Evidence Hub

Efficacy of mirabegron for ureteral stones: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Wang Z, Chi J, Liu Y, Wu J, Cui Y, Yang C

Frontiers in pharmacology, 2023

701 participants

Abstract

Background: Medical expulsive therapy demonstrates efficacy in managing ureteral stones in patients amenable to conservative interventions. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mirabegron in the treatment of ureteral stones. Methods: From conception to November 2023, we examined PubMed databases, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid, Scopus, and trial registries for this systematic review and meta-analysis. We chose relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of mirabegron as an expulsive treatment for ureteral stones. The Cochrane risk of bias method was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Outcome measures, which included the stone expulsion rate (SER), expulsion time, and pain episodes, were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 17. Results: Seven RCTs (N = 701) had enough information and were ultimately included. In patients with ureteral stones, mirabegron-treated patients had a substantially higher SER [odds ratio (OR) = 2.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.41-4.68, p = 0.002] than placebo-treated patients. Subgroup analysis revealed that mirabegron was superior to placebo in patients with small ureteral stones (OR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.05-4.87, p = 0.04), with no heterogeneity between studies (p = 0.54; I2 = 0%). Mirabegron patients had a higher SER than the control group for distal ureteral stones (DUSs) (OR = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.31-4.68, p = 0.005). However, there was no difference in stone ejection time or pain episodes…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 701 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

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.

Open this study Sign up free