Rituximab: 9 agencies, 2003–2026
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
PBAC (Australia) has been easier on rituximab than on its own caseload: it refused 0 of 9 decisive submissions here (0%), against a base rate of 24% across everything it has assessed.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 23.5 years separate the first record, 7 Mar 2003 at SMC (Scotland), from the most recent, 29 Sep 2026 at CONITEC (Brazil).
NICE (England) changed its position: recommended on 27 Feb 2008, restricted by 26 Mar 2014.
No assessment is on file from TLV (Sweden), CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for rituximab, 1 submission was never made and 1 was withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
The file is active: 11 of 94 records date from 2023 or later.
The programme is broad: 26 distinct indication wordings are recorded for rituximab by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
10 of these 94 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 rituximab, on 7 Mar 2003; AIFA (Italy) did not open a file until 23 Feb 2021 — an unusually long tail of 17.9 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 18 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 23 years in total.
9 of the 9 agencies here assessed rituximab more than once, PHARMAC (New Zealand) most often at 28 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 rituximab.
The full ledger for rituximab reads 60 recommended, 14 restricted, 10 not recommended and 3 deferred to NICE, with 7 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONITEC (Brazil) | 1 Oct 2025 | Tratamento em crianças e adolescentes com síndrome nefrótica primária corticodependente e recaída frequente. | incorporated into SUS | source |
| HAS (France) | 19 Apr 2023 | Re-assessment of ASMR | SMR substantial · ASMR III | source |
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 17 Mar 2023 | For use in the treatment of people with Class IV(a) lupus nephritis as part of the induction phase of therapy (expanded … | PTAC advice: Decline · decision reached | source |
| NYE METODER (Norway) | 30 Aug 2020 | Til behandling av av granulomatøs polyangitt (Wegeners granulomatose, GPA) og mikroskopisk polyangitt (MPA) hos voksne o… | decision recorded | source |
| AWMSG (Wales) | 16 Jun 2019 | Treatment of relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia | excluded, NICE appraised | source |
89 further decisions for rituximab, across 9 agencies, are not shown here. They include the most recent record on file, 29 Sep 2026 from CONITEC (Brazil); its outcome is in the subscriber dataset. They link to 57 further source documents.
Related molecules
- pembrolizumab — same ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics
- nivolumab — same ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics
- daratumumab — same ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics
- bevacizumab — same ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics
- blinatumomab — same ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics
- trastuzumab deruxtecan — same ATC class L01F — Antineoplastics
Coverage: 94 decisions for rituximab from 9 agencies, 2003 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.