Skip to content
SYNAPPTIQ©
Editorial artwork: a detailed lateral view of a human brain

SYNAPPTIQ©

Synergistic pharmaceutical intelligence

Prepare for your next pharmaceutical access decision.

Bring a medicine's regulatory history, appraisal precedent, clinical evidence, economics and published NHS activity into the same discussion. Synapptiq helps market access, HEOR and commercial teams investigate the evidence, examine uncertainty and prepare source-linked material for colleagues and payers.

Request a demonstrationExplore NHS Analytics
Watch the opening film

Evidence behind the decision

Which evidence will shape your next payer discussion?

An access strategy needs more than a recommendation headline. Teams must examine the assessed population, comparator, clinical benefit and economic case, then understand what published NHS activity can and cannot add.

Regulatory records, agency assessments, trial reports and NHS publications answer different questions, are published in different places and rarely use the same name for the same medicine. Reading them together should not erase those differences.

Connected around the medicine

Review the evidence without losing its context

Synapptiq matches medicine names and codes to an agreed medicine reference, connecting regulatory, HTA, clinical, economic and NHS evidence.

Use the connected view to investigate a specific access question, compare appraisal reasoning or prepare an executive report. Sources, assessed populations and reporting periods remain visible so colleagues can scrutinise the basis of a finding.

Nine capabilities for pharmaceutical decisions

Editorial artwork introducing Medicine Workspace
Editorial artwork, not an application screen

What should we examine before the next payer discussion?

Prepare an access discussion by reviewing the medicine's connected evidence and unresolved questions.

Evidence used
Regulatory history, HTA position, clinical and safety evidence, and economics
What you receive
A connected review of one medicine
Explore Medicine Workspace

Find your capability

Choose your team to see where Synapptiq helps.

Questions this answers

  • What does the published evidence support for this medicine?
  • How did NICE and SMC judge comparable economic cases?
  • Which findings and limits should colleagues see before deciding?

Capabilities for this team

More for Market access and HEOR

Evidence behind it

  • Snapshot 27 Oct 2026

    Evidence catalogue: 221,951 records; 2,605 trials; 17,353 appraisal links; 23,459 product links

    Source: Synapptiq Evidence Finder catalogue · Reviewed 2026-10-27 · Review due 2027-10-27

  • 3,510 records, 7 agencies

    Over 3,500 appraisal records across seven HTA bodies

    Source: Synapptiq HTA appraisal records · Reviewed 2026-10-27 · Review due 2027-10-27

Findings you can scrutinise

Keep the evidence and its limits together

Established findings and scenario estimates are presented as different kinds of information. Material limitations stay beside the finding or estimate they qualify.

Read how evidence checks and human review work on the Governance page.

NHS activity for account planning

Where is the medicine used, and how much?

NHS Analytics brings together published community prescribing and hospital medicines activity and cost, from national to local organisations, to support account planning, access discussions and generic-entry assessment.

Community and hospital measures remain separate. Indicative hospital cost is not actual net expenditure because confidential discounts and rebates are not reflected. Drug Tariff values are reimbursement reference prices, not expenditure.

Editorial artwork: Great Britain at night, its cities glowing and connected

Explore NHS Analytics

What NHS Analytics shows

  • England, primary care, formulation only

    Apixaban 5mg tablets England primary care spend £16.61m, 12 months to Jul 2026

    Source: NHSBSA English Prescribing Dataset (EPD); Synapptiq application · Reviewed 2026-10-27 · Review due 2027-10-27

  • England primary care, 12m vs prior 12m

    Apixaban items +16.9%; spend per item £4.74 to £2.10; spend -48.2%

    Source: NHSBSA English Prescribing Dataset (EPD); Synapptiq application · Reviewed 2026-10-27 · Review due 2027-10-27

  • Aug 2025-Jul 2026

    48 ICBs, 186 hospital trusts, 6,918 GP practices with figures for apixaban 5mg

    Source: NHSBSA English Prescribing Dataset (EPD); NHSBSA Secondary Care Medicines Data (SCMD); Synapptiq application · Reviewed 2026-10-27 · Review due 2027-10-27

  • NHS Analytics

    England and Scotland kept separate with nation-specific measures

    Source: Synapptiq application · Reviewed 2026-10-27 · Review due 2027-10-27

  • NHS Analytics GP/hospital views

    Months not shown are listed by name; missing never drawn as zero

    Source: Synapptiq application · Reviewed 2026-10-27 · Review due 2027-10-27

Examine an appraisal in context

Alirocumab: the evidence behind NICE TA393

Examine the published recommendation, trial findings and economic model methods with their source context. This historical appraisal shows how a medicine review connects the evidence behind an access discussion; it is not current treatment advice.

Read the TA393 case study

Established finding · TA393

LDL-C difference in mean % change at 24 weeks vs placebo (pooled)

57.9%

Trial-level result; patient-level data needed to model

Source and review
Source
NICE TA393 committee papers (Synapptiq endpoint record, citation verified)
Evidence scope
primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia
Published / captured
2016-06-22 / 2026-10-25
Review due / reference
2027-10-25 / HEOR-DECK-v9

Established finding · TA393

LDL-C difference vs placebo, 150 mg, HeFH

39.1%

Trial-level result

Source and review
Source
NICE TA393 committee papers (Synapptiq endpoint record, citation verified)
Evidence scope
heterozygous-familial hypercholesterolaemia
Published / captured
2016-06-22 / 2026-10-25
Review due / reference
2027-10-25 / HEOR-DECK-v9

Established finding · TA393

LDL-C difference vs ezetimibe (moderate CV risk)

31.6%

Trial-level result

Source and review
Source
NICE TA393 committee papers (Synapptiq endpoint record, citation verified)
Evidence scope
primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia
Published / captured
2016-06-22 / 2026-10-25
Review due / reference
2027-10-25 / HEOR-DECK-v9

Established finding · TA393

LDL-C difference vs ezetimibe + atorvastatin 40 mg

31.4%

Trial-level result

Source and review
Source
NICE TA393 committee papers (Synapptiq endpoint record, citation verified)
Evidence scope
primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia
Published / captured
2016-06-22 / 2026-10-25
Review due / reference
2027-10-25 / HEOR-DECK-v9

Established finding · TA393

LDL-C difference vs statin alone (rosuvastatin 40 mg)

32.6%

Trial-level result

Source and review
Source
NICE TA393 committee papers (Synapptiq endpoint record, citation verified)
Evidence scope
primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia
Published / captured
2016-06-22 / 2026-10-25
Review due / reference
2027-10-25 / HEOR-DECK-v9

Established finding · TA393

Cardiovascular events hazard ratio (95% CI 0.52-1.25, not significant)

0.81HR

Not significant; outcomes immature (ODYSSEY OUTCOMES reported 2018, after the decision)

Source and review
Source
NICE TA393 committee papers
Evidence scope
primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia
Published / captured
2016-06-22 / 2026-10-25
Review due / reference
2027-10-25 / HEOR-DECK-v9

Established finding · TA393

Post-hoc ODYSSEY LONG TERM cardiovascular events hazard ratio (95% CI 0.31-0.90)

0.52HR

Post-hoc analysis

Source and review
Source
NICE TA393 committee papers
Evidence scope
primary hypercholesterolaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia
Published / captured
2016-06-22 / 2026-10-25
Review due / reference
2027-10-25 / HEOR-DECK-v9

Historical NICE TA393 evidence, not current treatment advice. Restrictions not yet matched to their source remain held and are not shown as established conditions.

Evidence for your team's next discussion

  • Market access and HEOR teams - Examine appraisal precedent, evidence gaps and the assumptions behind the economic case.
  • Launch and commercial teams - Investigate published NHS activity and compare timing, uptake and budget scenarios.
  • HTA and health economics consultancies - Compare agency reasoning with the assessed populations, comparators and source evidence alongside.
  • NHS medicines optimisation teams - Examine published organisation-level activity with its geography, measure and period visible.

Evidence coverage

  • Snapshot 27 Oct 2026

    Evidence catalogue: 221,951 records; 2,605 trials; 17,353 appraisal links; 23,459 product links

    Source: Synapptiq Evidence Finder catalogue · Reviewed 2026-10-27 · Review due 2027-10-27

  • 3,510 records, 7 agencies

    Over 3,500 appraisal records across seven HTA bodies

    Source: Synapptiq HTA appraisal records · Reviewed 2026-10-27 · Review due 2027-10-27

  • Qualitative statement

    Qualitative: 'in minutes, not weeks of document review'

    Source: Synapptiq application · Reviewed 2026-10-27 · Review due 2027-10-27

Start with a medicine that matters to your team

Request a demonstration built around its evidence and your next payer or access question.

Request a demonstration