Ruxolitinib: 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
G-BA (Germany), HAS (France) and NICE (England), among others, recommended or restricted ruxolitinib, while CONITEC (Brazil) and NYE METODER (Norway) did not recommend it.
CIPM (Spain) has been easier on ruxolitinib than on its own caseload: it refused 1 of 5 decisive submissions here (20%), against a base rate of 63% across everything it has assessed.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 14 years separate the first record, 26 Jul 2012 at AWMSG (Wales), from the most recent, 2026 at PBAC (Australia).
AOTMIT (Poland) changed its position: not recommended on 21 Mar 2023, restricted by 14 Apr 2023, after a resubmission.
Every one of the eight highest-volume agencies in this archive has a record for ruxolitinib.
Not every gap is a refusal: for ruxolitinib, 1 submission was never made and 4 were withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
The file is active: 21 of 50 records date from 2023 or later.
The programme is broad: 17 distinct indication wordings are recorded for ruxolitinib by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
8 of these 50 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 ruxolitinib, on 26 Jul 2012; CIPM (Spain) did not open a file until 20 Sep 2023 — an unusually long tail of 11.2 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 11 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 14 years in total.
10 of the 12 agencies here assessed ruxolitinib more than once, PBAC (Australia) most often at 8 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
ruxolitinib has been through 12 of the 18 agencies in this archive — among the most widely assessed molecules on file.
The full ledger for ruxolitinib reads 27 recommended, 8 not recommended, 6 deferred to NICE and 4 terminated, with 5 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NICE (England) | 17 Feb 2026 | NICE TA1132 | terminated appraisal | source |
| AWMSG (Wales) | 17 Feb 2026 | Treating moderate to severe chronic graft versus host disease after an allogeneic stem cell transplant in people 28 days… | excluded, NICE appraised | source |
| CIPM (Spain) | 24 Sep 2025 | Indicación terapéutica autorizada: Enfermedad injerto contra receptor (EICR) EICR aguda Jakavi está indicado para el tra… | financed by the SNS · art. 92 a, c | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2022 | Graft versus host disease | Not recommended | source |
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 3 May 2018 | Myelofibrosis, lower-risk (Intermediate-1) | PTAC advice: Low · decision reached | source |
45 further decisions for ruxolitinib, across 12 agencies, are not shown here. They include the most recent record on file, 2026 from PBAC (Australia); its outcome is in the subscriber dataset. They link to 33 further source documents.
Related molecules
- 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
- ribociclib — same ATC class L01E — Antineoplastics
Coverage: 50 decisions for ruxolitinib from 12 agencies, 2012 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.