Comparison of safety and efficacy of silodosin, solifenacin, tadalafil and their combinations in the treatment of double-J stent- related lower urinary system symptoms: A prospective randomized trial
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of silodosin, solifenacin, tadalafil and their combinations in reducing double J (DJ) stent-related symptoms (SRS).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A total of 335 patients who underwent DJ stenting and develop SRS at 1st week were randomized into eight groups. Ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ) and Quality of life (QOL) scores were noted in each group: Group A-Silodosin (8 mg OD)+ Solifenacin (10 mg OD)+ Tadalafil (5 mg OD), B - Silodosin 8 mg OD, C - Solifenacin 10 mg OD, D- Tadalafil 5 mg OD, E- Silodosin (8 mg OD) + Solifenacin (10 mg OD), F- Silodosin (8 mg 0D)+ Tadalafil (5 mg OD), G- Solifenacin (10 mg OD)+ Tadalafil (5 mg OD) and H-placebo. Analgesic (diclofenac 50 mg) was given as per requirement. All groups received the drugs for 14 days and again USSQ, QOL score with analgesic requirement were noted in each group.
RESULTS
USSQ score was similar in all groups at 1st week but all groups (Groups A-G) led to significant decrease in USSQ score at 3rd week as compared to Group H with less requirement of analgesic. However when we compared groups with each other we found that mean USSQ score and analgesic requirement was favoring Group E as compared to other groups. Quality of life score was also best in Group E (mean 1.5) (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION
Combination therapy with silodosin and solifenacin (group E) was effective for relieving SRS with improved quality of life and less requirement of analgesic than any other groups and…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 335 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.