Azacitidine: 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

AIFA (Italy), HIRA (South Korea) and PHARMAC (New Zealand), among others, recommended or restricted azacitidine, while CIPM (Spain) and DMC (Denmark) did not recommend it.

HAS (France) has been harder on azacitidine than on its own caseload: it refused 3 of 6 decisive submissions here (50%), against a base rate of 11% across everything it has assessed.

The file has been open for more than a decade: 17.7 years separate the first record, 11 Nov 2008 at AWMSG (Wales), from the most recent, 2026 at PBAC (Australia).

PBAC (Australia) changed its position: not recommended in 2022, recommended by 2022, after a resubmission.

No assessment is on file from TLV (Sweden) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.

Not every gap is a refusal: for azacitidine, 1 submission was never made — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.

The file is active: 5 of 25 records date from 2023 or later.

Against its own class, azacitidine is an outlier: 63% of its decisive outcomes were positive, where molecules sharing ATC class L01B average 85%.

The programme is broad: 9 distinct indication wordings are recorded for azacitidine by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).

3 of these 25 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.

AWMSG (Wales) was first to assess azacitidine, on 11 Nov 2008; NYE METODER (Norway) did not open a file until 27 Apr 2025 — an unusually long tail of 16.4 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.

The record arrives in waves: 7 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 12 years in total.

6 of the 11 agencies here assessed azacitidine more than once, HAS (France) most often at 6 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.

11 of the 18 agencies in this archive hold a record for azacitidine.

The full ledger for azacitidine reads 11 recommended, 7 not recommended, 3 deferred to NICE and 1 advice, with 3 in other categories.

Decisions on file

AgencyDateIndication as recorded OutcomeSource
PHARMAC (New Zealand)10 Sep 2025VEXAS syndromePTAC advice: Highsource
NYE METODER (Norway)27 Apr 2025Vedlikeholdsbehandling hos voksne med akutt myelogen leukemi (AML), som har oppnådd komplett remisjon eller komplett rem…decision recordedsource
AIFA (Italy)22 May 2023Onureg è indicato come terapia di mantenimento in pazienti adulti con leucemia mieloide acuta (LMA) che abbiano consegui…innovative, since expiredsource
HIRA (South Korea)6 Apr 2023급성 골수성 백혈병 성인 환자에서의 유도요법 이후 유지요법reimbursement appropriatesource
CIPM (Spain)24 Nov 2022Indicación terapéutica autorizada: Onureg está indicado para el tratamiento de mantenimiento de pacientes adultos con le…not financed by the SNS · art. 92 dsource

20 further decisions for azacitidine, across 7 agencies, are not shown here. They include the most recent record on file, 2026 from PBAC (Australia); its outcome is in the subscriber dataset. They link to 17 further source documents.

Related molecules

Coverage: 25 decisions for azacitidine from 11 agencies, 2008 to 2026. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L01B — Antineoplastics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.

Request the full decision record