Everolimus: 9 agencies, 2009–2026
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
PHARMAC (New Zealand) has been harder on everolimus than on its own caseload: it refused 3 of 6 decisive submissions here (50%), against a base rate of 29% across everything it has assessed.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 17.3 years separate the first record, 19 Feb 2009 at PHARMAC (New Zealand), from the most recent, 16 Jun 2026 at PHARMAC (New Zealand).
AWMSG (Wales) changed its position: not recommended on 15 May 2015, recommended by 8 Dec 2022, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for everolimus, 4 submissions were never made and 2 were withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
The file is active: 2 of 61 records date from 2023 or later.
The programme is broad: 22 distinct indication wordings are recorded for everolimus by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
3 of these 61 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
PHARMAC (New Zealand) was first to assess everolimus, on 19 Feb 2009; NICE (England) did not open a file until 22 Jul 2015 — a wide spread of 6.4 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 11 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 15 years in total.
8 of the 9 agencies here assessed everolimus more than once, HAS (France) most often at 20 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 everolimus.
The full ledger for everolimus reads 26 recommended, 12 other, 7 not recommended and 4 non-submission, with 12 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAS (France) | 29 May 2024 | Re-assessment following post-listing study results | SMR substantial · ASMR V | source |
| SMC (Scotland) | 13 Nov 2017 | Prophylaxis of organ rejection in adult patients at low to moderate immunological risk receiving an allogenic renal transplant. | not recommended | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2017 | Tuberous sclerosis complex | The PBAC deferred its decision about whether to extend the listing of everolimus to includ… | source |
| AWMSG (Wales) | 30 Sep 2016 | Treatment of unresectable or metastatic, well-differentiated (Grade 1 or Grade 2) non-functional neuroendocrine tumours … | superseded (non-submission) | source |
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 16 Feb 2012 | Metastatic renal cell carcinoma - second line therapy | PTAC advice: Decline · decision reached | source |
56 further decisions for everolimus, 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 34 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: 61 decisions for everolimus from 9 agencies, 2009 to 2026. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.