Dimethyl: 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
HIRA (South Korea), NICE (England) and PBAC (Australia), among others, recommended or restricted dimethyl, while AOTMIT (Poland) did not recommend it.
Where dimethyl met resistance it was usually narrowed rather than refused: 4 of 11 decisive outcomes were recommendations with restrictions, against 1 outright refusal.
Assessment has run over 8.3 years, from 26 Jun 2013 at AWMSG (Wales) to 8 Oct 2021 at HIRA (South Korea).
NICE (England) changed its position: restricted on 27 Aug 2014, recommended by 6 Sep 2017.
No assessment is on file from HAS (France), CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Nothing has been added since 2021; on this evidence the file is dormant.
4 distinct indication wordings are recorded for dimethyl by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
2 of these 13 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 dimethyl, on 26 Jun 2013; HIRA (South Korea) did not open a file until 8 Oct 2021 — an unusually long tail of 8.3 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 7 years in total.
Restriction is doing real work here: 4 of 11 decisive outcomes narrowed dimethyl to a subgroup rather than accepting or refusing it outright, at HIRA (South Korea), NICE (England) and SMC (Scotland) among others.
5 of the 8 agencies here assessed dimethyl more than once, PBAC (Australia) most often at 2 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 dimethyl.
The full ledger for dimethyl reads 6 recommended, 4 restricted, 2 deferred to NICE and 1 not recommended.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIRA (South Korea) | 8 Oct 2021 | 전신치료 대상 성인 환자의 중등도 ~ 중증 판상 건선 치료 | reimbursable only at the evaluated price | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2019 | Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) | The PBAC recommended amending the existing listings of dimethyl fumarate to Authority Requ… | source |
| AOTMIT (Poland) | 2 Apr 2019 | Skilarence reimbursement recommendation | not recommended | source |
| SMC (Scotland) | 9 Apr 2018 | Treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults in need of systemic medicinal therapy. | accepted (restricted) | source |
| TLV (Sweden) | 30 Nov 2017 | Skilarence ingår i högkostnadsskyddet med begränsning | restricted subsidy | source |
8 further decisions for dimethyl, across 6 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 7 further source documents.
Related molecules
- teriflunomide — divergent outcome (recommended vs restricted) on a shared indication
- adalimumab — same ATC class L04A — Immunosuppressants
- upadacitinib — same ATC class L04A — Immunosuppressants
- secukinumab — same ATC class L04A — Immunosuppressants
- tocilizumab — same ATC class L04A — Immunosuppressants
- ustekinumab — same ATC class L04A — Immunosuppressants
Coverage: 13 decisions for dimethyl from 8 agencies, 2013 to 2021. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L04A — Immunosuppressants. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.