IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0315328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of α-blockers versus mirabegron for medical expulsive therapy in ureteral calculi: A Systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Huilei Yan
  • Xiaoni Li
  • Xiaobo Zheng
  • Yuanshan Cui
  • Jing Huang
  • Yan Cheng

Abstract

Introduction and aim: The main categories of drugs employed for medical expulsive therapy in patients with ureteral calculi (UC) are alpha-blockers (α-B) and beta-adrenoceptor agonists. This meta-analysis evaluated the safety and effectiveness of α-B versus mirabegron (MIR) in treating UC. Methods: From January 1980 to October 2024, we extensively searched the Pubmed, Web of science, Cochrane and EMBASE databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness of α-B and MIR in managing UC. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out. Results: The meta-analysis included six publications with 592 patients, comparing α-B with MIR. The stone expulsion rate (SER) was found to be significantly greater in the α-B group than in the MIR group, as indicated by an odds ratio (OR) of 1.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05 to 2.16, P = 0.03) in the meta-analysis. However, no significant differences were found between the α-B group and the MIR group for stone expulsion time (SET) (mean difference [MD]: 1.20; 95% CI, -2.71 to 5.10; P = 0.55), pain episodes (PE) (MD: 0.36; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.76; P = 0.07), or analgesic requirements (MD: 0.79; 95% CI, -0.37 to 1.94; P = 0.18). The α-B group exhibited a significantly higher incidence of adverse events compared to the MIR group for orthostatic hypotension (OR 12.16, 95% CI 3.36 to 43.95, P = 0.0001), headache (OR 3.46, 95% CI 1.41 to 8.49, P = 0.007), and retrograde ejaculation (OR 16.30, 95% CI 5.87 to 45.31, P

Suggested Citation

  • Huilei Yan & Xiaoni Li & Xiaobo Zheng & Yuanshan Cui & Jing Huang & Yan Cheng, 2024. "Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of α-blockers versus mirabegron for medical expulsive therapy in ureteral calculi: A Systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(12), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0315328
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0315328
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0315328&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0315328?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0315328. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.