Erlotinib: 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
NICE (England), PHARMAC (New Zealand) and TLV (Sweden) recommended or restricted erlotinib, while AWMSG (Wales) did not recommend it.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 13.8 years separate the first record, 29 Mar 2005 at TLV (Sweden), from the most recent, 12 Dec 2018 at HAS (France).
SMC (Scotland) changed its position: not recommended on 12 Dec 2005, recommended by 16 Jan 2012, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from PBAC (Australia), CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for erlotinib, 1 submission was never made — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
Nothing has been added since 2018; on this evidence the file is dormant.
6 distinct indication wordings are recorded for erlotinib by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE and SMC).
TLV (Sweden) was first to assess erlotinib, on 29 Mar 2005; PHARMAC (New Zealand) did not open a file until 9 May 2013 — an unusually long tail of 8.2 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 5 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 9 years in total.
5 of the 6 agencies here assessed erlotinib more than once, SMC (Scotland) most often at 5 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 erlotinib.
The full ledger for erlotinib reads 7 recommended, 4 not recommended, 2 other and 2 deferred to NICE, with 2 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAS (France) | 12 Dec 2018 | Change to listing conditions (Transparency Committee) | SMR insufficient | source |
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 9 May 2013 | Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR-activating mutation - 1st line | PTAC advice: Cost Neutral · decision reached | source |
| NICE (England) | 27 Jun 2012 | NICE TA258 | recommended | source |
| AWMSG (Wales) | 13 Sep 2011 | First-line treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with EGFR activating mut… | excluded, NICE appraised | source |
| SMC (Scotland) | 9 Jul 2007 | metastatic pancreatic cancer | not recommended | source |
12 further decisions for erlotinib, across 5 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 9 further source documents.
Related molecules
- 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
- venetoclax — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
Coverage: 17 decisions for erlotinib from 6 agencies, 2005 to 2018. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.