International guidelines have recommended cognitive behavioural therapy, including acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), as it offers validated benefits for managing fibromyalgia; however, it is inaccessible to most patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a 12-week, self-guided, smartphone-delivered digital ACT programme on fibromyalgia management.
In the PROSPER-FM randomised clinical trial conducted at 25 US community sites, adult participants aged 22–75 years with fibromyalgia were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to the digital ACT group or an active control group that offered daily symptom tracking and monitoring and access to health-related and fibromyalgia-related educational materials. Randomisation was done with a web-based system in permuted blocks of four at the site level. We used a blind-to-hypothesis approach in which participants were informed they would be randomly assigned to one of two potentially effective therapies under evaluation. Research staff were not masked to group allocation, with the exception of a masked statistics group while preparing statistical programming for the interim analysis. The primary endpoint was patient global impression of change (PGIC) response rate at week 12. Analyses were by intention to treat. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05243511 (now fully closed).
Between Feb 8, 2022, and Feb 2, 2023, 590 individuals were screened, of whom 275 (257 women and 18 men) were randomly assigned to the digital ACT group (n=140) and the active control group (n=135). At 12 weeks, 99 (71%) of 140 ACT participants reported improvement on PGIC versus 30 (22%) of 135 active control participants, corresponding to a difference in proportions of 48·4% (95% CI 37·9–58·9; p<0·0001). No device-related safety events were reported.
The authors concluded that digital ACT was safe and efficacious compared with digital symptom tracking in managing fibromyalgia in adult patients.
___________________
These conclusions might well be valid – but then again, they might not!
Here is why I have my doubts:
- The patients treated with digital ACT knew that they were getting a novel and thus exciting treatment.
- The patients randomised to the control group, on the other hand, would most likely be disappointed not to receive this therapy. In other words, there were high expectations in the experimental group and disappointment in the control group.
- In addition, the unmasked researchers would have had the ambition that their innovation would be successful. Thus they would have used verbal and non-verbal communications with the ACT patients to bring about the desired result.
It is therefore conceivable – I think even likely – that these factors would add up to generate a false-positive finding, particularly since the endpoint was entirely subjective.
In view of all this, I am surprised that a journal like THE LANCET has published such a flimsy study with such a over-optimistic conclusion, and I suggest re-phrasing the conclusions as follows:
Digital ACT seemed safe and effective compared with digital symptom tracking in managing fibromyalgia in adult patients. However, due to the design of the study, it is possible that digital ACT is entirely ineffective and the positive outcome is caused by a number of context effects.
Is it alao possuble that constant symptom monitoring increases rumination, awareness and possibly experiences of symptom ie a worsening? It might be different if there were effective measues of functiin or long follow up differences.
good point!
I find it disturbing that they combined an unblinded study with intention-to-treat analyses, which I’ve mentioned recently:
https://edzardernst.com/2024/06/individualized-homeopathic-medicines-in-the-treatment-of-post-covid-19-fatigue/#comment-152152
The poor design and conclusion are not very surprising as it was funded by the app creators “Swing Therapeutics” in order to promote the app.
and now the marketing for this Stanza app is “Clinically proven”
https://swingtherapeutics.com/
Another SCAM exaggerating the efficacy of mental treatments for chronic pain,
at least it’s an app of a method that doesn’t generalize all FMS pain and most other pain as psychosomatic and gaslight patients for their pain like Schubiner’s PRT.
yes, but the fact that THE LANCET published the study is surprising, in my view.
Surprising indeed, as surprising as the PRT study in JAMA, also using the paper as “clinical proof” for all kinds of chronic pain. The credibility of these journals is helping to convince numerous MDs to promote these SCAMs to FMS and other chronic pain patients.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2784694
Dr David Putrino, director of rehab innovation at Mt Sinai that took on long covid, hypothesized that the better the public medicine in your country, the more likely complex misunderstood syndromes will be pushed towards mental interventions in both research and medical practice mostly due to budget considerations.