Central Nervous System Therapeutics Market - Global Forecast 2026-2032

The Central Nervous System Therapeutics Market size was estimated at USD 152.33 billion in 2025 and expected to reach USD 163.52 billion in 2026, at a CAGR of 7.54% to reach USD 253.54 billion by 2032.

Central nervous system therapeutics sit at the intersection of some of the most urgent unmet medical needs and the most sophisticated innovations in modern medicine. Neurological, psychiatric, and neurovascular conditions continue to impose a profound burden on patients, caregivers, and health systems, spanning chronic disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and major depressive disorder to acute events like stroke and traumatic brain injury. At the same time, advances in molecular biology, neuroimaging, digital health, and data science are reshaping how these conditions are understood and treated, moving the field beyond purely symptomatic management toward more targeted and potentially disease‑modifying approaches.

Against this backdrop, the therapeutic landscape is becoming more stratified and complex. Traditional small‑molecule antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, anxiolytics, anesthetics, pain relievers, and CNS stimulants remain the backbone of care for millions of patients in both acute and chronic settings. However, they are now complemented by biologics, monoclonal antibodies, and emerging gene and cell therapies that address specific molecular pathways implicated in neurodegeneration and neuroinflammation. In parallel, novel delivery routes and long‑acting formulations are being deployed to improve adherence, reduce side effects, and align more closely with patient and caregiver preferences.

Regulatory and policy environments are also evolving in ways that directly affect central nervous system treatments. Accelerated approval pathways, orphan drug incentives, and adaptive trial designs are increasingly used for neurodegenerative and rare CNS disorders, reflecting both the urgency of unmet need and the difficulty of generating traditional long‑term outcomes data. Meanwhile, payers are tightening evidence requirements for high‑cost therapies and experimenting with outcomes‑based arrangements, particularly where biomarkers can help predict and monitor response. This combination of scientific momentum and policy scrutiny demands that companies, investors, and healthcare providers ground their decisions in a nuanced, forward‑looking understanding of the CNS therapeutics ecosystem.

In this context, an executive summary focused on central nervous system therapeutics aims to synthesize cross‑cutting trends, highlight segment‑specific dynamics, and assess how external forces such as trade policy and supply‑chain reconfiguration may reshape competitive positions. By linking scientific advances to commercial realities, stakeholders can better prioritize assets, optimize portfolios, and design access strategies that are both clinically meaningful and economically sustainable.

Central nervous system therapeutics are undergoing a series of transformative shifts that cut across discovery, development, and delivery. On the scientific front, the field is rapidly transitioning from broad neurotransmitter‑modulating agents toward more precise interventions that target disease biology at the molecular and cellular levels. In neurodegenerative disorders, monoclonal antibodies directed against misfolded proteins and aggregated species, along with antisense oligonucleotides and gene therapies, are redefining what it means to intervene early in diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Recent late‑stage progress in agents like prasinezumab, which targets α‑synuclein in Parkinson’s disease, underscores the momentum behind mechanism‑based approaches aimed at slowing disease progression rather than simply alleviating symptoms.

In parallel, psychiatry is seeing incremental but meaningful innovation beyond traditional monoaminergic antidepressants and antipsychotics. Rapid‑acting treatments for major depressive disorder, novel mechanisms for treatment‑resistant conditions, and next‑generation long‑acting injectable antipsychotics are reshaping expectations around onset of action, durability of response, and adherence. For epilepsy and other seizure disorders, newer anticonvulsants with improved tolerability and fewer drug–drug interactions are increasingly favored, particularly in polypharmacy settings common among older adults. These therapeutic advances coincide with deeper integration of biomarkers, genetics, and neuroimaging into both trial design and clinical practice, supporting a gradual shift toward precision neurology and psychiatry.

Technology and data are also transforming how central nervous system therapies are developed and monitored. Artificial intelligence and machine learning now underpin target identification, compound optimization, and adaptive trial designs, enabling more efficient exploration of complex CNS biology. Digital biomarkers derived from wearables, smartphones, and remote monitoring platforms are providing continuous, real‑world data on cognition, mood, motor function, and sleep, which is particularly important in conditions characterized by fluctuating symptoms. This digital layer supports more patient‑centric trial endpoints and may ultimately help inform value‑based contracting by linking therapy use to functional outcomes captured outside traditional clinical visits.

Care delivery models are evolving at the same time. Telepsychiatry and remote neurology consultations, initially accelerated by the COVID‑19 pandemic, have become embedded in routine practice in many markets, amplifying the role of both oral and transdermal therapies that lend themselves to home‑based management. Long‑acting injectable formulations administered in clinics or community settings are being used strategically to reduce relapse and hospitalization in severe psychiatric illness. As value‑based care models mature, stakeholders are increasingly focused on how CNS therapeutics can reduce downstream costs associated with institutionalization, lost productivity, and caregiver burden, further aligning clinical innovation with system‑level priorities.

The cumulative impact of United States tariff policies announced and implemented through 2025 is exerting a growing influence on central nervous system therapeutics, particularly via upstream pressures on active pharmaceutical ingredients, intermediates, and finished products. The United States relies heavily on imports for a substantial share of pharmaceuticals and for a majority of active pharmaceutical ingredients, with China and India together supplying a large proportion of the materials used in domestic manufacturing. Tariffs directed at these and other key trading partners are therefore reverberating across the entire life sciences sector, raising input costs and introducing new volatility into supply chains that support CNS therapies.

For branded CNS biologics and innovative small‑molecule agents, relatively high gross margins provide some flexibility to absorb or partially offset tariff‑related cost increases. In certain cases, higher tariffs are accelerating investments in domestic manufacturing capacity for APIs and finished dosage forms, as companies seek to reduce exposure to geopolitical risk and customs duties. Major pharmaceutical manufacturers have already committed billions of dollars to new or expanded facilities in the United States, a trend reinforced by regulatory initiatives such as the FDA’s pilot program to fast‑track review of generics tested and manufactured entirely within the country. Over time, these moves may strengthen supply resilience for critical CNS medicines, though they require substantial upfront capital and long lead times.

In contrast, generic CNS therapies-including many antidepressants, antipsychotics, anxiolytics, anticonvulsants, and pain relievers-operate on much thinner margins. Tariffs on imported APIs and finished generics are more likely to be passed through in the form of higher prices, given the limited scope for manufacturers and distributors to absorb additional costs. Industry analyses and expert commentary suggest that tariff‑driven price pressures could be particularly acute for lower‑income patients and public payers, especially where generics constitute the dominant treatment option. For hospital systems and pharmacies, these pressures heighten the risk of drug shortages and formulary disruptions, which can disproportionately affect CNS patients who rely on stable dosing and continuity of care.

The international dimension of tariff policy further complicates the picture. Questions raised within the European Union about whether finished products containing Chinese‑origin active ingredients might be subject to elevated U.S. tariffs illustrate the complexity of tracing origin across multi‑step supply chains and contract manufacturing networks. For global CNS portfolios, this uncertainty drives companies to reassess sourcing strategies, qualify alternative suppliers, and, in some cases, redesign formulations or packaging to mitigate tariff exposure.

Taken together, these developments mean that tariff policy is no longer a peripheral consideration for CNS strategists. It directly influences decisions on where to locate production of oral and injectable therapies, how to structure long‑term supply agreements, and which markets to prioritize for launch or expansion. Organizations that proactively model tariff scenarios, stress‑test their CNS supply chains, and align procurement with regulatory incentives for domestic production are likely to be better positioned than those that respond only once disruptions materialize.

Viewed through a segmentation lens, the central nervous system therapeutics landscape reveals distinct dynamics across drug classes that shape both clinical practice and commercial strategy. Antidepressants remain foundational in the management of major depressive disorder and various anxiety disorders, with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors widely used as first‑line options, while novel mechanisms and rapid‑acting agents gain traction in treatment‑resistant populations. Antipsychotics, including oral and long‑acting injectable formulations, continue to anchor care for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, where adherence and relapse prevention are paramount. Anticonvulsants serve not only in epilepsy but also in neuropathic pain and certain psychiatric indications, highlighting their therapeutic versatility. Anxiolytics, anesthetics, pain relievers, and CNS stimulants each occupy specific niches, from acute procedural use and perioperative care to chronic pain management and attention‑deficit disorders, creating a broad but highly stratified pharmacologic toolkit.

Differences become even more pronounced when the market is examined by disease indication. Neurodegenerative disorders encompass Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, and multiple sclerosis, each characterized by complex pathophysiology and progressive disability. Here, disease‑modifying approaches, including immunotherapies, monoclonal antibodies targeting pathogenic proteins, and gene‑directed strategies, are moving to the forefront, supported by intense clinical trial activity. Psychiatric disorders, spanning major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder, are seeing renewed attention to treatment‑resistant segments, comorbidities, and the long‑term impact of chronic pharmacotherapy. Within neurovascular diseases such as stroke and cerebral aneurysm, thrombolytics, antithrombotic regimens, and neuroprotective investigational agents underscore the importance of time‑sensitive intervention and secondary prevention. CNS trauma, encompassing traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury, remains an area of significant unmet need, with current pharmacologic options focused largely on symptom control and complications while regenerative and neurorestorative approaches evolve in early‑stage pipelines.

Segmentation by route of administration reflects practical considerations of access, adherence, and healthcare resource utilization. Oral therapies dominate chronic management in psychiatric and many neurological conditions due to their convenience and compatibility with outpatient, primary care, and telemedicine models. Injectable therapies, including intravenous infusions and subcutaneous or intramuscular formulations, are increasingly important for biologics, monoclonal antibodies, and long‑acting depots used in multiple sclerosis, neurodegenerative conditions, migraine, and severe psychiatric illness. Transdermal systems provide an alternative for certain pain, cognitive, and movement‑disorder treatments, particularly where steady plasma levels, swallowing difficulties, or caregiver administration are key factors.

Mechanism of action offers yet another layer of differentiation. Small molecules continue to represent the majority of prescribed CNS drugs, valued for their oral bioavailability, well‑characterized safety profiles, and scalability of manufacturing. Monoclonal antibodies are rapidly expanding in indications such as multiple sclerosis, migraine prophylaxis, and emerging neurodegenerative targets, reflecting their high specificity and growing acceptance in neurology and psychiatry. Peptide‑based therapies occupy a middle ground, enabling receptor‑targeted interventions with potentially fewer off‑target effects. Gene therapy, while still concentrated in rare and severe neurological conditions, is steadily advancing and has the potential to transform management of selected monogenic disorders and possibly broader neurodegenerative diseases over time.

End‑user and distribution channel segments shape the ultimate interface between therapies and patients. Hospitals play a critical role in acute neurovascular events, neurosurgical interventions, and initiation of complex biologics, while clinics manage the bulk of ongoing care for chronic psychiatric and neurological disorders, including administration of long‑acting injectables and titration of disease‑modifying therapies. Home care settings are increasingly relevant as more therapies are designed for self‑administration or caregiver support, a trend reinforced by aging populations and policy incentives to avoid institutionalization. Offline pharmacies remain central for dispensing both branded and generic CNS drugs, but online pharmacies and digital pharmacy platforms are gaining momentum, especially in markets where telepsychiatry and remote prescription models are well established. Together, these segmentation layers highlight a market in which success hinges on tailoring strategies to the specific interplay of drug class, indication, mechanism, administration route, care setting, and distribution model.

Regional dynamics exert a powerful influence on how central nervous system therapeutics are developed, reimbursed, and accessed, and the Americas illustrate many of these themes. The United States anchors this region with a uniquely innovation‑intensive environment, characterized by strong academic neuroscience, a robust biotechnology ecosystem, and a regulatory framework that supports accelerated pathways for serious CNS conditions. High healthcare expenditure and broad, though uneven, insurance coverage underpin rapid uptake of novel therapies in neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders, even as payers tighten utilization management and explore outcomes‑based contracts for high‑cost agents. Canada and Latin American markets contribute additional layers of complexity, with national formularies, budget constraints, and greater reliance on generics shaping CNS treatment patterns and pricing strategies. In particular, tariff‑driven efforts to reshore manufacturing and reinforce supply security in the United States create ripple effects across the Americas, influencing investment flows and regional supply roles.

In Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, central nervous system therapeutics operate within a patchwork of regulatory and reimbursement systems that range from highly structured to resource constrained. Western European countries combine rigorous health technology assessment with strong patient advocacy, leading to careful but ultimately broad adoption of many innovative CNS therapies when supported by robust evidence of clinical and economic value. Pan‑European concerns about tariffs on pharmaceuticals and dependence on Asian active pharmaceutical ingredients also shape discussions around strategic autonomy, with implications for both export‑oriented manufacturers and domestic suppliers of CNS medicines. In Central and Eastern Europe, budget sensitivity fosters high use of generics and biosimilars, while access to cutting‑edge neurodegenerative treatments may lag. Across the Middle East and Africa, access to CNS care is highly heterogeneous, with wealthier Gulf states investing in specialized neurology and psychiatry centers and many African nations continuing to prioritize essential medicines and donor‑supported programs over expensive novel agents.

Asia‑Pacific adds further diversity, combining some of the world’s most advanced pharmaceutical markets with rapidly growing but still under‑resourced health systems. Japan and South Korea maintain strong neuroscience research bases and sophisticated reimbursement structures, supporting earlier adoption of innovative CNS therapies, particularly when aligned with aging‑population priorities such as dementia and Parkinson’s disease. China, with its large patient population and expanding regulatory reforms, is increasingly central to global CNS development, both as a site for clinical trials and as a source of active pharmaceutical ingredients and finished products. At the same time, tariffs and geopolitical tensions involving China and India introduce strategic considerations for companies that rely on these countries for CNS‑related APIs and intermediates, pushing some manufacturers to diversify into alternative Asian or domestic suppliers. Emerging economies in Southeast Asia and the broader region often prioritize affordability and access, favoring generic antidepressants, antiepileptics, and antipsychotics delivered through public health systems, while private markets in major cities become testing grounds for premium CNS innovations.

Taken together, the Americas, Europe–Middle East–Africa, and Asia‑Pacific regions form a mosaic in which regulatory expectations, pricing power, epidemiologic trends, and supply‑chain structures differ markedly. Stakeholders that tailor their CNS strategies to these regional realities-whether by adapting evidence packages, harmonizing manufacturing footprints, or customizing patient support programs-will be better positioned to translate scientific progress into meaningful and sustainable impact on neurological and psychiatric health worldwide.

Across the central nervous system therapeutics arena, leading biopharmaceutical companies are recalibrating their portfolios and operating models in response to scientific advances and external pressures. Large multinational firms with deep neurology and psychiatry franchises are consolidating around high‑impact areas such as neurodegenerative diseases, multiple sclerosis, migraine, and severe psychiatric disorders, where differentiated mechanisms and strong biomarker strategies support premium positioning. Recent years have seen significant investment in monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid and tau in Alzheimer’s disease, α‑synuclein and other proteinopathies in Parkinson’s disease, and B‑cell or cytokine pathways in multiple sclerosis, alongside continued optimization of oral small molecules. Companies with a historical focus on epilepsy, movement disorders, or mood disorders are augmenting core assets with pipeline candidates that address comorbid cognitive, behavioral, or sleep disturbances, reflecting a more holistic view of patient outcomes.

At the same time, specialist and mid‑sized biotechnology firms are playing an outsized role in pioneering high‑risk, high‑reward approaches such as gene therapy, antisense oligonucleotides, and cell‑based interventions for rare and ultra‑rare neurological diseases. These companies often advance assets through early and mid‑stage development before partnering with larger organizations for late‑stage trials, global registration, and commercialization. Strategic alliances, option‑to‑license agreements, and co‑development structures are particularly common in CNS indications with complex trial designs and long timelines, allowing risk and expertise to be shared. Many of these innovators are also embedding digital health components, such as app‑based monitoring or wearable‑derived endpoints, into their development programs to generate richer data and support differentiated value propositions.

In addition to pipeline strategy, manufacturing and supply considerations have become central to corporate decision‑making. Heightened tariff exposure and geopolitical tension around active pharmaceutical ingredient sourcing have accelerated investments in flexible, geographically distributed production networks for both small molecules and biologics. Some major players are expanding existing U.S. manufacturing facilities or constructing new plants specifically designed to accommodate CNS biologics and long‑acting injectables, thereby reducing dependence on single‑country sourcing and enhancing resilience to trade disruptions. Others are upgrading quality systems and adopting advanced process controls, including AI‑enabled monitoring of monoclonal antibody production, to optimize yields and maintain consistent product quality.

Commercial models are also evolving. Companies are strengthening medical affairs and real‑world evidence capabilities to support the long‑term safety and effectiveness narratives required for high‑cost neurodegenerative therapies. In psychiatry, firms are experimenting with integrated service offerings that combine pharmacotherapy with digital cognitive behavioral tools, patient support programs, and adherence‑enhancing technologies. Across indications, there is a visible shift toward outcomes‑based and risk‑sharing arrangements with payers, particularly for treatments that promise disease modification or substantial functional gains. Collectively, these strategic moves suggest that leading CNS companies are positioning themselves not only as suppliers of drugs, but as partners in longitudinal brain health management.

Industry leaders operating in central nervous system therapeutics face a convergence of scientific opportunity and operational risk, making deliberate, evidence‑driven action essential. One critical priority is to align portfolio strategy with the deepest pockets of unmet need while recognizing the heterogeneity of CNS conditions. Investing in assets that meaningfully alter the trajectory of neurodegenerative diseases, improve long‑term functioning in severe psychiatric disorders, or address the persistent gaps in CNS trauma and neurovascular care can create durable strategic advantage. However, these investments should be anchored in rigorous assessment of biomarker readiness, trial feasibility, and payer receptivity to premium pricing in each indication.

Another imperative is to proactively manage supply‑chain resilience in the face of evolving tariff regimes and geopolitical uncertainty. Leaders should map the origin of active pharmaceutical ingredients, intermediates, and critical components for key CNS products, identifying concentrations of risk in particular countries or single‑source suppliers. From there, organizations can prioritize diversification of sourcing, pursue dual or multi‑site manufacturing strategies, and explore partnerships with domestic producers where incentives and regulatory support are available. Integrating tariff and trade‑policy scenarios into long‑range planning allows companies to stress‑test margins, inform contract negotiations, and avoid last‑minute, reactive changes that can disrupt patient access.

Commercial and access strategies also warrant renewed focus. As payers tighten scrutiny on high‑cost CNS therapies, especially in neurodegenerative and rare neurological conditions, companies should invest early in health economics and outcomes research to build a compelling value narrative. This includes designing trials that capture functional, caregiver, and quality‑of‑life outcomes, as well as developing real‑world evidence plans that extend beyond initial approval. In psychiatry and chronic neurology, supporting adherence through simplified regimens, long‑acting formulations, and digital tools can strengthen both clinical performance and economic arguments. Tailored patient support programs, designed in collaboration with providers and advocacy groups, can further differentiate offerings in crowded therapeutic classes.

Finally, internal capabilities must keep pace with the complexity of the CNS landscape. Cross‑functional teams spanning R&D, regulatory, market access, medical affairs, and supply chain should be empowered to collaborate from the earliest stages of asset development. Scenario planning exercises that integrate scientific, commercial, and policy perspectives can uncover non‑obvious risks and opportunities, such as the impact of changing diagnostic criteria, the emergence of competing modalities, or the downstream effects of tariff shifts on pricing corridors. By embedding such strategic discipline into routine decision‑making, industry leaders can move beyond incremental adjustments and position their organizations to shape, rather than simply respond to, the future of central nervous system therapeutics.

The insights synthesized in this executive summary are grounded in a research methodology that integrates clinical, regulatory, and commercial perspectives to provide decision‑grade understanding of central nervous system therapeutics. At its core, the approach combines structured secondary research with targeted primary insights from stakeholders across neurology, psychiatry, neurosurgery, and health economics. Secondary research draws on peer‑reviewed journals, clinical trial registries, regulatory databases maintained by authorities such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and counterparts in Asia‑Pacific, as well as company disclosures, investor materials, and health policy documents. This broad evidentiary base ensures that both cutting‑edge science and real‑world practice patterns are captured.

To deepen and contextualize these findings, the methodology incorporates primary inputs from key opinion leaders, practicing clinicians, payers, and, where relevant, patient advocacy representatives. Semi‑structured discussions and interviews focus on emerging treatment paradigms, perceived gaps in current CNS care, barriers to adoption for novel mechanisms such as gene therapies or monoclonal antibodies, and evolving expectations around evidence generation and pricing. These qualitative insights are cross‑checked against observed trends in prescribing behavior, guideline updates, and reimbursement decisions to ensure consistency and to distinguish between aspirational views and changes already taking root in practice.

Analytically, the research framework applies a segmentation structure that examines CNS therapeutics by drug class, disease indication, route of administration, mechanism of action, end user, distribution channel, and region. Within each segment, factors such as clinical differentiation, safety and tolerability, competitive intensity, and policy environment are assessed. Scenario analysis is used to explore the potential impact of external shocks-including tariff changes, supply‑chain disruptions, and major regulatory shifts-on access and strategic positioning. Throughout, emphasis is placed on triangulation: insights are validated by comparing multiple data sources and stakeholder perspectives, with discrepancies investigated rather than averaged away.

The result is a methodology designed to illuminate not only where central nervous system therapeutics stand today, but also how structural forces may alter the landscape over the medium term, without relying on speculative numerical forecasts. By blending rigorous data gathering with clinically informed interpretation, the research provides stakeholders with a robust foundation for portfolio decisions, investment theses, and policy engagement in this high‑stakes therapeutic domain.

Central nervous system therapeutics are entering a pivotal phase in which unprecedented scientific progress coexists with mounting operational and policy headwinds. On one hand, advances in molecularly targeted therapies, monoclonal antibodies, gene‑based approaches, and sophisticated small molecules are beginning to alter the natural history of conditions that were once managed almost exclusively through symptomatic relief. On the other, payers, regulators, and health systems are demanding more rigorous evidence of long‑term value, while trade policies and tariff regimes inject new uncertainty into the availability and affordability of the inputs required to manufacture these therapies at scale.

Within this complex environment, segmentation insights provide an essential compass. Differences across drug classes, disease indications, mechanisms of action, routes of administration, care settings, and distribution channels reveal that there is no single path to success in CNS therapeutics. Strategies that are appropriate for high‑cost biologics targeting neurodegenerative disease may be ill‑suited to generic antidepressants or anticonvulsants, just as approaches optimized for hospital‑based stroke care may not translate directly to home‑managed psychiatric conditions. Recognizing and acting upon these nuances allows stakeholders to allocate resources where they can have the greatest therapeutic and strategic impact.

External forces, particularly the cumulative effect of U.S. tariffs and broader geopolitical tensions, have added an additional layer of complexity that cannot be ignored. Supply‑chain resilience, manufacturing footprint, and trade‑policy exposure have become integral components of CNS strategy, rather than back‑office concerns. Organizations that integrate these considerations into early‑stage planning, rather than addressing them only when disruptions occur, are better equipped to maintain continuity of care for vulnerable patient populations.

Ultimately, the trajectory of central nervous system therapeutics will be shaped by how effectively industry leaders, policymakers, clinicians, and patient communities collaborate to translate scientific breakthroughs into accessible, sustainable care. Those who couple deep understanding of neurobiology with pragmatic appreciation of economic, regulatory, and geopolitical realities will be best positioned to guide their organizations-and the patients they serve-through this period of profound transition.

The strategic questions facing leaders in central nervous system therapeutics have never been more complex, and navigating them without a structured evidence base introduces avoidable risk. A comprehensive market research report dedicated to this landscape can help decision‑makers move from fragmented signals to a cohesive view of therapeutic, regulatory, and commercial realities.

To translate that need into concrete action, engaging directly with Ketan Rohom, Associate Director of Sales & Marketing, offers a focused path forward. Through a consultative discussion, you can explore how the full report dissects the market across drug classes, disease indications, mechanisms of action, routes of administration, and end‑user environments, while also unpacking the implications of recent tariff dynamics for supply chains and access strategies.

Rather than relying on generic summaries, a tailored conversation with Ketan can clarify which report modules align best with your organization’s pipeline focus, geographic footprint, and risk profile. This dialogue can also surface opportunities for customized deep dives, such as enhanced competitive landscaping in neurodegenerative disorders, or scenario analysis around sourcing strategies for APIs and biologics under evolving trade policies.

By choosing to purchase the market research report and leveraging Ketan’s expertise in connecting insights to commercial imperatives, leadership teams can accelerate strategic planning cycles, strengthen board‑level narratives, and equip cross‑functional teams with a common fact base. Taking this step now positions organizations to respond decisively to scientific breakthroughs, regulatory inflection points, and shifting reimbursement expectations in central nervous system care, rather than reacting after competitors have already moved.