Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Identification and local delivery of vasodilators for the reduction of ureteral contractions


Kidney stones and ureteral stents can cause ureteral colic and pain. By decreasing contractions in the ureter, clinically prescribed oral vasodilators may improve spontaneous stone passage rates and reduce the pain caused by ureteral stenting. We hypothesized that ureteral relaxation can be improved via the local administration of vasodilators and other smooth muscle relaxants. Here, by examining 18 candidate small molecules in an automated screening assay to determine the extent of ureteral relaxation, we show that the calcium channel blocker nifedipine and the Rho-kinase inhibitor ROCKi significantly relax human ureteral smooth muscle cells. We also show, by using ex vivo porcine ureter segments and sedated pigs that, with respect to the administration of a placebo, the local delivery of a clinically deployable formulation of the two drugs reduced ureteral contraction amplitude and frequency by 90% and 50%, respectively. Finally, we show that standard oral vasodilator therapy reduced contraction amplitude by only 50% and had a minimal effect on contraction frequency. Locally delivered ureteral relaxants therefore may improve ureter-related conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Establishing an in vitro model compatible with automated screening.
Fig. 2: Automated screening and single-cell analysis of hUSMC relaxation in vitro.
Fig. 3: In vitro hUSMC relaxation of screened candidates of interest.
Fig. 4: In vitro hUSMC relaxation synergies from combination doses of lead drug candidates, nifedipine and ROCKi.
Fig. 5: Ex vivo validation using porcine ureteral segments.
Fig. 6: In vivo validation of nifedipine and ROCKi.

Data availability

The data supporting the results in this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information. The raw datasets generated during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

The CellProfiler algorithms used for image analysis and for non-parametric drug synergy algorithms are included in the Supplementary Information.


  1. Ye, Z. et al. Efficacy and safety of tamsulosin in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones with renal colic: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Eur. Urol. 73, 385–391 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tharwat, M., Elsaadany, M. M., Lashin, A. M. & EL-Nahas, A. R. A randomized controlled trial evaluating sildenafil citrate in relieving ureteral stent-related symptoms. World J. Urol. 36, 1877–1881 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Koo, K. C. et al. The impact of preoperative α-adrenergic antagonists on ureteral access sheath insertion force and the upper limit of force required to avoid ureteral mucosal injury: a randomized controlled study. J. Urol. 199, 1622–1630 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jung, H. U., Jakobsen, J. S., Mortensen, J., Osther, P. J. & Djurhuus, J. C. Irrigation with isoproterenol diminishes increases in pelvic pressure without side-effects during ureterorenoscopy: a randomized controlled study in a porcine model. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 42, 7–11 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Scales, C. D., Smith, A. C., Hanley, J. M. & Saigal, C. S. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur. Urol. 62, 160–165 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Trinchieri, A. et al. Increase in the prevalence of symptomatic upper urinary tract stones during the last ten years. Eur. Urol. 37, 23–25 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen, Z., Bird, V. & Prosperi, M. The latest prevalence of kidney stones in the US and its trends in different genders. Ann. Epidemiol. 27, 512 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hollingsworth, J. M. et al. Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 355, i6112 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sridharan, K. & Sivaramakrishnan, G. Medical expulsive therapy in urolithiasis: a mixed treatment comparison network meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 18, 1421–1431 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dellis, A. E. et al. Tamsulosin, solifenacin, and their combination for the treatment of stent-related symptoms: a randomized controlled study. J. Endourol. 31, 100–109 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hollingsworth, J. M. et al. Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: a meta-analysis. Lancet 368, 1171–1179 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dauw, C. A. et al. Expulsive therapy versus early endoscopic stone removal in patients with acute renal colic: a comparison of indirect costs. J. Urol. 191, 673–677 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rose, J. G. & Gillenwater, J. Y. Pathophysiology of ureteral obstruction. Am. J. Physiol. 225, 830–837 (1973).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pickard, R. et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 386, 341–349 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Furyk, J. S. et al. Distal ureteric stones and tamsulosin: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trial. Ann. Emerg. Med. 67, 86–95 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Press, Y., Punchik, B. & Freud, T. Orthostatic hypotension and drug therapy in patients at an outpatient comprehensive geriatric assessment unit. J. Hypertens. 34, 351–358 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Canda, A. E., Turna, B., Cinar, G. M. & Nazli, O. Physiology and pharmacology of the human ureter: basis for current and future treatments. Urol. Int. 78, 289–298 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Blackwell, R. H. et al. Incidence of adverse contrast reaction following nonintravenous urinary tract imaging. Eur. Urol. Focus 3, 89–93 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cochran, S. T., Bomyea, K. & Sayre, J. W. Trends in adverse events after IV administration of contrast media. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 176, 1385–1388 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Horsley, H., Dharmasena, D., Malone-Lee, J. & Rohn, J. L. A urine-dependent human urothelial organoid offers a potential alternative to rodent models of infection. Sci. Rep. 8, 1238–1251 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen, C.-P. et al. In vivo roles for myosin phosphatase targeting subunit-1 phosphorylation sites T694 and T852 in bladder smooth muscle contraction. J. Physiol. 593, 681–700 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Komatsu, S., Kitazawa, T. & Ikebe, M. Visualization of stimulus-specific heterogeneous activation of individual vascular smooth muscle cells in aortic tissues. J. Cell. Physiol. 233, 434–446 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Monical, P. L., Owens, G. K. & Murphy, R. A. Expression of myosin regulatory light-chain isoforms and regulation of phosphorylation in smooth muscle. Am. J. Physiol. 264, C1466–C1472 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bhadriraju, K., Elliott, J. T., Nguyen, M. & Plant, A. L. Quantifying myosin light chain phosphorylation in single adherent cells with automated fluorescence microscopy. BMC Cell Biol. 8, 43–55 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Baumann, F. et al. Increasing evidence of mechanical force as a functional regulator in smooth muscle myosin light chain kinase. eLife 6, e26473 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kamentsky, L. et al. Improved structure, function and compatibility for CellProfiler: modular high-throughput image analysis software. Bioinformatics 27, 1179–1180 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pan, W., Lin, J. & Le, C. T. A mixture model approach to detecting differentially expressed genes with microarray data. Funct. Integr. Genomics 3, 117–124 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Pick, D. L. et al. First prize: chitosan and the urothelial barrier: effects on ureteral intraluminal drug penetration and peristalsis. J. Endourol. 25, 385–390 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Özel, B. Z., Sun, V., Pahwa, A., Nelken, R. & Dancz, C. E. Randomized controlled trial of 2% lidocaine gel versus water-based lubricant for multi-channel urodynamics. Int. Urogynecol. J. 9, 1297–1302 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rowe, R.C., Sheskey, P. J., et al. Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients 4th edn (Pharmaceutical Press, 2004).

  31. Raemsch, K. D. & Sommer, J. Pharmacokinetics and metabolism of nifedipine. Hypertension 5, II18–II24 (1983).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Shimokawa, H., Sunamura, S. & Satoh, K. RhoA/Rho-Kinase in the cardiovascular system. Circ. Res. 118, 352–366 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Dellabella, M., Milanese, G. & Muzzonigro, G. Efficacy of tamsulosin in the medical management of juxtavesical ureteral stones. J. Urol. 170, 2202–2205 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Pickard, R. et al. Use of drug therapy in the management of symptomatic ureteric stones in hospitalised adults: a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of a calcium channel blocker (nifedipine) and an alpha-blocker (tamsulosin) (the SUSPEND trial). Health Technol. Assess. 19, 1–171 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Renwick, A. G. et al. The pharmacokinetics of oral nifedipine‐a population study. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 25, 701–708 (1988).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Saigal, C. S., Joyce, G. & Timilsina, A. R. Direct and indirect costs of nephrolithiasis in an employed population: opportunity for disease management? Kidney Int. 68, 1808–1814 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gershman, B., Eisner, B. H., Sheth, S. & Sacco, D. E. Ureteral stenting and retrograde pyelography in the office: clinical outcomes, cost effectiveness, and time savings. J. Endourol. 27, 662–666 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang, J. et al. The role of solifenacin, as monotherapy or combination with tamsulosin in ureteral stent-related symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J. Urol. 35, 1669–1680 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Franco-Salinas, G., de la Rosette, J. J. M. C. H. & Michel, M. C. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of tamsulosin in its modified-release and oral controlled absorption system formulations. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 49, 177–188 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Wang, X.-D. et al. Rapid and simultaneous determination of nifedipine and dehydronifedipine in human plasma by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry: Application to a clinical herb-drug interaction study. J. Chromatogr. B 852, 534–544 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Vignoli, G. Urodynamics: A Quick Pocket Guide 175–184 (Springer, 2017).

Download references


We thank A. LaRochelle and K. Wood of CBSET, Inc. for providing discarded porcine ureters used for experimentation; F. McGovern, A. Feldman and D. Dahl of Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Urology for providing human ureteral tissue samples intraoperatively; C. Beale, L. Reyelt, C. Bogins and M. Hull of Tufts Surgical Research for providing discarded porcine ureters and assisting with in vivo surgical validation and protocol design; N. Enzer, K. Cormier and G. Ekchian of the Koch Institute for primary cell line, histopathological consultations and lubricant mixing equipment, respectively; C. Lewis of the Whitehead Institute Metabolomics Core for LCMS validation; L. Richey of Tufts Comparative Pathology Services for histopathological verification and consultation related to in vivo studies; D. Logan and M. Bray of the Broad Institute for CellProfiler assistance; N. Hawes (Nicola Hawes Design) for all figure schematics. We acknowledge funding support from M. Cima, the MIT Institute of Medical Engineering and Science Broshy Fellowship (C.X.L.) and the MIT Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation (C.X.L., M.J.C. and B.H.E.). This work was also supported in part by the Koch Institute Support (core) Grant P30-CA14051 from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health (R35 GM122547 to A.E.C.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



C.X.L., M.J.C. and B.H.E. conceived the overall study and participated in manuscript writing. C.X.L. participated in and led all experimental work and manuscript writing. J.H.C. conducted automated screening experimentation and assay design, UV-absorbance quantification and assisted with manuscript writing. B.H.E. performed surgical in vivo validation, coordination of human tissue donors and assisted with manuscript writing. C.K.S. designed the screening automation. H.D. and C.A.W. assisted with all in vitro and in vivo data analysis. K.K. and A.E.C. assisted with CellProfiler data analysis and algorithm design. A.A.B. assisted with deriving hUSMC cultures from human donors. K.S.S. assisted with study design and manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Cima.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary code

CellProfiler script.

Supplementary code

CellProfiler image-quality parameters.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, C.X., Cheah, J.H., Soule, C.K. et al. Identification and local delivery of vasodilators for the reduction of ureteral contractions. Nat Biomed Eng 4, 28–39 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing