Concordance and Discordance Between Patient-reported Remission, Patient-reported Outcomes, and Physician Global Assessment

To STRIDE or not to STRIDE: a critique of "treat to target" in Crohn´s disease

INTRODUCTION

The STRIDE consensus suggested to focus on mucosal healing, based on biomarkers and endoscopy, in addition to clinical endpoints as treatment target. This narrative review provides a critique of this concept in Crohn´s disease.

AREAS COVERED

We analyze and discuss the limitations of endpoints as targets, their currently limited achievability, and the controversial evidence relating to 'treat to target.' The relevant publications in Pubmed were identified in a literature review with the key word 'Crohn´s disease.'

EXPERT OPINION

All targets and endpoints have their limitations, and, even if reached, not all have unequivocally been shown to improve prognosis. The major deficiency of STRIDE is not only the lack of validation and agreement upon endpoints but little evidence of their achievability in a sizable proportion of patients by dose or timing adjustments or switching the medication. Above all, the concept should be based on clear evidence that patients indeed benefit from appropriate escalation of treatment and relevant controlled studies in this regard have been controversial. Until the STRIDE approach is proven to be superior to standard treatment focusing on clinical well-being, the field should remain reluctant and expect more convincing evidence before new targets are approved.