Evolocumab: 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
AWMSG (Wales), NICE (England) and SMC (Scotland), among others, recommended or restricted evolocumab, while CONITEC (Brazil) and PHARMAC (New Zealand) did not recommend it.
Assessment has run over 11 years, from 2015 at PBAC (Australia) to 2026 at PBAC (Australia).
PBAC (Australia) changed its position: not recommended in 2016, recommended by 2026, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from CIPM (Spain), which is among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for evolocumab, 1 submission was never made — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
The file is active: 6 of 39 records date from 2023 or later.
The programme is broad: 12 distinct indication wordings are recorded for evolocumab by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
13 of these 39 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
PBAC (Australia) was first to assess evolocumab, in 2015; AOTMIT (Poland) did not open a file until 18 Dec 2023 — an unusually long tail of 8.4 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 8 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 12 years in total.
Restriction is doing real work here: 10 of 29 decisive outcomes narrowed evolocumab to a subgroup rather than accepting or refusing it outright, at AOTMIT (Poland), NICE (England) and SMC (Scotland) among others.
8 of the 11 agencies here assessed evolocumab more than once, PBAC (Australia) most often at 13 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
11 of the 18 agencies in this archive hold a record for evolocumab.
The full ledger for evolocumab reads 11 recommended, 10 restricted, 8 not recommended and 3 no benefit, with 7 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AOTMIT (Poland) | 25 Jul 2025 | programu lekowego B.101. „Leczenie pacjentów z zaburzeniami lipidowymi (ICD-10: E78.01, I21, I22, I25) | not recommended | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2024 | Hypercholesterolaemia | Recommended | source |
| TLV (Sweden) | 20 Nov 2023 | Repatha får utökad subvention | restricted subsidy | source |
| G-BA (Germany) | 16 Jun 2022 | Repatha — benefit assessment §35a | added benefit: not proven | source |
| ZIN (Netherlands) | 18 Jan 2018 | GVS-advies evolocumab (Repatha®) aanpassing bijlage 2 voorwaarden | advice published (GVS) | source |
34 further decisions for evolocumab, across 11 agencies, are not shown here. They include the most recent record on file, 2026 from PBAC (Australia); its outcome is in the subscriber dataset. They link to 19 further source documents.
Related molecules
- alirocumab — divergent outcome (recommended vs restricted) on a shared indication
- bempedoic acid — divergent outcome (recommended vs not recommended) on a shared indication
- rosuvastatin — same ATC class C10A — Lipid modifying agents
- inclisiran — same ATC class C10A — Lipid modifying agents
- evinacumab — same ATC class C10A — Lipid modifying agents
- ezetimibe — same ATC class C10A — Lipid modifying agents
Coverage: 39 decisions for evolocumab from 11 agencies, 2015 to 2026. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class C10A — Lipid modifying agents. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.