Solifenacin: 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
PHARMAC (New Zealand) recommended or restricted solifenacin, while CONITEC (Brazil) did not recommend it.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 15.7 years separate the first record, 20 Jul 2004 at AWMSG (Wales), from the most recent, 12 Mar 2020 at CONITEC (Brazil).
SMC (Scotland) changed its position: not recommended on 8 Nov 2004, recommended by 7 Nov 2005, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from PBAC (Australia), TLV (Sweden), CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for solifenacin, 2 were withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
Nothing has been added since 2020; on this evidence the file is dormant.
Against its own class, solifenacin is an outlier: 43% of its decisive outcomes were positive, where molecules sharing ATC class G04B average 74%.
AWMSG (Wales) was first to assess solifenacin, on 20 Jul 2004; CONITEC (Brazil) did not open a file until 28 Jun 2019 — an unusually long tail of 14.9 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
3 of the 5 agencies here assessed solifenacin more than once, CONITEC (Brazil) most often at 4 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
Coverage is narrow: only 5 of the 18 agencies here have assessed solifenacin.
The full ledger for solifenacin reads 4 not recommended, 2 withdrawn, 2 recommended and 2 other, with 2 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONITEC (Brazil) | 12 Mar 2020 | Tratamento da disfunção de armazenamento em pacientes com bexiga neurogênica | not incorporated | source |
| HAS (France) | 20 Jan 2016 | Listing renewal (Transparency Committee) | SMR moderate | source |
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 10 May 2007 | Urinary incontinence | PTAC advice: Low · decision reached | source |
| SMC (Scotland) | 7 Nov 2005 | Urge incontinence | accepted | source |
| AWMSG (Wales) | 20 Jul 2004 | Symptomatic treatment of urge incontinence and/or increased urinary frequency and urgency as may occur in patients with … | outside AWMSG criteria | source |
7 further decisions for solifenacin, across 3 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 2 further source documents.
Related molecules
- fesoterodine — divergent outcome (not recommended vs recommended) on a shared indication
- sildenafil — same ATC class G04B — Urologicals
- tadalafil — same ATC class G04B — Urologicals
- mirabegron — same ATC class G04B — Urologicals
- apomorphine — same ATC class G04B — Urologicals
- vibegron — same ATC class G04B — Urologicals
Coverage: 12 decisions for solifenacin from 5 agencies, 2004 to 2020. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class G04B — Urologicals. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.