Niraparib: 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
AIFA (Italy), CHUIKYO (Japan) and DMC (Denmark), among others, recommended or restricted niraparib, while AOTMIT (Poland) and ZIN (Netherlands) did not recommend it.
PHARMAC (New Zealand) has been easier on niraparib than on its own caseload: it refused 0 of 6 decisive submissions here (0%), against a base rate of 29% across everything it has assessed.
Assessment has run over 8.3 years, from 5 Oct 2017 at AWMSG (Wales) to 12 Feb 2026 at NICE (England).
PBAC (Australia) changed its position: not recommended in 2021, recommended by 2023, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from HAS (France), which is among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for niraparib, 1 was withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
The file is active: 10 of 42 records date from 2023 or later.
The programme is broad: 8 distinct indication wordings are recorded for niraparib by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
5 of these 42 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
AWMSG (Wales) was first to assess niraparib, on 5 Oct 2017; NICE (England) did not open a file until 20 Apr 2022 — a wide spread of 4.5 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
Activity is concentrated rather than steady: 20 of 42 dated records fall in 2021 alone.
11 of the 15 agencies here assessed niraparib more than once, CIPM (Spain) most often at 6 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
niraparib has been through 15 of the 18 agencies in this archive — among the most widely assessed molecules on file.
The full ledger for niraparib reads 18 recommended, 12 not recommended, 5 restricted and 2 no benefit, with 5 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIPM (Spain) | 24 Sep 2025 | Indicación terapéutica autorizada: Akeega está indicado con prednisona o prednisolona para el tratamiento de pacientes a… | not financed by the SNS · art. 92 d | source |
| NICE (England) | 22 Jan 2025 | NICE TA1032 | terminated appraisal | source |
| HIRA (South Korea) | 13 Jun 2024 | 난소암 | extension of coverage appropriate (risk-share extension) | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2023 | Epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer | Deferred | source |
| NYE METODER (Norway) | 11 Dec 2022 | Vedlikeholdsbehandling av voksne med BRCA negativ status og avansert (FIGO III og IV), høygradig kreft i ovarieepitel, e… | not introduced | source |
37 further decisions for niraparib, across 15 agencies, are not shown here. They include the most recent record on file, 12 Feb 2026 from NICE (England); its outcome is in the subscriber dataset. They link to 31 further source documents.
Related molecules
- atezolizumab — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- olaparib — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- durvalumab — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- aflibercept — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- osimertinib — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- venetoclax — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
Coverage: 42 decisions for niraparib from 15 agencies, 2017 to 2026. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.