Patiromer: 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
AOTMIT (Poland), NICE (England) and NYE METODER (Norway), among others, recommended or restricted patiromer, while CIPM (Spain) did not recommend it.
Where patiromer met resistance it was usually narrowed rather than refused: 6 of 11 decisive outcomes were recommendations with restrictions, against 3 outright refusals.
Assessment has run over 7.9 years, from 21 May 2018 at TLV (Sweden) to 28 Apr 2026 at CIPM (Spain).
PBAC (Australia) changed its position: not recommended in 2019, recommended by 2023, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from HAS (France), SMC (Scotland) and PHARMAC (New Zealand), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
The file is active: 5 of 16 records date from 2023 or later.
4 distinct indication wordings are recorded for patiromer by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE and PBAC).
4 of these 16 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
TLV (Sweden) was first to assess patiromer, on 21 May 2018; CIPM (Spain) did not open a file until 28 Apr 2026 — a wide spread of 7.9 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 5 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 8 years in total.
Restriction is doing real work here: 6 of 11 decisive outcomes narrowed patiromer to a subgroup rather than accepting or refusing it outright, at AOTMIT (Poland), NICE (England) and TLV (Sweden) among others.
4 of the 9 agencies here assessed patiromer more than once, PBAC (Australia) most often at 4 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
9 of the 18 agencies in this archive hold a record for patiromer.
The full ledger for patiromer reads 6 restricted, 3 not recommended, 2 no benefit and 2 recommended, with 3 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G-BA (Germany) | 1 Aug 2024 | Veltassa — benefit assessment §35a | added benefit: not proven | source |
| AOTMIT (Poland) | 13 Oct 2023 | Veltassa reimbursement recommendation | recommended conditionally | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2023 | Hyperkalaemia | Recommended | source |
| NYE METODER (Norway) | 16 Jan 2022 | Behandling av hyperkalemi ved hjertesvikt hos voksne. | introduced | source |
| ZIN (Netherlands) | 25 Feb 2019 | GVS-advies patiromeer (Veltassa®) voor de behandeling van hyperkaliëmie bij volwassenen | advice published (GVS) | source |
11 further decisions for patiromer, across 7 agencies, are not shown here. They include the most recent record on file, 28 Apr 2026 from CIPM (Spain); its outcome is in the subscriber dataset. They link to 8 further source documents.
Related molecules
- sevelamer — same ATC class V03A — Other therapeutic products
- deferasirox — same ATC class V03A — Other therapeutic products
- deferiprone — same ATC class V03A — Other therapeutic products
- difelikefalin — same ATC class V03A — Other therapeutic products
- naloxone — same ATC class V03A — Other therapeutic products
- andexanet alfa — same ATC class V03A — Other therapeutic products
Coverage: 16 decisions for patiromer from 9 agencies, 2018 to 2026. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class V03A — Other therapeutic products. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.