SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016
Antipsychotics for fibromyalgia in adults.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for Depressive Symptoms in People Living with Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2022Pooled it
- Fibromyalgia: an update on clinical characteristics, aetiopathogenesis and treatment.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2020Pooled it
- Functional Somatic Symptoms.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019Pooled it
- Comparative Analysis of Psychophysiological Responses in Fibromyalgia Patients: Evaluating Neuromodulation Alone, Neuromodulation Combined with Virtual Reality, and Exercise Interventions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Trial
- Efficacy of cupping therapy in patients with the fibromyalgia syndrome-a randomised placebo controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2016Trial
- Efficacy of Acupuncture in Patients with Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Pharmacological Treatment of Fibromyalgia Syndrome: A Practice-Based Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Review
- Comparative Efficacy of Neuromodulation and Structured Exercise Program on Autonomic Modulation in Fibromyalgia Patients: Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Fibromyalgia interventions, obstacles and prospects: narrative review.Acta myologica : myopathies and cardiomyopathies : official journal of the Mediterranean Society of Myology · 2023Review
- Pain Medications Used by Persons Living With Fibromyalgia: A Comparison Between the Profile of a Quebec Sample and Clinical Practice Guidelines.Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2023Article
- Non-invasive brain stimulation for fibromyalgia: current trends and future perspectives.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- Virtual Reality-Based Therapy Reduces the Disabling Impact of Fibromyalgia Syndrome in Women: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Beyond Amitriptyline: A Pediatric and Adolescent Oriented Narrative Review of the Analgesic Properties of Psychotropic Medications for the Treatment of Complex Pain and Headache Disorders.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Antidepressant Use Among People Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2019Article
- Impact of Polypharmacy on Candidate Biomarker miRNomes for the Diagnosis of Fibromyalgia and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Striking Back on Treatments.Pharmaceutics · 2019Article
- The role and position of antipsychotics in managing chronic pain.The Korean journal of pain · 2019Article
- Facts and myths pertaining to fibromyalgia.Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2018Review
- Clinical, psychological features and quality of life of fibromyalgia patients: a cross-sectional study of Chinese sample.Clinical rheumatology · 2018Article
- Antidopaminergic medication in healthy subjects provokes subjective and objective mental impairments tightly correlated with perturbation of biogenic monoamine metabolism and prolactin secretion.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue. It affects approximately 2% of the general population. Up to 70% of patients with fibromyalgia meet the criteria for a depressive or anxiety disorder. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life. Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving health-related quality of life. Antipsychotics might reduce fibromyalgia and associated mental health symptoms.
objectivesTo assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of antipsychotics in fibromyalgia in adults. SEARCH
methodsWe searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE and EMBASE to 20 May 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews and two clinical trial registries. We also contacted trial authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected controlled trials of at least four weeks duration of any formulation of antipsychotics used for the treatment of fibromyalgia in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted the data from all included studies and two review authors independently assessed study risks of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. We derived first tier evidence from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs, at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and that we considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that we considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We rated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN
resultsWe included a total of four studies with 296 participants.Three studies with 206 participants compared quetiapine, an atypical (second-generation) antipsychotic, with placebo. One study used a cross-over design and two studies a parallel-group design. Study duration was eight or 12 weeks. Quetiapine was used in all studies with a bedtime dosage between 50 and 300 mg/day. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias and we judged them to be at moderate risk of bias overall. The primary outcomes in this review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety).Second tier evidence indicated that quetiapine was not statistically superior to placebo in the number of participants with a 50% or more pain reduction (very low quality evidence). No study reported data on PGIC. A greater proportion of participants on quetiapine reported a 30% or more pain reduction (risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.23; number needed to treat for an additional benefit (NNTB) 8, 95% CI 5 to 100) (very low quality evidence). A greater proportion of participants on quetiapine reported a clinically relevant improvement of health-related quality of life compared to placebo ( RD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.31; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 20) (very low quality evidence). Quetiapine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing sleep problems (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.67, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.23), depression (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.04) and anxiety (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.11) (very low quality evidence). Quetiapine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing the risk of withdrawing from the study due to a lack of efficacy (RD -0.14, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.05) (very low quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference between quetiapine and placebo in the proportion of participants withdrawing due to adverse events (tolerability) (very low quality evidence), in the frequency of serious adverse events (safety) (very low quality evidence) and in the proportion of participants reporting dizziness and somnolence as an adverse event (very low quality evidence). In more participants in the quetiapine group a substantial weight gain was noted (RD 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.15; number needed to treat for an additional harm (NNTH) 12, 95% CI 6 to 50) (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels to a very low quality rating because of limitations of study design, indirectness (patients with major medical diseases and mental disorders were excluded) and imprecision (fewer than 400 patients were analysed).One parallel design study with 90 participants compared quetiapine (50 to 300 mg/day flexible at bedtime) to amitriptyline (10 to 75 mg/day flexible at bedtime). The study had three major risks of bias and we judged it to be at moderate risk of bias overall. We downgraded the quality of evidence by two levels to a low quality rating because of indirectness (patients with major medical diseases and mental disorders were excluded) and imprecision (fewer than 400 patients were analysed). Third tier evidence indicated no statistically significant differences between the two drugs. Both drugs did not statistically significantly differ in the reduction of average scores for pain, fatigue, sleep problems, depression, anxiety and for limitations of health-related quality of life and in the proportion of participants reporting dizziness, somnolence and weight gain as a side effect (low quality evidence). Compared to amitriptyline, more participants left the study due to adverse events (low quality evidence). No serious adverse events were reported (low quality evidence).We found no relevant study with other antipsychotics than quetiapine in fibromyalgia. AUTHORS'
conclusionsVery low quality evidence suggests that quetiapine may be considered for a time-limited trial (4 to 12 weeks) to reduce pain, sleep problems, depression and anxiety in fibromyalgia patients with major depression. Potential side effects such as weight gain should be balanced against the potential benefits in shared decision making with the patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.