Mind the gap: a German case study on the discrepancy between geographic accessibility and real-world utilization of botulinum toxin therapy

Résumé fourni par la source

Background: Botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) is widely used in the treatment of neurological disorders. Despite guideline recommendations, particularly regarding BoNT-A injections for post-stroke spasticity, current evidence shows that many patients in Germany do not receive BoNT-A therapy. Methods: An analysis of travel time to neurological Botulinum Toxin (BoNT-A) centers was conducted based on German hospital quality reports. Additionally, the German Botulinum Toxin Working Group (Arbeitskreis Botulinumtoxin e. V.; AK-BoNT) performed an anonymous online survey of its members, who treat with BoNT, between November 2023 and March 2024 to document experiences, identify perceived barriers, and explore potential improvements in BoNT-A therapy. Results: The geospatial analysis showed theoretical accessibility to specialized neurological BoNT-A centers in Germany with 96.72% of the population residing within a 60-min drive of a qualified facility. Of 632 invited AK-BoNT members, 191 completed the survey in full (30.2% response rate). 79.6% of the respondents worked in neurology and two thirds of the respondents had more than 10 years of experience with BoNT-A. Although more than 60% of respondents rated BoNT-A therapy as effective regardless of indication, many pointed to structural and economic barriers, including inadequate reimbursement pathways and limited multidisciplinary collaboration. Conclusion: The results indicate that BoNT-A is recognized and provides therapeutic benefit from the perspective of the treating physician, but structural and economic barriers hinder the use of this therapy. Interestingly, even in a well-resourced system with broad geographic access to specialized care, significant treatment gaps may persist. Recommendations include standardized reimbursement structures, improved education, and increased cross-sector collaboration.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.