April 2025 decisions news release
The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), which advises on newly licensed medicines for use by NHSScotland, has today (Monday, April 7) published advice on seven medicines.
Alectinib (Alecensa®) was accepted to treat adults with a rare type of lung cancer, known as ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who are at high risk of recurrence following surgery.
Elafibranor (Iqirvo®) was accepted to treat adults with a rare type of liver disease called primary biliary cholangitis (PBC).
Bimekizumab (Bimzelx®) was accepted for the treatment of adults with hidradenitis suppurativa, a long-term skin condition that causes abscesses and scarring on the skin.
Dapagliflozin (Forxiga®) was accepted for the treatment of adults with chronic kidney disease.
Futibatinib (Lytgobi®) was accepted for the treatment of adults with advanced cholangiocarcinoma, a cancer of the bile ducts, in patients with a specific gene mutation.
Eplontersen (Wainzua®) was accepted for the treatment of adults with a rare hereditary nerve condition called transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis (ATTRv amyloidosis).
Tebentafusp (Kimmtrak®) was not recommended for the treatment of adults with uveal melanoma, where the cancer has spread to other parts of the body or cannot be removed by surgery. Uveal melanoma is a rare type of cancer of the eye.
SMC Chair Dr Scott Muir said: “The committee is pleased to be able to accept these new medicines for use by NHSScotland.
“Alectinib will provide a targeted treatment for people with ALK-positive NSCLC who have had surgery to remove their lung cancer but are at high risk of it coming back. It is an oral treatment which is often preferred by patients.
“Elafibranor provides a treatment option for the rare liver condition, PBC, where there are few available.
“Bimekizumab will provide another treatment option for the impactful skin condition, hidradenitis suppurativa, that may help patients control their symptoms.
“The committee was unable to accept tebentafusp for treating patients with uveal melanoma. The company’s evidence around the cost-effectiveness of the treatment compared with currently available treatments was too uncertain. We would welcome a resubmission from the company addressing the issues we have raised.”