Sorafenib: 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), NICE (England) and PBAC (Australia), among others, recommended or restricted sorafenib, while PHARMAC (New Zealand) did not recommend it.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 13.8 years separate the first record, 16 May 2006 at TLV (Sweden), from the most recent, 27 Feb 2020 at AOTMIT (Poland).
SMC (Scotland) changed its position: recommended on 13 Jul 2015, restricted by 11 Jan 2016.
No assessment is on file from CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Nothing has been added since 2020; on this evidence the file is dormant.
7 distinct indication wordings are recorded for sorafenib by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
3 of these 18 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
TLV (Sweden) was first to assess sorafenib, on 16 May 2006; AOTMIT (Poland) did not open a file until 27 Feb 2020 — an unusually long tail of 13.8 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 5 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 10 years in total.
Restriction is doing real work here: 3 of 11 decisive outcomes narrowed sorafenib to a subgroup rather than accepting or refusing it outright, at AOTMIT (Poland), NICE (England) and SMC (Scotland).
6 of the 8 agencies here assessed sorafenib 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 sorafenib.
The full ledger for sorafenib reads 5 recommended, 3 restricted, 3 not recommended and 3 other, with 4 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AOTMIT (Poland) | 27 Feb 2020 | Nexavar reimbursement recommendation | recommended conditionally | source |
| HAS (France) | 23 Oct 2019 | Listing renewal (Transparency Committee) | SMR substantial | source |
| NICE (England) | 6 Sep 2017 | NICE TA474 | recommended (optimised) | source |
| AWMSG (Wales) | 12 Apr 2016 | Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma | superseded (full) | source |
| SMC (Scotland) | 11 Jan 2016 | For the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. | accepted (restricted) | source |
13 further decisions for sorafenib, across 6 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 7 further source documents.
Related molecules
- cabozantinib — divergent outcome (recommended vs not recommended) on a shared indication
- ibrutinib — same ATC class L01E — Antineoplastics
- zanubrutinib — same ATC class L01E — Antineoplastics
- selpercatinib — same ATC class L01E — Antineoplastics
- acalabrutinib — same ATC class L01E — Antineoplastics
- ribociclib — same ATC class L01E — Antineoplastics
Coverage: 18 decisions for sorafenib from 8 agencies, 2006 to 2020. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L01E — Antineoplastics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.