Treosulfan: 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
NICE (England), NYE METODER (Norway) and SMC (Scotland) recommended or restricted treosulfan, while AIFA (Italy), AWMSG (Wales) and HAS (France) did not recommend it.
The record spans 4.7 years, opening at AWMSG (Wales) on 7 Nov 2019 and running to 17 Jul 2024.
Coverage is thin among the largest agencies: 5 of the eight highest-volume bodies — PBAC (Australia), PHARMAC (New Zealand) and TLV (Sweden) among them — hold no record for treosulfan at all.
Not every gap is a refusal: for treosulfan, 1 was withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
The file is active: 3 of 9 records date from 2023 or later.
Against its own class, treosulfan is an outlier: 43% of its decisive outcomes were positive, where molecules sharing ATC class L01A average 75%.
4 distinct indication wordings are recorded for treosulfan by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE and SMC).
AWMSG (Wales) was first to assess treosulfan, on 7 Nov 2019; SMC (Scotland) did not open a file until 12 Jun 2023 — a wide spread of 3.6 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 5 years in total.
3 of the 6 agencies here assessed treosulfan more than once, HAS (France) most often at 2 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
6 of the 18 agencies in this archive hold a record for treosulfan.
The full ledger for treosulfan reads 4 not recommended, 2 recommended, 1 terminated and 1 restricted, with 1 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAS (France) | 17 Jul 2024 | Indication extension | SMR insufficient · ASMR V | source |
| NICE (England) | 30 Jan 2024 | NICE TA945 | terminated appraisal | source |
| SMC (Scotland) | 12 Jun 2023 | In combination with fludarabine is indicated as part of conditioning treatment prior to allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) in adult patients w… | accepted (restricted) | source |
| AIFA (Italy) | 7 Jan 2022 | Treosulfan in associazione con fludarabina è indicato nell’ambito di un regime di condizionamento, prima del trapianto a… | not reimbursed (class C) | source |
| NYE METODER (Norway) | 13 Dec 2020 | Kombinasjon med fludarabin til forbehandling (kondisjonering) før allogen hematopoetisk stamcelletransplantasjon (alloHS… | introduced | source |
4 further decisions for treosulfan, across 3 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 3 further source documents.
Related molecules
- busulfan — divergent outcome (not recommended vs recommended) on a shared indication
- bendamustine — same ATC class L01A — Antineoplastics
- temozolomide — same ATC class L01A — Antineoplastics
- chlormethine — same ATC class L01A — Antineoplastics
- melphalan — same ATC class L01A — Antineoplastics
- carmustine — same ATC class L01A — Antineoplastics
Coverage: 9 decisions for treosulfan from 6 agencies, 2019 to 2024. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L01A — Antineoplastics. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.