Vismodegib: 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
G-BA (Germany), HAS (France) and PBAC (Australia) recommended or restricted vismodegib, while NICE (England), PHARMAC (New Zealand) and TLV (Sweden) did not recommend it.
On the same population the two systems disagree outright: PBAC (Australia) recorded recommended for “Basal cell carcinoma (BCC)”, while NICE (England) recorded not recommended in TA489.
Assessment has run over 6.3 years, from 7 Oct 2013 at SMC (Scotland) to 27 Feb 2020 at PHARMAC (New Zealand).
No assessment is on file from CIPM (Spain), which is among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for vismodegib, 1 submission was never made — 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, vismodegib is an outlier: 44% of its decisive outcomes were positive, where molecules sharing ATC class L01X average 75%.
5 distinct indication wordings are recorded for vismodegib by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
3 of these 12 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 vismodegib, on 7 Oct 2013; NICE (England) did not open a file until 22 Nov 2017 — a wide spread of 4.1 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 3 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 6 years in total.
3 of the 8 agencies here assessed vismodegib more than once, PBAC (Australia) most often at 3 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 vismodegib.
The full ledger for vismodegib reads 5 not recommended, 4 recommended, 1 superseded and 1 other, with 1 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 27 Feb 2020 | Basal cell carcinoma, locally advanced or metatastic | PTAC advice: Decline | source |
| NICE (England) | 22 Nov 2017 | NICE TA489 | not recommended | source |
| AWMSG (Wales) | 11 Sep 2017 | Treatment of adult patients with symptomatic metastatic basal cell carcinoma, or locally advanced basal cell carcinoma i… | superseded (directed) | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2017 | Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) | The PBAC recommended, out of session, the change in listing for both initial and continuin… | source |
| G-BA (Germany) | 4 Aug 2016 | Erivedge — benefit assessment §35a | added benefit: minor (hint) | source |
7 further decisions for vismodegib, across 5 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 5 further source documents.
Related molecules
- atezolizumab — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- olaparib — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- durvalumab — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- aflibercept — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- osimertinib — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
- venetoclax — same ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics
Coverage: 12 decisions for vismodegib from 8 agencies, 2013 to 2020. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L01X — Antineoplastics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.