Perampanel: 8 agencies, 2012–2025
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
Where perampanel met resistance it was usually narrowed rather than refused: 6 of 13 decisive outcomes were recommendations with restrictions, against 2 outright refusals.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 12.8 years separate the first record, 10 Dec 2012 at SMC (Scotland), from the most recent, 31 Oct 2025 at AOTMIT (Poland).
PBAC (Australia) changed its position: not recommended in 2016, recommended by 2017, 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 perampanel, 2 submissions were never made — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
6 distinct indication wordings are recorded for perampanel by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, PBAC and SMC).
2 of these 24 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 perampanel, on 10 Dec 2012; AOTMIT (Poland) did not open a file until 31 Oct 2025 — an unusually long tail of 12.8 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 6 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 11 years in total.
Restriction is doing real work here: 6 of 13 decisive outcomes narrowed perampanel to a subgroup rather than accepting or refusing it outright, at AWMSG (Wales), SMC (Scotland) and TLV (Sweden).
7 of the 8 agencies here assessed perampanel more than once, HAS (France) most often at 5 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 perampanel.
The full ledger for perampanel reads 6 restricted, 5 recommended, 5 other and 4 no benefit, with 4 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 11 Feb 2022 | Focal epilepsy | PTAC advice: No Formal Recommendation | source |
| G-BA (Germany) | 3 Jun 2021 | Fycompa — benefit assessment §35a | added benefit: not proven | source |
| HAS (France) | 2 Jun 2021 | Indication extension | SMR substantial · ASMR V | source |
| AWMSG (Wales) | 24 May 2021 | Adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures (POS) with or without secondarily generalised seizures in patients from 4… | recommended with restrictions (limited) | source |
| TLV (Sweden) | 3 Sep 2019 | Fycompa oral suspension ingår i högkostnadsskyddet med begränsning | restricted subsidy | source |
19 further decisions for perampanel, across 8 agencies, are not shown here. They include the most recent record on file, 31 Oct 2025 from AOTMIT (Poland); its outcome is in the subscriber dataset. They link to 15 further source documents.
Related molecules
- cannabidiol — same ATC class N03A — Antiepileptics
- levetiracetam — same ATC class N03A — Antiepileptics
- lacosamide — same ATC class N03A — Antiepileptics
- brivaracetam — same ATC class N03A — Antiepileptics
- zonisamide — same ATC class N03A — Antiepileptics
- rufinamide — same ATC class N03A — Antiepileptics
Coverage: 24 decisions for perampanel from 8 agencies, 2012 to 2025. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class N03A — Antiepileptics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.