusion Compared with blank or placebo group, treatment with tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily after ESWL appears to be effective in assisting stone clearance in patients with single renal calculi. Further more randomized controlled trials with high quality and large samples are encouraged.
-
Comparative efficacy of 22 drug interventions as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Hailang Liu,Shaogang Wang,Wei Zhu,Jinjin Lu,Xinguang Wang,Weimin Yang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01159-5
2019-09-11
Urolithiasis
Abstract:To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis for the evaluation of 22 drug interventions in the management of ureteral stones, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane central databases were searched to identify RCTs focusing on the evaluation of the efficacy of multiple drug interventions in medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteral stones, with no restrictions on year or language. Study quality assessment and data extraction were performed by independent reviewers. Major outcome measures were the stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, and pain episodes during treatment. A total of 78 RCTs with 14,922 participants were included in the present study. The final comparative results show that naftopidil plus corticosteroids was associated with higher stone expulsion rates than other drug interventions. Silodosin plus tadalafil had the highest probability of reducing stone expulsion time. Tamsulosin plus tadalafil performed better than all the other drug interventions in reducing pain episodes during treatment. However, in terms of all the outcome measures, the ranking plot results demonstrate that silodosin plus tadalafil, in addition to tamsulosin plus tadalafil and corticosteroids, was the best drug intervention as medical expulsive therapy in the management of ureteral stones. In ureteral stones ≤ 10 mm, all active drug interventions were more efficacious than the control; however, not all active drug interventions had an efficacy superior to the placebo. Silodosin plus tadalafil, tamsulosin plus tadalafil and corticosteroids, tamsulosin plus tadalafil, and naftopidil plus corticosteroids were the most effective drug interventions. Considering the choice of treatment, these results should serve as evidence-based practice and be considered by physicians, patients, and guideline developers. However, with respect to the limitations of the present study, further high-quality studies are needed for more in-depth evaluation of both the efficacy and safety of these drug interventions.
urology & nephrology
-
Adjunctive medical expulsive therapy with tamsulosin for repeated extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Wei Ouyang,Guoliang Sun,Gongwei Long,Man Liu,Hua Xu,Zhiqiang Chen,Zhangqun Ye,Heng Li,Yucong Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2020.0093
2021-01-01
International braz j urol
Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive medical expulsive therapy (MET) with tamsulosin for the promotion of stone fragments clearance for repeated extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Materials and Methods: This meta-analysis was conducted by systematic search for randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science databases in January 2020, which compared tamsulosin with either placebo or non-placebo control for repeated ESWL. The primary endpoint was stone-free rate (SFR), the second endpoints were stone clearance time and complications. The quality assessment of included studies was performed by using the Cochrane System and Jadad score. Results: 7 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Tamsulosin provided higher SFR (for stones larger than 1cm, OR: 5.56, p=0.0003), except for patients with stones less than 1cm. For patients with renal stones (OR: 2.97, p=0.0005) or upper ureteral stones (OR: 3.10, p=0.004), tamsulosin can also provide a higher SFR. In addition, tamsulosin provided a shorter stone clearance time (WMD: -9.40, p=0.03) and lower pain intensity (WMD=-17.01, p <0.0001) and incidences of steinstrasse (OR: 0.37, p=0.0002). Conclusion: Adjunctive MET with tamsulosin is effective in patients with specific stone size or location that received repeated ESWL. However, no well-designed RCT that used computed tomography for the detection and assessment of residual stone fragments was found. More studies with high quality and the comparison between tamsulosin and secondary ESWL are needed in the future.
-
Tadalafil Facilitates the Distal Ureteral Stone Expulsion: A Meta-Analysis
Yunjin Bai,Yubo Yang,Xiaoming Wang,Yin Tang,Ping Han,Jia Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0837
2017-06-01
Journal of Endourology
Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of tadalafil in facilitating the spontaneous passage of distal ureteral stones.METHODS: The relevant studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to November 2016. Randomized controlled trials evaluating effects of tadalafil for distal ureteral stones were included.RESULTS: Six publications involving 921 patients were included. Compared with tamsulosin monotherapy, tadalafil monotherapy or combined with tamsulosin has a significantly higher stone expulsion rate (relative risk [RR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 1.29; p = 0.004; RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.42; p = 0.001, respectively) and shorter time to stone expulsion (mean difference [MD], -1.33 days; 95% CI, -2.44 to -0.23; p = 0.02; MD, -1.98 days; 95% CI, -3.08 to -0.88; p = 0.0004, respectively). Statistically significant differences were noted in pain episodes and analgesic use in favor of group tadalafil alone compared to group tamsulosin alone. The analgesic use was significantly lower in the combined group than in the tamsulosin alone group. Although the occurrence of drug-related adverse events in the tadalafil alone or combined with tamsulosin was higher than that in the use of tamsulosin-alone group, the most common adverse events were mild and tolerable.CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggested that medical expulsive therapy for the distal ureteral stones using tadalafil alone or combined with tamsulosin is safe, efficacious, and well tolerated.
urology & nephrology
-
The role of Silodosin as a new medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis
Hui Ding,Zhongyun Ning,Yu Dai,Panfeng Shang,Li Yang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0886022X.2016.1215221
Abstract:To evaluate the efficacy of Silodosin as a medical expulsive therapy of ureteral stones, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and CBM up to June 2015. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified in which patients were randomized to receive Silodosin versus placebo or other therapies for ureteral stones. Outcome measures assessed were overall stone expulsion rate (primary) and expulsion time, analgesics times, and the incidence of additional treatment and regarding treatment complications (secondary). Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. All data were analyzed using RevMan 5.3. Seven RCTs with a total of 1035 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled meta-analysis showed a significant improvement in stone clearance with Silodosin (Silodosin versus placebo, OR =1.69, 95% CI [1.19-2.40], p = 0.003; Silodosin versus tamsulosin, OR =2.82, 95% CI [1.79-4.44], p < 0.00001). According to the size and location of ureteral stone, the pooling effects of Silodosin were analyzed, with a meaningful expulsion rate in distal ureteral stone when the size was 5-10 mm. In addition, a shorter expulsion time, fewer analgesics times, and additional treatments were observed. The common side effect was retrograde ejaculation. In summary, Silodosin appears to be more effective than either placebo or tamsulosin. Within the limits of available data, high-quality multicenter RCTs are needed to thoroughly evaluate the outcome in the future.
-
The safety and efficacy of doxazosin in medical expulsion therapy for distal ureteric calculi: A meta-analysis
Baozhong Yu,Xiang Zheng,Zejia Sun,Peng Cao,Jiandong Zhang,Zihao Gao,Haoyuan Cao,Feilong Zhang,Wei Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245741
IF: 3.7
2021-01-25
PLoS ONE
Abstract:Purpose Alpha-adrenergic receptor blockers can be effectively used in the context of medical expulsion therapy (MET) to treat ureteric stones. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of doxazosin in MET relative to placebo or tamsulosin. Methods We systematically searched the PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Chinese Academic Database, and Web of Science databases to select randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared the use of doxazosin with placebo or tamsulosin to treat ureteric stones. All patients we included were limited to those diagnosed with visible stones in the distal ureter. The diameter of ureteric stones does not exceed 10 mm. Results Eight trials comparing doxazosin with placebo or tamsulosin containing 667 patients were assessed in the final analysis. The meta-analysis showed that doxazosin effectively treated ureteric stones and was better than placebo in terms of efficacy. Relative to the placebo group, the expulsion rate of stones from the distal ureter (OR = 3.00, 95% CI [2.15, 4.19], I2 = 0%, P < 0.00001) was significantly increased, and the expulsion time (days) was shortened (mean difference) (MD) = −4.03, 95% CI [−4.53, −3.53], P < 0.00001). The doxazosin group experienced fewer pain episodes (MD = −0.78, CI = [−0.94, −0.23], I2 = 0%, P < 0.00001) than the placebo group. A subgroup analysis showed that the doxazosin group had a higher expulsion rate (of 5–10 mm stones) compared with the placebo group. Although doxazosin resulted in significantly more adverse effects compared with the placebo, the patient’s symptoms were mild and no further medical interventions were required. Moreover, the expulsion time (days) was shorter for patients receiving doxazosin (MD = −0.61, 95% CI [−0.97, −0.24], I 2 = 39%, P = 0.001) than those receiving tamsulosin. Conclusion Compared with the placebo group, patients receiving doxazosin had a greater expulsion rate, a reduced expulsion time, and fewer pain episodes. The expulsion time of doxazosin was shorter than that of tamsulosin.
multidisciplinary sciences