Mirabegron: 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 PHARMAC (New Zealand), among others, recommended or restricted mirabegron, while CONITEC (Brazil) did not recommend it.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 12.9 years separate the first record, 8 Nov 2012 at AWMSG (Wales), from the most recent, 1 Oct 2025 at NICE (England).
HAS (France) changed its position: recommended on 23 Jul 2014, not recommended by 11 Oct 2017.
No assessment is on file from PBAC (Australia) and CIPM (Spain), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for mirabegron, 2 were withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
4 distinct indication wordings are recorded for mirabegron by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE and SMC).
AWMSG (Wales) was first to assess mirabegron, on 8 Nov 2012; PHARMAC (New Zealand) did not open a file until 23 Nov 2021 — an unusually long tail of 9 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 9 years in total.
Restriction is doing real work here: 3 of 10 decisive outcomes narrowed mirabegron to a subgroup rather than accepting or refusing it outright, at AOTMIT (Poland), NICE (England) and TLV (Sweden).
4 of the 10 agencies here assessed mirabegron more than once, CONITEC (Brazil) most often at 3 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
10 of the 18 agencies in this archive hold a record for mirabegron.
The full ledger for mirabegron reads 4 recommended, 3 restricted, 3 not recommended and 1 terminated, with 4 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 23 Nov 2021 | Overactive bladder, 2nd line | PTAC advice: High | source |
| CONITEC (Brazil) | 12 Mar 2020 | Tratamento da disfunção de armazenamento em pacientes com bexiga neurogênica | not incorporated | source |
| AOTMIT (Poland) | 23 Nov 2018 | Betmiga reimbursement recommendation | recommended conditionally | source |
| HAS (France) | 11 Oct 2017 | Re-assessment of SMR | SMR insufficient | source |
| G-BA (Germany) | 20 Nov 2014 | Betmiga — benefit assessment §35a | added benefit: not proven | source |
10 further decisions for mirabegron, across 8 agencies, are not shown here. They include the most recent record on file, 1 Oct 2025 from NICE (England); its outcome is in the subscriber dataset. They link to 7 further source documents.
Related molecules
- sildenafil — same ATC class G04B — Urologicals
- tadalafil — same ATC class G04B — Urologicals
- apomorphine — same ATC class G04B — Urologicals
- solifenacin — same ATC class G04B — Urologicals
- vibegron — same ATC class G04B — Urologicals
- oxybutynin — same ATC class G04B — Urologicals
Coverage: 15 decisions for mirabegron from 10 agencies, 2012 to 2025. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class G04B — Urologicals. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.