Bevacizumab: 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
HAS (France) recommended or restricted bevacizumab, while AOTMIT (Poland), CONITEC (Brazil) and NICE (England), among others, did not recommend it.
SMC (Scotland) has been harder on bevacizumab than on its own caseload: it refused 4 of 7 decisive submissions here (57%), against a base rate of 16% across everything it has assessed.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 20 years separate the first record, 5 Jun 2006 at SMC (Scotland), from the most recent, 16 Jun 2026 at PHARMAC (New Zealand).
AWMSG (Wales) changed its position: not recommended on 31 Oct 2014, restricted by 17 Jun 2022, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from TLV (Sweden) and CIPM (Spain), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for bevacizumab, 4 submissions were never made and 9 were withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
The file is active: 11 of 77 records date from 2023 or later.
The programme is broad: 39 distinct indication wordings are recorded for bevacizumab by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
14 of these 77 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
SMC (Scotland) was first to assess bevacizumab, on 5 Jun 2006; G-BA (Germany) did not open a file until 16 Oct 2025 — an unusually long tail of 19.3 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 14 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 20 years in total.
9 of the 10 agencies here assessed bevacizumab more than once, HAS (France) most often at 16 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
10 of the 18 agencies in this archive hold a record for bevacizumab.
The full ledger for bevacizumab reads 28 recommended, 19 not recommended, 5 deferred to NICE and 5 restricted, with 20 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 7 Apr 2026 | Hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), severe | PTAC advice: High | source |
| NICE (England) | 25 Feb 2026 | NICE TA1136 | published appraisal | source |
| AWMSG (Wales) | 25 Feb 2026 | Treatment with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer | excluded, NICE appraised | source |
| G-BA (Germany) | 16 Oct 2025 | Lytenava — benefit assessment §35a | added benefit: not proven | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2025 | Various cancers | The PBAC rescinded the July 2020 recommendation for this drug. | source |
72 further decisions for bevacizumab, across 9 agencies, are not shown here. They include the most recent record on file, 16 Jun 2026 from PHARMAC (New Zealand); its outcome is in the subscriber dataset. They link to 42 further source documents.
Related molecules
- sotorasib — divergent outcome (recommended vs not recommended) on a shared indication
- pembrolizumab — same ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics
- nivolumab — same ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics
- daratumumab — same ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics
- rituximab — same ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics
- blinatumomab — same ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics
Coverage: 77 decisions for bevacizumab from 10 agencies, 2006 to 2026. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.