Objectives To characterize real‐world barriers to chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) management in the Philippines and identify pragmatic patient‐centered solutions aligned with international guidance and local health‐system realities. Methods We conducted a survey‐informed qualitative expert‐panel study involving six Philippine neurologists from public and private tertiary centers. Data sources included review of EAN/PNS‐2021 CIDP guidelines, contemporary literature, and pre‐meeting survey results on local clinical practice followed by structured discussions. Findings were organized using a patient‐journey framework and analyzed thematically across clinical, operational, policy, and economic domains. Results Real‐world challenges were identified across three domains. Clinical: clinical mimics, variability in electrodiagnostic interpretation, limited test availability, and delayed referral; Operational: partial or variable treatment response, corticosteroid side‐effects, inpatient infusion logistics, and difficulties maintaining therapy; and Policy/economic: high out‐of‐pocket costs, limited reimbursement, procurement delays, and regional inequities. Experts described several key components of patient‐centered CIDP care, including the use of standardized diagnostic pathways, improved access to neurophysiological testing, increased disease awareness, and structured monitoring using disability and impairment scales. Additional elements included the incorporation of patient‐reported outcomes, shared decision‐making, and individualized infusion and weaning strategies, and generation of local real‐world, cost‐effectiveness, budget‐impact, and patient‐reported outcome data. Conclusions This study identifies neurologist‐perceived clinical and system barriers affecting CIDP care across the patient journey in the Philippines. Findings support implementation of an evidence‐based patient‐centered framework aligned with international guidelines but adapted for the Philippine healthcare system. Such a framework may improve diagnosis, streamline treatment, and enhance equitable access.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rosales et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: