Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mirabegron vs. solifenacin in control of endoscopically inserted ureteral stent-related symptoms

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Mirabegron vs. solifenacin to treat LUTS resulting from DJ-stent insertion.

Methods

A total of 97 patients who had DJ-stent inserted for urinary stone disease were randomly divided into three groups according to received treatment. Group A took Mirabegron 50 mg daily, group B took solifenacin 5 mg daily from the 4th day after stent placement until the stent was removed, and group C only was hydrated well. All patients were evaluated by USSQ and IPSS at 4th day post-insertion of ureteral stent, follow-up day before removing of stent and post-removal of stent.

Results

The USSQ urinary symptom scores at day 4 comparing to day of removal of stent showed significant difference in between study groups (32 ± 6–13 ± 6 vs. 31 ± 6–14 ± 4 in Mirabegron and solifenacin, respectively) and without significant difference in control group. The USSQ body pain score significantly decreased in both Mirabegron and solifenacin groups at day of stent removal comparing to day 4 post-insertion of DJ with insignificant decreasing in the control group. Quality of life scores showed significant improving in Mirabegron and solifenacin group, and there was no difference in control group at 4 and 14 days after treatment. No severe complications were observed in either group.

Discussion/Conclusion

In our series, we indicate that Mirabegron and solifenacin can be used to improve symptoms caused by the insertion of DJ-stent without significant difference.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chew BH, Knudsen BE, Denstedt JD (2004) The use of stents in contemporary urology. Curr Opin Urol 14(2):111–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Joshi HB, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FX Jr, Timoney AG, Barry MJ (2003) Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility. J Urol 169:1065–1069

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Damiano R, Autorino R, De Sio M, Cantiello F, Quarto G, Perdona S et al (2005) Does the ureteral stents impact urinary symptoms and quality of life? A prospective randomized study. J Eur Urol 48:673–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lim SJ, Sul KC, Song HK, Na GY, Shin HJ, Oh HT et al (2010) Chages in urinary symptoms and tolerance due to long-term ureteral double-J stenting. Int Neuroural J 14:93–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Leibovici D, Cooper A, Lindner A, Otrowsky R, Kleinmann J, Velikanov S et al (2005) Ureteral stents: Morbidity and impact on quality of life. Isr Med Assoc J 7:491–494

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hughes B, Wiseman OJ, Thompson T, Masood J, Daron RS, Mcllhenny C et al (2014) The dilemma of post-ureteroscopy stenting. BJU Int 113:184–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Joshi HB, Newns N, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley AG, Timoney AG (2003) Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire. Development and validation of a multidimensional quality of life measure. J Urol 169:1060–1064

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. El-Nahas AR, Tharwat M, Elsaadany M, Mosbah A, Metwally MA, Hawary A et al (2014) Validation of the Arabic linguistic version of the ureteral stent symptoms questionnaire. Arab J Urol 12:290–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kuyumcuoglu U, Eryildirim B, Tuncer M, Faydaci G, Tarhan F, Ozgul A (2012) Effectiveness of medical treatment in overcoming the ureteral double-J stent related symptoms. Can Urol Assoc J 6:234–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pricop C, Ciuta C, Mischianu D, Rusu F (2009) Is there a role for tamsulosin or solifenacine in the management of urinary tract symptoms in patients with double-J stent? J Urol 74:S25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhou L, Cai X, Li H, Wang KJ (2015) Effects of α-blockers, antimuscarinics, or combination therapy in relieving ureteral stent-related symptoms: a meta-analysis. J Endourol 29(6):650–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Aytac S, Caglar Y, Ozgur H, Ahmet U (2020) Treatment of ureteral catheter related symptoms; mirabegron versus tamsulosin/solifenacin combination: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Esp Urol 73(1):54–59

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kelleher C, Hakimi Z, Zur R, Siddiqui E, Maman K, Aballéa S et al (2018) Efficacy and tolerability of mirabegron compared with antimuscarinic monotherapy or combination therapies for overactive bladder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur Urol 74(3):324–333

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tae BS, Cho S, Jeon BJ, Choi H, Park JY, Cho SY et al (2018) Does mirabegron relieve ureteric stent-related discomfort? A prospective, randomized, multicentre study. BJU Int 122(5):866–872

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Chapple CR, Siddiqui E (2017) Mirabegron for the treatment of overactive bladder: a review of efficacy, safety and tolerability with a focus on male, elderly and antimuscarinic poorresponder populations, and patients with OAB in Asia. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 10:131–151

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen HL, Chen TC, Chang HM, Juan YS, Huang WH, Pan HF et al (2018) Mirabegron is alternative to antimuscarinic agents for overactive bladder without higher risk in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 36(8):1285–1297

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Al-Jedaani group of hospitals. We thanks all participants and our colleagues who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research, although they may not agree with all of the conclusion of this paper.

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Damietta, Cairo, Egypt

    Alsayed Saad Abdelaziz

  2. Al-Jedaani (Al-Safa) Hospital (KSA), P.O Box: 7500, Jeddah, 21462, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Alsayed Saad Abdelaziz

  3. Faculty of Medicine, Zgazig University, Zgazig, Egypt

    Nashaat Mohammed Salama

  4. Ibn Sina College Hospital (KSA), P.O Box: 31906, Jeddah, 21418, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Nashaat Mohammed Salama

  5. Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

    Ayman Mohammed Ghoneem

  6. New Aljedany Hospital, P.O Box: 7500, Jeddah, 21462, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Ayman Mohammed Ghoneem

Authors
  1. Alsayed Saad Abdelaziz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nashaat Mohammed Salama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ayman Mohammed Ghoneem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ASA involved in protocol/project development, manuscript writing/editing, NMS took part in data collection or management, data analysis, and AMG involved in project development, manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alsayed Saad Abdelaziz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Ethics approval

The questionnaire and methodology for this study were reviewed and approved by the institutional Human Research Ethics committee of the University of Al-Jedaani group of hospitals (3 medical center in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, city Jeddah) on January 18, 2020, under approval number (47-ISB 4312).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdelaziz, A.S., Salama, N.M. & Ghoneem, A.M. Mirabegron vs. solifenacin in control of endoscopically inserted ureteral stent-related symptoms. World J Urol 40, 2113–2119 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04068-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04068-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation