Nivolumab: 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

DMC (Denmark), G-BA (Germany) and HIRA (South Korea) recommended or restricted nivolumab, while ZIN (Netherlands) did not recommend it.

On the same population the two systems disagree outright: SMC (Scotland) recorded recommended for “As monotherapy for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma after prior therapy in adults.”, while PBAC (Australia) recorded not recommended for “Renal cell carcinoma (RCC)”.

DMC (Denmark) has been easier on nivolumab than on its own caseload: it refused 0 of 14 decisive submissions here (0%), against a base rate of 27% across everything it has assessed.

Assessment has run over 11.2 years, from 2015 at PBAC (Australia) to 3 Sep 2026 at HIRA (South Korea).

PBAC (Australia) changed its position: not recommended in 2015, recommended by 2026, after a resubmission.

No assessment is on file from TLV (Sweden), which is among the eight highest-volume agencies here.

Not every gap is a refusal: for nivolumab, 4 submissions were never made and 3 were withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.

The file is active: 95 of 264 records date from 2023 or later.

The programme is broad: 87 distinct indication wordings are recorded for nivolumab by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).

47 of these 264 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 nivolumab, in 2015; HIRA (South Korea) did not open a file until 3 Sep 2026 — an unusually long tail of 11.2 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.

The record arrives in waves: 12 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 12 years in total.

14 of the 15 agencies here assessed nivolumab more than once, PBAC (Australia) most often at 47 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.

nivolumab has been through 15 of the 18 agencies in this archive — among the most widely assessed molecules on file.

The full ledger for nivolumab reads 123 recommended, 48 not recommended, 31 restricted and 23 deferred to NICE, with 39 in other categories.

Decisions on file

AgencyDateIndication as recorded OutcomeSource
NYE METODER (Norway)23 Aug 2026I kombinasjon med doksorubicin, vinblastin og dakarbazin (AVD) for voksne og ungdommer på 12 år og eldre med tidligere u…introducedsource
CIPM (Spain)17 Jun 2026Indicaciones terapéuticas autorizadas Melanoma OPDIVO en monoterapia está indicado para el tratamiento adyuvante en adul…not financed by the SNS · art. 92 dsource
PHARMAC (New Zealand)23 Feb 2026Oesophageal adenocarcinoma and gastric/gastro-oesophageal junction cancers, advanced/metastatic, 1st linePTAC advice: Lowsource
G-BA (Germany)18 Dec 2025Opdivo — benefit assessment §35aadded benefit: not provensource
PBAC (Australia)2025Advanced (unresectable) Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage A, Stage B or Stage C hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)Not recommendedsource

259 further decisions for nivolumab, across 15 agencies, are not shown here. They include the most recent record on file, 3 Sep 2026 from HIRA (South Korea); its outcome is in the subscriber dataset. They link to 182 further source documents.

Related molecules

Coverage: 264 decisions for nivolumab from 15 agencies, 2015 to 2026. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.

Request the full decision record