Afatinib: 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), NICE (England) and SMC (Scotland), among others, recommended or restricted afatinib, while AWMSG (Wales) did not recommend it.
The record spans 3.8 years, opening at AWMSG (Wales) on 15 Aug 2013 and running to 24 May 2017.
No assessment is on file from HAS (France), PHARMAC (New Zealand) and CIPM (Spain), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for afatinib, 1 submission was never made and 1 was withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
Nothing has been added since 2017; on this evidence the file is dormant.
7 distinct indication wordings are recorded for afatinib by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
1 of these 10 records carries a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
AWMSG (Wales) was first to assess afatinib, on 15 Aug 2013; G-BA (Germany) did not open a file until 5 Nov 2015 — a moderate spread of 2.2 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 3 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 5 years in total.
4 of the 6 agencies here assessed afatinib more than once, NICE (England) most often at 2 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
6 of the 18 agencies in this archive hold a record for afatinib.
The full ledger for afatinib reads 4 recommended, 1 terminated, 1 no benefit and 1 not recommended, with 3 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NICE (England) | 24 May 2017 | NICE TA444 | terminated appraisal | source |
| G-BA (Germany) | 20 Oct 2016 | Giotrif — benefit assessment §35a | added benefit: not proven | source |
| AWMSG (Wales) | 26 Jul 2016 | Treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer of squamous histology progressing on or after pla… | not endorsed (non-submission) | source |
| SMC (Scotland) | 11 Jul 2016 | As monotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non small cell lung cancer of squamous histology progressing on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. | not recommended | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2015 | Monotherapy for patients with advanced or metastatic nonsquamous type non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), either as a first line therapy or after failure of cytotoxic che… | Re-submission for Authority Required listing for the treatment of patients with stage IIIB… | source |
5 further decisions for afatinib, across 5 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 5 further source documents.
Related molecules
- pralsetinib — divergent outcome (recommended vs not recommended) on a shared indication
- atezolizumab — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- olaparib — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- durvalumab — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- aflibercept — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- osimertinib — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
Coverage: 10 decisions for afatinib from 6 agencies, 2013 to 2017. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.