DOI 10.1016/j.nrleng.2026.502081
Barriers to access to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in Spain: survey of neurologists, hospital pharmacists, and patients.
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION
Neurologists, hospital pharmacists (HP), and patients advocate for improved access to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in migraine prophylaxis.
OBJECTIVES
To identify the barriers to access to anti-CGRP mAbs in Spain and to propose potential solutions.
MATERIAL AND
METHODS
Cross-sectional study with online surveys aimed at neurologists, HPs, and patients. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. Categorical variables were expressed in terms of frequency and percentage.
RESULTS
A total of 55.1% of neurologists and 67.4% of HPs reported that at their hospitals, the criteria of the therapeutic positioning statement (TPS) were followed on a case-by-case basis to authorise the dispensing of anti-CGRP mAbs. However, more than 30% of neurologists and HPs reported that they had their own protocols. A total of 62.8% of neurologists and 23.3% of HPs disagreed with some TPS criteria and, according to 41.9% of pharmacists, not all neurologists at their hospital were able to prescribe anti-CGRP mAbs. Neurologists and HPs considered that the TPS criteria should be reviewed periodically. Some 32.9% of patients considered access to a migraine specialist to have been difficult. A total of 88.4% of neurologists and 81.4% of HPs thought that referral from primary care to a specialised consultation should be faster.
CONCLUSIONS
The main barriers to accessing anti-CGRP mAbs are the difficulty of accessing a neurology specialist, and the strict TPS criteria and differences in their application between autonomous communities and hospitals. Neurology referral systems should be improved and TPS criteria reviewed.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.