Pegvisomant: 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
AOTMIT (Poland), AWMSG (Wales) and HAS (France), among others, recommended or restricted pegvisomant, while CONITEC (Brazil) and PHARMAC (New Zealand) did not recommend it.
On the same population the two systems disagree outright: PBAC (Australia) recorded recommended for “Acromegaly”, while SMC (Scotland) recorded not recommended for “Acromegaly”.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 19.1 years separate the first record, 9 May 2005 at SMC (Scotland), from the most recent, 17 Jun 2024 at CONITEC (Brazil).
SMC (Scotland) changed its position: not recommended on 9 May 2005, recommended by 13 Nov 2017, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from TLV (Sweden), CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Against its own class, pegvisomant is an outlier: 57% of its decisive outcomes were positive, where molecules sharing ATC class H01A average 83%.
3 distinct indication wordings are recorded for pegvisomant by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, PBAC and SMC).
2 of these 16 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
SMC (Scotland) was first to assess pegvisomant, on 9 May 2005; HIRA (South Korea) did not open a file until 9 Apr 2021 — an unusually long tail of 15.9 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 4 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 12 years in total.
4 of the 8 agencies here assessed pegvisomant more than once, CONITEC (Brazil) most often at 4 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
8 of the 18 agencies in this archive hold a record for pegvisomant.
The full ledger for pegvisomant reads 6 not recommended, 6 recommended, 2 restricted and 2 other.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONITEC (Brazil) | 17 Jun 2024 | Tratamento de pacientes com acromegalia. | not incorporated | source |
| HIRA (South Korea) | 9 Apr 2021 | 말단비대증 | reimbursable only at the evaluated price | source |
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 25 Aug 2020 | Hospital listing | PTAC advice: Not recommended for inclusion (HML) · decision reached | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2019 | Acromegaly | The PBAC recommended the following changes to the definition of failure to achieve biochem… | source |
| AOTMIT (Poland) | 10 Sep 2018 | programu lekowego „Leczenie akromegalii pegwisomantem (ICD-10: E22.0) | recommended conditionally | source |
11 further decisions for pegvisomant, across 5 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 5 further source documents.
Related molecules
- somatropin — same ATC class H01A — Pituitary and hypothalamic hormones
- somapacitan — same ATC class H01A — Pituitary and hypothalamic hormones
- somatrogon — same ATC class H01A — Pituitary and hypothalamic hormones
- tafamidis — also decided by CONITEC in 2024Q2
- durvalumab — also decided by CONITEC in 2024Q2
- ibrutinib — also decided by CONITEC in 2024Q2
Coverage: 16 decisions for pegvisomant from 8 agencies, 2005 to 2024. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class H01A — Pituitary and hypothalamic hormones. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.