Ponatinib: 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
CONITEC (Brazil), G-BA (Germany) and HAS (France), among others, recommended or restricted ponatinib, while NYE METODER (Norway) did not recommend it.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 12.1 years separate the first record, 2014 at PBAC (Australia), from the most recent, 23 Aug 2026 at NYE METODER (Norway).
No assessment is on file from PHARMAC (New Zealand) and CIPM (Spain), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
The file is active: 2 of 14 records date from 2023 or later.
7 distinct indication wordings are recorded for ponatinib by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
4 of these 14 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
PBAC (Australia) was first to assess ponatinib, in 2014; NYE METODER (Norway) did not open a file until 23 Aug 2026 — an unusually long tail of 12.1 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 3 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 8 years in total.
Restriction is doing real work here: 3 of 11 decisive outcomes narrowed ponatinib to a subgroup rather than accepting or refusing it outright, at G-BA (Germany) and NICE (England).
3 of the 9 agencies here assessed ponatinib 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 ponatinib.
The full ledger for ponatinib reads 7 recommended, 3 restricted, 1 not recommended and 1 other, with 2 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONITEC (Brazil) | 3 Feb 2025 | Tratamento de resgate de pacientes com leucemia mieloide crônica em que houve falha aos inibidores de tirosina quinase d… | incorporated into SUS | source |
| G-BA (Germany) | 20 Nov 2020 | Iclusig — benefit assessment §35a | added benefit: non-quantifiable (hint) | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2018 | Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia | The PBAC reiterated its view from the November 2017 meeting that there is a clinical need … | source |
| NICE (England) | 28 Jun 2017 | NICE TA451 | recommended (optimised) | source |
| HAS (France) | 6 Apr 2016 | Listing (Transparency Committee) | SMR substantial · ASMR V | source |
9 further decisions for ponatinib, across 7 agencies, are not shown here. They include the most recent record on file, 23 Aug 2026 from NYE METODER (Norway); its outcome is in the subscriber dataset. They link to 6 further source documents.
Related molecules
- imatinib — divergent outcome (recommended vs other) on a shared indication
- ibrutinib — same ATC class L01E — Antineoplastics
- zanubrutinib — same ATC class L01E — Antineoplastics
- cabozantinib — same ATC class L01E — Antineoplastics
- selpercatinib — same ATC class L01E — Antineoplastics
- acalabrutinib — same ATC class L01E — Antineoplastics
Coverage: 14 decisions for ponatinib from 9 agencies, 2014 to 2026. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L01E — Antineoplastics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.