Ceritinib: 9 agencies, 2015–2021
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
No agency in this archive has refused ceritinib: all 13 decisive outcomes across 8 agencies were positive or positive with restrictions.
Assessment has run over 5.8 years, from 1 May 2015 at AWMSG (Wales) to 3 Mar 2021 at HAS (France).
NICE (England) changed its position: restricted on 22 Jun 2016, recommended by 24 Jan 2018.
No assessment is on file from PHARMAC (New Zealand) and CIPM (Spain), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for ceritinib, 1 submission was never made — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
Nothing has been added since 2021; on this evidence the file is dormant.
Against its own class, ceritinib is an outlier: 100% of its decisive outcomes were positive, where molecules sharing ATC class L01X average 75%.
6 distinct indication wordings are recorded for ceritinib by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
1 of these 17 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 ceritinib, on 1 May 2015; AOTMIT (Poland) did not open a file until 16 Nov 2018 — a wide spread of 3.5 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
Activity is concentrated rather than steady: 7 of 17 dated records fall in 2018 alone.
6 of the 9 agencies here assessed ceritinib more than once, HAS (France) most often at 4 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
9 of the 18 agencies in this archive hold a record for ceritinib.
The full ledger for ceritinib reads 10 recommended, 3 restricted, 2 deferred to NICE and 1 non-submission, with 1 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAS (France) | 3 Mar 2021 | Re-assessment of SMR and ASMR | SMR substantial · ASMR V | source |
| AOTMIT (Poland) | 16 Nov 2018 | programu lekowego "Leczenie niedrobnokomórkowego raka płuca (ICD-10: C34) | recommended conditionally | source |
| NYE METODER (Norway) | 26 Aug 2018 | Legemiddel til førstelinjebehandling av anaplastisk lymfomkinase-positiv ikke-småcellet lungekreft | introduced | source |
| SMC (Scotland) | 9 Apr 2018 | As monotherapy for the first-line treatment of adult patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer. | not recommended | source |
| G-BA (Germany) | 1 Feb 2018 | Zykadia — benefit assessment §35a | added benefit: not proven | source |
12 further decisions for ceritinib, across 8 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 9 further source documents.
Related molecules
- sotorasib — 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: 17 decisions for ceritinib from 9 agencies, 2015 to 2021. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.