IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0122494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Long-Term Prescription of α-Blockers Decrease the Risk of Recurrent Urolithiasis Needed for Surgical Intervention-A Nationwide Population-Based Study

Author

Listed:
  • Chia-Chu Liu
  • Hui-Min Hsieh
  • Chia-Fang Wu
  • Tusty-Jiuan Hsieh
  • Shu-Pin Huang
  • Yii-Her Chou
  • Chun-Nung Huang
  • Wen-Jeng Wu
  • Ming-Tsang Wu

Abstract

Purpose: α1 receptors and subtypes have been confirmed to distribute in human pelvis and calyces recently. As used in ureteral stones, α-blocker treatment may facilitate kidney stone passage and long-term prescription of α-blocker may decrease the risk of recurrent urolithiasis. The aim of this study is to determine if use of α-blockers 180 days or more can decrease the risk of recurrent urolithiasis needed for surgical intervention. Materials and Methods: A representative database of 1,000,000 patients from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance was analyzed. Eligible patients were those who had received the first-time procedure for upper urinary stone removal, including extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy, ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy, or both, between 2000 and 2010. After completing a 180-day treatment for first event, patients were prospectively followed-up until a second set of stone procedures was performed (proxy of stone recurrence), loss to follow-up, or end of study. The effect of percentage of total number of days of α-blocker use on need for second set of stone procedures within a post treatment 180-day follow-up period was analyzed by quartile. A nested case-control study was also performed. Results: 1,259 patients were eligible for final analyses. During 3,980 person-years follow-up, 167 patients had recurrent urolithiasis needed for surgical intervention. From first to fourth quartile of drug exposure, recurrence rates were 45.64, 47.19, 43.11, and 18.52 per 1,000 person-years. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.46 (95% CI = 0.24 to 0.89) for the fourth quartile (vs. quartile 1). In the nested case-control study, adjusted ORs was 0.23 (95% CI = 0.10 to 0.53) in the fourth quartile (vs. quartile 1). The results remained similar even in patients categorized by cumulative defined daily dose (cDDD) quartiles and average cDDD per day quartiles. Conclusion: Use of α-blockers for 180 days or more decrease the risk of recurrent urolithiasis needed for surgical intervention. In patients at higher risk of recurrent urolithiasis, long term prescription of α-blockers might help them prevent further surgical intervention.

Suggested Citation

  • Chia-Chu Liu & Hui-Min Hsieh & Chia-Fang Wu & Tusty-Jiuan Hsieh & Shu-Pin Huang & Yii-Her Chou & Chun-Nung Huang & Wen-Jeng Wu & Ming-Tsang Wu, 2015. "Long-Term Prescription of α-Blockers Decrease the Risk of Recurrent Urolithiasis Needed for Surgical Intervention-A Nationwide Population-Based Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0122494
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122494
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0122494
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0122494&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0122494?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:pone00:0122494. 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.