Eltrombopag: 8 agencies, 2010–2026
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
The file has been open for more than a decade: 16.6 years separate the first record, 26 Feb 2010 at AWMSG (Wales), from the most recent, 21 Sep 2026 at PHARMAC (New Zealand).
No assessment is on file from HAS (France), CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for eltrombopag, 1 was withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
The file is active: 4 of 20 records date from 2023 or later.
The programme is broad: 12 distinct indication wordings are recorded for eltrombopag by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
3 of these 20 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
AWMSG (Wales) was first to assess eltrombopag, on 26 Feb 2010; PHARMAC (New Zealand) did not open a file until 21 Sep 2026 — an unusually long tail of 16.6 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 6 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 10 years in total.
Restriction is doing real work here: 4 of 16 decisive outcomes narrowed eltrombopag to a subgroup rather than accepting or refusing it outright, at NICE (England), SMC (Scotland) and ZIN (Netherlands).
8 of the 8 agencies here assessed eltrombopag more than once, AWMSG (Wales) most often at 4 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
8 of the 18 agencies in this archive hold a record for eltrombopag.
The full ledger for eltrombopag reads 11 recommended, 4 restricted, 1 terminated and 1 not recommended, with 3 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 21 Sep 2026 | Aplastic anaemia, severe, 2nd line, in combination with immunosuppressive therapy | PTAC advice: High | source |
| NYE METODER (Norway) | 19 Jun 2022 | Førstelinjebehandling av alvorlig aplastisk anemi (se full indikasjonstekst under) | introduced | source |
| TLV (Sweden) | 1 Dec 2020 | Revolade pulver till oral suspension ingår i högkostnadsskyddet | general subsidy | source |
| SMC (Scotland) | 16 Jan 2017 | Chronic immune (idiopathic) thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) patients aged 1 year to 17 years who are refractory to other treatments (e.g. corticosteroids, immunoglobulins)… | accepted (restricted) | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2014 | Decreased platelet count | The PBAC rejected the submission to amend the continuation restriction of eltrombopag for … | source |
15 further decisions for eltrombopag, across 8 agencies, are not shown here. They include the most recent record on file, 21 Sep 2026 from PHARMAC (New Zealand); its outcome is in the subscriber dataset. They link to 13 further source documents.
Related molecules
- emicizumab — same ATC class B02B — Antihemorrhagics
- romiplostim — same ATC class B02B — Antihemorrhagics
- avatrombopag — same ATC class B02B — Antihemorrhagics
- concizumab — same ATC class B02B — Antihemorrhagics
- marstacimab — same ATC class B02B — Antihemorrhagics
- etranacogene dezaparvovec — same ATC class B02B — Antihemorrhagics
Coverage: 20 decisions for eltrombopag from 8 agencies, 2010 to 2026. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class B02B — Antihemorrhagics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.