This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pharmacology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Ponatinib. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

There ought to be a way to include this beautiful summary:

Just two small difficulties. This drug is priced at $130,000 per year; and it caused major arterial thrombosis in 9% of patients over a year and a quarter. If you’re cool with cancer drugs that nobody can afford and that have devastating harms which only come to light after fast-track licensing, then that’s wonderful. It’s the new paradigm. http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/11/11/richard-lehmans-journal-review-11-november-2013/ -- Nbauman ( talk) 09:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply