To STRIDE or not to STRIDE: a critique of “treat to target” in ulcerative colitis

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction The STRIDE consensus intends to complement the clinical endpoint with an endoscopic endpoint of mucosal healing and others as treatment targets in ulcerative colitis. If these targets are not reached, STRIDE requires dose or timing adjustments or switching the medication. This narrative review provides a critique of this concept. Areas covered We analyze and discuss the limitations of current endpoints as targets, their currently limited achievability, and the lacking evidence from controlled trials relating to ‘treat to target.’ The relevant publications in PubMed were identified in a literature review with the key word ‘ulcerative colitis.’ Expert opinion In ulcerative colitis, the standard clinical target is measured traditionally by the MAYO-score, but in variable combinations of patient and physician reported outcomes as well as also different definitions of the endoscopic part. Only a score of 0 is more stringent than clinical remission but is only achieved by a minority of patients in first and even less in second line therapy. The concept is not based on clear evidence that patients indeed benefit from appropriate escalation of treatment. Until the STRIDE approach is proven to be superior to standard treatment focusing on clinical well-being, the field should remain reluctant.