{"title":"比较西洛多辛和米拉贝琼作为远端输尿管结石的药物排石疗法:一项前瞻性随机研究。","authors":"Mohammad Shazib Faridi, Sanika Deshpande","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2023.182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In this study we aimed to compare the efficacy of mirabegron and silodosin as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for distal ureteric calculus ≤10 mm.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 114 patients who met the inclusion criteria were prospectively randomised into 2 groups, 58 patients in the silodosin group and 56 patients in the mirabegron group. The drugs were given for a maximum of 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the stone expulsion rate, and secondary endpoints were stone expulsion time and number of pain episodes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of mean age, gender, mean stone size, side, or hydronephrosis. Both groups exhibited similar rates of stone expulsion and expulsion time. Regarding pain management, the frequency of renal colic episodes was significantly lower with mirabegron compared to silodosin (2.3 ±0.2 vs 1.9 ±0.2, P <0.0001). Six patients were excluded from the study due to adverse drug reactions: 4 (6.15%) in the silodosin group (retrograde ejaculation, hypotension) and 2 (3.27%) in the mirabegron group (hypertension).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In among patients with distal ureteric stones measuring 5-10 mm, mirabegron did not demonstrate superiority in stone expulsion rate or expulsion time compared to silodosin. However, mirabegron significantly reduced the frequency of renal colic episodes. Therefore, mirabegron may be considered a preferable option for medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones over silodosin.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"77 2","pages":"286-290"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428354/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing silodosin and mirabegron as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral calculus: a prospective, randomised study.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Shazib Faridi, Sanika Deshpande\",\"doi\":\"10.5173/ceju.2023.182\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In this study we aimed to compare the efficacy of mirabegron and silodosin as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for distal ureteric calculus ≤10 mm.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 114 patients who met the inclusion criteria were prospectively randomised into 2 groups, 58 patients in the silodosin group and 56 patients in the mirabegron group. The drugs were given for a maximum of 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the stone expulsion rate, and secondary endpoints were stone expulsion time and number of pain episodes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of mean age, gender, mean stone size, side, or hydronephrosis. Both groups exhibited similar rates of stone expulsion and expulsion time. Regarding pain management, the frequency of renal colic episodes was significantly lower with mirabegron compared to silodosin (2.3 ±0.2 vs 1.9 ±0.2, P <0.0001). Six patients were excluded from the study due to adverse drug reactions: 4 (6.15%) in the silodosin group (retrograde ejaculation, hypotension) and 2 (3.27%) in the mirabegron group (hypertension).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In among patients with distal ureteric stones measuring 5-10 mm, mirabegron did not demonstrate superiority in stone expulsion rate or expulsion time compared to silodosin. However, mirabegron significantly reduced the frequency of renal colic episodes. Therefore, mirabegron may be considered a preferable option for medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones over silodosin.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"77 2\",\"pages\":\"286-290\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428354/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.182\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2023.182","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing silodosin and mirabegron as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral calculus: a prospective, randomised study.
Introduction: In this study we aimed to compare the efficacy of mirabegron and silodosin as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for distal ureteric calculus ≤10 mm.
Material and methods: A total of 114 patients who met the inclusion criteria were prospectively randomised into 2 groups, 58 patients in the silodosin group and 56 patients in the mirabegron group. The drugs were given for a maximum of 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the stone expulsion rate, and secondary endpoints were stone expulsion time and number of pain episodes.
Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of mean age, gender, mean stone size, side, or hydronephrosis. Both groups exhibited similar rates of stone expulsion and expulsion time. Regarding pain management, the frequency of renal colic episodes was significantly lower with mirabegron compared to silodosin (2.3 ±0.2 vs 1.9 ±0.2, P <0.0001). Six patients were excluded from the study due to adverse drug reactions: 4 (6.15%) in the silodosin group (retrograde ejaculation, hypotension) and 2 (3.27%) in the mirabegron group (hypertension).
Conclusions: In among patients with distal ureteric stones measuring 5-10 mm, mirabegron did not demonstrate superiority in stone expulsion rate or expulsion time compared to silodosin. However, mirabegron significantly reduced the frequency of renal colic episodes. Therefore, mirabegron may be considered a preferable option for medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones over silodosin.