Empagliflozin: 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
AIFA (Italy), CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), among others, recommended or restricted empagliflozin, while CONITEC (Brazil) did not recommend it.
HAS (France) has been harder on empagliflozin than on its own caseload: it refused 4 of 8 decisive submissions here (50%), against a base rate of 11% across everything it has assessed.
Assessment has run over 11.5 years, from 3 Jun 2014 at AWMSG (Wales) to 8 Dec 2025 at PHARMAC (New Zealand).
AOTMIT (Poland) changed its position: not recommended on 11 Jan 2022, restricted by 23 Dec 2024, after a resubmission.
Every one of the eight highest-volume agencies in this archive has a record for empagliflozin.
Not every gap is a refusal: for empagliflozin, 1 was withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
The file is active: 27 of 64 records date from 2023 or later.
The programme is broad: 17 distinct indication wordings are recorded for empagliflozin by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
11 of these 64 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 empagliflozin, on 3 Jun 2014; AIFA (Italy) did not open a file until 12 Aug 2024 — an unusually long tail of 10.2 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 11 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 12 years in total.
Restriction is doing real work here: 17 of 53 decisive outcomes narrowed empagliflozin to a subgroup rather than accepting or refusing it outright, at AOTMIT (Poland), NICE (England) and SMC (Scotland) among others.
11 of the 13 agencies here assessed empagliflozin more than once, PBAC (Australia) most often at 11 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
empagliflozin has been through 13 of the 18 agencies in this archive — among the most widely assessed molecules on file.
The full ledger for empagliflozin reads 24 recommended, 17 restricted, 12 not recommended and 4 deferred to NICE, with 7 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBAC (Australia) | 2025 | Chronic kidney disease (CKD) | Recommended | source |
| AOTMIT (Poland) | 23 Dec 2024 | Jardiance reimbursement recommendation | recommended conditionally | source |
| NICE (England) | 12 Sep 2024 | NICE TA1006 | terminated appraisal | source |
| AIFA (Italy) | 12 Aug 2024 | JARDIANCE è indicato negli adulti per il trattamento dell'insufficienza cardiaca cronica sintomatica classe NYHA II-III … | innovative, since expired | source |
| ZIN (Netherlands) | 2 Aug 2024 | Advies - vergoed empagliflozine (Jardiance®) voor de behandeling van de ziekte van Von Gierke en het syndroom van Fancon… | advice published | source |
59 further decisions for empagliflozin, across 12 agencies, are not shown here. They include the most recent record on file, 8 Dec 2025 from PHARMAC (New Zealand); its outcome is in the subscriber dataset. They link to 39 further source documents.
Related molecules
- vericiguat — divergent outcome (recommended vs not recommended) on a shared indication
- ivabradine — divergent outcome (recommended vs not recommended) on a shared indication
- dapagliflozin — same ATC class A10B — Diabetes
- semaglutide — same ATC class A10B — Diabetes
- metformin / sitagliptin — same ATC class A10B — Diabetes
- liraglutide — same ATC class A10B — Diabetes
Coverage: 64 decisions for empagliflozin from 13 agencies, 2014 to 2025. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class A10B — Diabetes. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.