Ivabradine: where the agencies disagree
This page collects every recorded health technology assessment decision for one molecule across the agencies in our archive, and compares them. The comparison is the point: each agency publishes its own verdict, none publishes how that verdict sits against the others.
What the record shows
NICE (England), PBAC (Australia) and SMC (Scotland) recommended or restricted ivabradine, while AWMSG (Wales), CONITEC (Brazil) and HAS (France) did not recommend it.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 12.5 years separate the first record, 29 Nov 2006 at HAS (France), from the most recent, 8 May 2019 at PHARMAC (New Zealand).
TLV (Sweden) changed its position: not recommended on 4 Feb 2009, restricted by 12 Dec 2012, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for ivabradine, 1 submission was never made — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
Nothing has been added since 2019; on this evidence the file is dormant.
Against its own class, ivabradine is an outlier: 50% of its decisive outcomes were positive, where molecules sharing ATC class C01E average 75%.
The programme is broad: 8 distinct indication wordings are recorded for ivabradine by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
1 of these 18 records carries a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
HAS (France) was first to assess ivabradine, on 29 Nov 2006; PHARMAC (New Zealand) did not open a file until 11 Aug 2016 — an unusually long tail of 9.8 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 4 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 11 years in total.
Restriction is doing real work here: 3 of 12 decisive outcomes narrowed ivabradine to a subgroup rather than accepting or refusing it outright, at SMC (Scotland) and TLV (Sweden).
6 of the 8 agencies here assessed ivabradine more than once, PHARMAC (New Zealand) most often at 3 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
8 of the 18 agencies in this archive hold a record for ivabradine.
The full ledger for ivabradine reads 6 not recommended, 3 other, 3 recommended and 3 restricted, with 3 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 8 May 2019 | Inappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST) | PTAC advice: No Formal Recommendation | source |
| HAS (France) | 19 Jul 2017 | Listing renewal (Transparency Committee) | SMR insufficient | source |
| CONITEC (Brazil) | 27 May 2016 | Insuficiência cardíaca crônica moderada a grave em indivíduos com frequência cardíaca ≥70 bpm e que toleram menos de 50%… | not incorporated | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2015 | Chronic heart failure | The PBAC recommended that the listing of ivabradine for the treatment of heart failure be … | source |
| TLV (Sweden) | 12 Dec 2012 | Procoralan ingår i högkostnadsskyddet med begränsning | restricted subsidy | source |
13 further decisions for ivabradine, across 7 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 10 further source documents.
Related molecules
- dapagliflozin — divergent outcome (not recommended vs recommended) on a shared indication
- sacubitril / valsartan — divergent outcome (not recommended vs recommended) on a shared indication
- empagliflozin — divergent outcome (not recommended vs recommended) on a shared indication
- mavacamten — same ATC class C01E — Cardiac therapy
- ranolazine — same ATC class C01E — Cardiac therapy
- acoramidis — same ATC class C01E — Cardiac therapy
Coverage: 18 decisions for ivabradine from 8 agencies, 2006 to 2019. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class C01E — Cardiac therapy. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.