AbstractTo systematically review clinical and health economic impacts of treat-to-target (TTT) strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) managed in specialist units, compared with routine care. Sixteen and seven electronic databases were searched for clinical RCTs and cost-effectiveness respectively. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment (Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias criteria) were performed. Evidence was reported by (1) TTT vs. usual care; (2) comparison of different treatment protocols against each other; (3) comparison of different targets against each other. Narrative synthesis was undertaken and conclusions drawn on a trial by trial basis, due to study heterogeneity. Twenty-two RCTs were included. Sixteen were at high risk of bias, five unclear and one low risk. Three trials showed TTT to be more effective than usual care in terms of remissions, in some or all comparisons, whereas one other trial reported no significant difference. Two trials showed TTT to be more effective than usual care in terms of low disease activity (LDA), in some or all comparisons, whereas two trials reported little difference. Some evidence suggests that TTT strategies involving combination therapy can achieve more remissions than those involving monotherapy, but little impact of alternative treatment targets on remission or LDA. Overall, there is evidence that TTT increases remissions in early RA and mixed early and established RA populations, and increases LDA in established RA. Although results varied, typically TTT was estimated to be more cost-effective than usual care. No target appears more effective than others.