Ulipristal: 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
AWMSG (Wales), HAS (France) and SMC (Scotland) recommended or restricted ulipristal, while PBAC (Australia) did not recommend it.
On the same population the two systems disagree outright: SMC (Scotland) recorded recommended for “for the intermittent treatment of moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids in adult women of reproductive age.”, while PBAC (Australia) recorded not recommended for “Moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids”.
Assessment has run over 8.9 years, from 8 Feb 2010 at SMC (Scotland) to 9 Jan 2019 at HAS (France).
TLV (Sweden) changed its position: not recommended on 7 Jul 2010, recommended by 26 Feb 2013, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from PHARMAC (New Zealand), CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for ulipristal, 1 was withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
Nothing has been added since 2019; on this evidence the file is dormant.
5 distinct indication wordings are recorded for ulipristal by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, PBAC and SMC).
2 of these 9 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
SMC (Scotland) was first to assess ulipristal, on 8 Feb 2010; HAS (France) did not open a file until 9 Jan 2019 — an unusually long tail of 8.9 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 5 years in total.
3 of the 5 agencies here assessed ulipristal more than once, SMC (Scotland) most often at 3 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
Coverage is narrow: only 5 of the 18 agencies here have assessed ulipristal.
The full ledger for ulipristal reads 5 recommended, 2 not recommended, 1 other and 1 withdrawn.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAS (France) | 9 Jan 2019 | Listing (Transparency Committee) | SMR substantial · ASMR V | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2017 | Ulipristal is indicated for intermittent treatment of moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids in adult women of reproductive age | Resubmission to request an Authority Required (STREAMLINED) listing for the treatment of m… | source |
| AWMSG (Wales) | 12 Apr 2016 | Intermittent treatment of moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids in adult women who have not reached menopause … | recommended (full) | source |
| SMC (Scotland) | 11 Feb 2013 | For pre-operative treatment of moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids in adult women of reproductive age. | withdrawn | source |
| TLV (Sweden) | 7 Jul 2010 | Vi beslutar att Ellaone mot graviditet inte ska ingå i högkostnadsskyddet | rejection or exclusion | source |
4 further decisions for ulipristal, across 3 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 3 further source documents.
Related molecules
- mifepristone — same ATC class G03X — Sex hormones and modulators
- teriparatide — also decided by HAS in 2019Q1
- bimatoprost — also decided by HAS in 2019Q1
- glibenclamide — also decided by HAS in 2019Q1
- tocilizumab — also decided by HAS in 2019Q1
- rosuvastatin — also decided by HAS in 2019Q1
Coverage: 9 decisions for ulipristal from 5 agencies, 2010 to 2019. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class G03X — Sex hormones and modulators. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.