Dexamethasone: 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
CIPM (Spain), SMC (Scotland) and TLV (Sweden) recommended or restricted dexamethasone, while AOTMIT (Poland) did not recommend it.
On the same population the two systems disagree outright: SMC (Scotland) recorded restricted for “for the treatment of adult patients with macular oedema following either branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) or central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).”, while PBAC (Australia) recorded not recommended for “Macular oedema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) or central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO).”.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 16.4 years separate the first record, 11 Mar 2009 at TLV (Sweden), from the most recent, 22 Aug 2025 at AOTMIT (Poland).
TLV (Sweden) changed its position: recommended on 11 Mar 2009, restricted by 10 Sep 2013.
No assessment is on file from G-BA (Germany), which is among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for dexamethasone, 1 submission was never made — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
The file is active: 5 of 34 records date from 2023 or later.
The programme is broad: 8 distinct indication wordings are recorded for dexamethasone by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, PBAC and SMC).
4 of these 34 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 dexamethasone, on 11 Mar 2009; CIPM (Spain) did not open a file until 19 Jun 2025 — an unusually long tail of 16.2 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 15 years in total.
7 of the 8 agencies here assessed dexamethasone more than once, HAS (France) most often at 11 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 dexamethasone.
The full ledger for dexamethasone reads 16 recommended, 5 not recommended, 3 other and 3 restricted, with 7 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AOTMIT (Poland) | 22 Aug 2025 | Ozurdex reimbursement recommendation | not recommended | source |
| CIPM (Spain) | 19 Jun 2025 | Indicación terapéutica autorizada: Este medicamento está indicado para el tratamiento de las afecciones oculares inflama… | financed by the SNS · art. 92 a, c | source |
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 24 Dec 2024 | treatment of macular oedema due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) | PTAC advice: High | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2015 | Diabetic macular oedema | The PBAC rejected the submission to list dexamethasone implant for the treatment of diabet… | source |
| HAS (France) | 29 Apr 2015 | Indication extension | ASMR V | source |
29 further decisions for dexamethasone, across 7 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 21 further source documents.
Related molecules
- nepafenac — same ATC class S01B — Ophthalmologicals
- inclisiran — also decided by AOTMIT in 2025Q3
- lisocabtagene maraleucel — also decided by AOTMIT in 2025Q3
- estradiol / norethisterone / relugolix — also decided by AOTMIT in 2025Q3
- evolocumab — also decided by AOTMIT in 2025Q3
- epcoritamab — also decided by AOTMIT in 2025Q3
Coverage: 34 decisions for dexamethasone from 8 agencies, 2009 to 2025. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class S01B — Ophthalmologicals. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.