Sponsor
Celgene
35 PBAC submissions on file, active 2008–2022. 66% have been recommended.
Submissions
35
2008 → 2022
Win rate
66 %
23 recommended of 35 bucketable
Drugs
7 · 6 listed
unique molecules submitted
PBS spend captured
—
FY-latest govt benefit on owned drugs
Drug portfolio
Sorted by PBS spend captured. PBS expenditure is credited to the sponsor with the most recent Recommended decision per drug, so biosimilars and originator brands aren't double-counted.
Lenalidomide
Haematology · Recommended with restriction · 2023 other sponsor Apremilast
Dermatology · Recommended with restriction · 2023 other sponsor Pomalidomide
Oncology · Recommended · 2023 other sponsor Azacitidine
Haematology · Recommended with restriction · 2022 — Ozanimod
Gastroenterology · Recommended with restriction · 2022 — Romidepsin
Haematology · Deferred · 2017 — Thalidomide
Oncology · Recommended with restriction · 2009 — Therapy area mix Haematology 21 Dermatology 5 Oncology 5 Rheumatology 2 Gastroenterology 2
Activity by year 2008 (2) · 2009 (2) · 2011 (2) · 2013 (1) · 2014 (2) · 2015 (4) · 2016 (5) · 2017 (6) · 2018 (2) · 2019 (6) · 2022 (3)
Rejection patterns
Across 10 Not recommended decisions on file.
2× high and uncertain cost-effectiveness ratio1× uncertain comparative effectiveness versus cyclosporin (non-inferiority margin unclear1× indirect comparison with wide confidence intervals)1× unestablished clinical place in treatment algorithm (prescribers may use outside proposed restriction in treatment-naïve patients)1× comparator selection uncertain (cyclosporin dose regimen in Meffert trial not reflective of Australian practice)Open on full dashboard →
Part of script.report — an independent tracker of every PBAC Public Summary Document and the PBS expenditure that follows. Built from public data on pbs.gov.au . Not affiliated with the Australian Department of Health, PBAC, or any pharmaceutical company.
script.report extracts information discussed in PBAC Public Summary Documents (PSDs), not independently calculated values. Where figures such as ICERs are shown, they reflect what was discussed or referenced in committee documentation — not confirmed inputs. For authoritative cost-effectiveness data, refer to the original PSD.