Over-the-Counter Alkali Agents to Raise Urine pH and Citrate Excretion: A Prospective Crossover Study in Healthy Adults.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of 2 over-the-counter alkalizing agents on 24 hour urinary parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers without a history of kidney stones were recruited to complete a baseline 24 hour urinalysis with a 4 day diet inventory. Participants then maintained the same diet on either LithoLyte (20 mEq 2 times per day) or KSPtabs (1 tablet 2 times per day) and submitted another 24 hour urinalysis. The process was repeated with the other supplement. Urinary alkali parameters were compared to baseline, and side effects were elicited with a questionnaire. RESULTS: LithoLyte intake resulted in a non-significant increase in citrate (597-758 mg/day, P =.058, an increase in urine pH (6.46-6.66, P =.028), and a decrease in urine ammonium (41-36 mmol/day, P =.005) compared to baseline. KSPtabs resulted in an increase in citrate (597-797 mg/day, P =.037) and urine pH (6.46-6.86, P =.037), with a non-significant decrease in ammonium (41-34 mmol/day, P =.059). No significant differences were seen comparing urinary analytes between LithoLyte and KSPtabs. With Litholyte, no side effects, mild, moderate, and severe side effects were seen in 50%, 40%, 10%, and 0%, respectively. With KSPtabs, rates were 60%, 20%, 10%, and 10%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In healthy participants without a history of kidney stones, LithoLyte and KSPtabs are effective over-the-counter alkali supplements, with a similar side effect profile to prescription potassium citrate.

Alkalinizing Agents: A Review of Prescription, Over-the-Counter, and Medical Food Supplements.

Introduction: Kidney stones affect 1 in every 11 people in the United States each year. There is a significant high recurrence rate without a stone prevention protocol. Alkali citrate is beneficial in decreasing stone recurrence, but because of the cost and gastrointestinal side effects there is a low adherence rate. This study aims to serve as a review of some of the most commonly used alkalizing over-the-counter supplements that are advertised to prevent and treat kidney stones. Methods: Data were gathered by a comprehensive online literature search and company inquiries for kidney stone prevention supplements. An additional informal poll of the authors selected supplements that are most commonly taken by their patients. A total of eight supplements were evaluated for cost, alkali equivalent provided, dosing, and regulatory information. Results: Eight of the most commonly used supplements were reviewed with a focus on alkalizing agents. Information reviewed revealed dosing recommendations resulting in decreased citrate alkali equivalents per day compared with prescription-strength potassium citrate. Cost, peer-reviewed study results, and regulatory data were reviewed, tabulated, and analyzed. Cost per alkali equivalent was substantially decreased for each supplement compared with the prescribed drug. All supplements were found to be readily available online. Conclusion: Over-the-counter alkalizing agents are available to patients and may be an appropriate alternative to cost-prohibitive potassium citrate when treating urolithiasis patients. Additional testing will be necessary in the future to determine the efficacy of these supplements in the treatment and prevention of urinary stone disease.

The European Urology Residents Education Programme Hands-on Training Format: 4 Years of Hands-on Training Improvements from the European School of Urology.

BACKGROUND: The European School of Urology (ESU) started the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) in 2003 for final year urology residents, with hands-on training (HOT) added later in 2007. OBJECTIVE: To assess the geographical reach of EUREP, trainee demographics, and individual quality feedback in relation to annual methodology improvements in HOT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From September 2014 to October 2017 (four EUREP courses) several new features have been applied to the HOT format of the EUREP course: 1:1 training sessions (2015), fixed 60-min time slots (2016), and standardised teaching methodology (2017). The resulting EUREP HOT format was verified by collecting and prospectively analysing the following data: total number of participants attending different HOT courses; participants' age; country of origin; and feedback obtained annually. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 796 participants from 54 countries participated in 1450 HOT sessions over the last 4 yr. This included 294 (20%) ureteroscopy (URS) sessions, 237 (16.5%) transurethral resection (TUR) sessions, 840 (58%) basic laparoscopic sessions, and 79 (5.5%) intermediate laparoscopic sessions. While 712 residents (89%) were from Europe, 84 (11%) were from non-European nations. Of the European residents, most came from Italy (16%), Germany (15%), Spain (15%), and Romania (8%). Feedback for the basic laparoscopic session showed a constant improvement in scores over the last 4 yr, with the highest scores achieved last year. This included feedback on improvements in tutor rating (p=0.017), organisation (p<0.001), and personal experience with EUREP (p<0.001). Limitations lie in the difficulties associated with the use of an advanced training curriculum with wet laboratory or cadaveric courses in this format, although these could be performed in other training centres in conjunction with EUREP. CONCLUSIONS: The EUREP trainee demographics show that the purpose of the course is being achieved, with excellent feedback reported. While European trainees dominate the demographics, participation from a number of non-European countries suggests continued ESU collaboration with other national societies and wider dissemination of simulation training worldwide. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this paper we look at methodological improvements and feedback for the European Urology Residents Education Programme hands-on-training over the last 4 yr.