Credits Earned (2024) Crédits obtenus

Redeem Prepaid Membership

Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#18 Is there more to medical management of renal stones than analgesia?


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
In patients with renal stones eligible for observation, does medical expulsion therapy (MET) improve passage of stones and other clinically relevant outcomes?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
Best evidence indicates that nifedipine does not help pass renal stones. Furthermore, there is real doubt if alpha-blockers like tamsulosin provide any benefit (except perhaps in stones >5mm).



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
New evidence suggest no meaningful benefit. 
  • Largest Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)1,2 of 1,167 patients with ureteric stone <10 mm (75% <5 mm, 65% distal ureter) randomized to nifedipine sustained-release 30 mg, tamsulosin 0.4 mg or placebo once daily for up to four weeks. 
    • No difference between groups in: 
      • Spontaneous stone passage (~80% in each group). 
        • Possible effect with tamsulosin in stones >5 mm in distal ureter, (~10% improved passage at four weeks), but not significant. Nothing for nifedipine.   
      • Time to stone passage, analgesic use, or self-reported health status. 
    • More discontinuation due to adverse events with nifedipine [Number Needed to Harm (NNH)=10] and tamsulosin (NNH=25) versus placebo.2 
  • Earlier Cochrane review3 of 32 studies of 5,864 patients (largest meta-analysis=2,378 patients). 
    • Alpha-blockers (most commonly tamsulosin) versus standard therapy. 
      • Increased stone passage: Relative Risk (RR) 1.48 (1.33-1.64). 
        • Effect reduced and (barely) no longer statistically significant when limited to six placebo-controlled trials: RR 1.22 (0.99-1.51). 
      • Reduced risk of hospitalization, time to stone passage, number of pain episodes, analgesic use. 
        • Ndifference in placebo-controlled trials. 
      • Possibly greater efficacy with larger stones: >5 mm (RR 1.68) versus  ≤5 mm (RR 1.41) 
    • Alpha-blockers increased stone passage versus nifedipine RR 1.19 (1.05-1.35), low-quality evidence.4 
  • Previous meta-analyses5-7 that found benefit from MET with alpha-blockers or nifedipine included mostly non-blinded trials and did not evaluate trial quality or account for his risk of bias. 
Context:  
  • Canadian,8 European,9 and US10 guidelines for urolithiasis recommend MET as an option in: 
    • Newly diagnosed ureteral stone <10 mm in patients without need for urgent urological intervention. 
    • Patients with well-controlled pain who are not septic, have good renal function, and who are followed with periodic imaging to monitor stone position and assess hydronephrosis. 
    • All except the Canadian guidelines were published before the largest RCT. 
  • MET dosing:1-3 Tamsulosin 0.4 mg once daily until stone passed or for four weeks (whichever occurs first). 
 updated aug 25 2016 by ricky


tia renouf November 14, 2023

nicely done

peter entwistle October 24, 2024

still seeing being used a lot


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#379 Bumpin’ Up the Protection? RSV Vaccine in Pregnancy

How effective and safe is the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine (AbrysvoTM) when given during pregnancy?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#378 Tony Romo-sozumab: Winning touchdown in osteoporosis or interception for the loss?

What is the efficacy and safety of romosozumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#377 How to slow the flow IV: Combined oral contraceptives

In premenopausal heavy menstrual bleeding due to benign etiology, do combined oral contraceptives (COC) improve patient outcomes?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • G. Michael Allan MD CCFP
  • Michael R Kolber MD CCFP MSc

1. Pickard R, Starr K, MacLennan G, et al. Lancet. 2015; 386:341-9.

2. Pickard R, Starr K, MacLennan G, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2015; 19(63).

3. Campschroer T, Zhu Y, Duijvesz D, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 4:CD008509.

4. Ye Z, Yang H, Li H, et al. BJU Int. 2011; 108:276-9.

5. Hollingsworth JM, Rogers MA, Kaufman SR, et al. Lancet. 2006; 368:1171-9.

6. Singh A, Alter HJ, Littlepage A. Ann Emerg Med. 2007; 50:552-63.

7. Seitz C, Liatsikos E, Porpiglia F. Eur Urol. 2009; 56(3):455-71.

8. Ordon M, Andonian S, Blew B, et al. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015; 9:E837-51.

9. Guidelines on Urolithiasis. European Association of Urologist. Available for download at: http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/22-Urolithiasis_LR_full.pdf. Last accessed: August 25 2016.

10. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, et al. J Urol. 2007; 178:2418-34.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.

Most recent review: 25/08/2016

By: Ricky D. Turgeon BSc(Pharm) ACPR PharmD

Comments:

Evidence Updated: New evidence; Bottom Line: Reversed conclusion.

Learning at a glance
Yearly credits
Acquired ()
Your content by topic
Cardiology Dermatology Emergency
My Bookmarks