Utilization of Treat-to-Target Monitoring Colonoscopy After Treatment Initiation in the US-Based Study of a Prospective Adult Research Cohort With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

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

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.

Common Instances of Low-value Care in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Value-based care focuses on improving the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of health care while controlling costs. Low-value care implies services or interventions that provide little or no benefit to patients, have the potential to cause harm, incur unnecessary cost to patients, or waste limited health care resources. In this review, we discuss common instances of low-value care along the spectrum of management in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). These include low value care in: (1) diagnosis and monitoring of IBD: utilization of serological markers to screen and diagnose IBD, over-reliance on symptoms for monitoring disease, failure to employ treat-to-target strategies in symptomatic patients with IBD, and annual surveillance colonoscopies in patients at low risk of developing dysplasia; (2) treatment of IBD: use of 5-aminosalicylates in Crohn's disease, continuation of 5-aminosalicylates after escalation to immunosuppressive therapy, chronic corticosteroid use without steroid-sparing strategies, step therapy for Crohn's disease, failure to optimize tumor necrosis factor antagonists in patients with active disease and subsequently de-intensification of therapies in those who have achieved stable remission; and (3) management of hospitalized patients with IBD: routine cross-sectional imaging for patients with IBD presenting to the emergency department, withholding pharmacological prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in patients hospitalized with IBD flare, and prolonged use of high-dose intravenous corticosteroids in patients with acute severe ulcerative colitis. This review is meant to bring attention to value-based care in IBD and provide guidance to treating practitioners. Future studies on systematic evaluation of high- and low-value care in patients with IBD are warranted.

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.