Escitalopram: 4 agencies, 2002–2021
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
The file has been open for more than a decade: 19.1 years separate the first record, 8 Nov 2002 at SMC (Scotland), from the most recent, 15 Dec 2021 at HAS (France).
SMC (Scotland) changed its position: not recommended on 8 Nov 2002, recommended by 8 May 2006, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from PBAC (Australia), TLV (Sweden), CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for escitalopram, 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.
3 distinct indication wordings are recorded for escitalopram by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG and SMC).
SMC (Scotland) was first to assess escitalopram, on 8 Nov 2002; PHARMAC (New Zealand) did not open a file until 8 May 2008 — a wide spread of 5.5 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
Activity is concentrated rather than steady: 7 of 15 dated records fall in 2008 alone.
Restriction is doing real work here: 2 of 7 decisive outcomes narrowed escitalopram to a subgroup rather than accepting or refusing it outright, at PHARMAC (New Zealand).
3 of the 4 agencies here assessed escitalopram more than once, HAS (France) most often at 7 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
Coverage is narrow: only 4 of the 18 agencies here have assessed escitalopram.
The full ledger for escitalopram reads 6 other, 3 recommended, 2 restricted and 2 not recommended, with 2 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAS (France) | 15 Dec 2021 | Listing (Transparency Committee) | SMR substantial · ASMR V | source |
| HAS (France) | 13 May 2009 | Listing (Transparency Committee) | ASMR V | source |
| SMC (Scotland) | 12 May 2008 | for the treatment of social anxiety disorder | not recommended | source |
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 8 May 2008 | Obsessive compulsive disorder | PTAC advice: Low · decision reached | source |
| AWMSG (Wales) | 15 Mar 2006 | Treatment of generalised anxiety disorder | outside AWMSG criteria | source |
10 further decisions for escitalopram, across 3 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 6 further source documents.
Related molecules
- duloxetine — divergent outcome (other vs recommended) on a shared indication
- vortioxetine — divergent outcome (other vs restricted) on a shared indication
- agomelatine — divergent outcome (other vs recommended) on a shared indication
- esketamine — same ATC class N06A — Psychoanaleptics
- venlafaxine — same ATC class N06A — Psychoanaleptics
- paroxetine — same ATC class N06A — Psychoanaleptics
Coverage: 15 decisions for escitalopram from 4 agencies, 2002 to 2021. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class N06A — Psychoanaleptics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.