Ranolazine: 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
AWMSG (Wales) and HAS (France) recommended or restricted ranolazine, while SMC (Scotland) did not recommend it.
Assessment has run over 11.7 years, from 4 Nov 2009 at HAS (France) to 2021 at PBAC (Australia).
PBAC (Australia) changed its position: not recommended in 2017, recommended by 2018, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from TLV (Sweden), CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for ranolazine, 1 was withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
Nothing has been added since 2021; on this evidence the file is dormant.
4 distinct indication wordings are recorded for ranolazine by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, PBAC and SMC).
3 of these 9 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
HAS (France) was first to assess ranolazine, on 4 Nov 2009; PHARMAC (New Zealand) did not open a file until 8 Feb 2018 — an unusually long tail of 8.2 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
3 of the 5 agencies here assessed ranolazine more than once, PBAC (Australia) most often at 3 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
Coverage is narrow: only 5 of the 18 agencies here have assessed ranolazine.
The full ledger for ranolazine reads 3 recommended, 2 other, 2 not recommended and 1 withdrawn, with 1 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBAC (Australia) | 2021 | Symptomatic treatment of stable angina pectoris | Recommendation was rescinded by the PBAC with support from the sponsor. | source |
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 8 May 2019 | Angina, where nicorandil or perhexiline has failed | PTAC advice: No Formal Recommendation · decision reached | source |
| SMC (Scotland) | 12 Nov 2012 | As add-on therapy for the symptomatic treatment of patients with stable angina pectoris who are inadequately controlled or intolerant to first-line antianginal therapies … | not recommended | source |
| HAS (France) | 8 Jun 2011 | Re-examination following new data | SMR substantial · ASMR V | source |
| AWMSG (Wales) | 3 Feb 2011 | As add-on therapy for the symptomatic treatment of patients with stable angina pectoris who are inadequately controlled … | recommended with restrictions (resubmission) | source |
4 further decisions for ranolazine, across 3 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 1 further source document.
Related molecules
- ivabradine — same ATC class C01E — Cardiac therapy
- mavacamten — same ATC class C01E — Cardiac therapy
- acoramidis — same ATC class C01E — Cardiac therapy
- alprostadil — same ATC class C01E — Cardiac therapy
- regadenoson — same ATC class C01E — Cardiac therapy
- rituximab — also decided by PHARMAC in 2019Q2
Coverage: 9 decisions for ranolazine from 5 agencies, 2009 to 2021. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class C01E — Cardiac therapy. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.