Etanercept: 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), SMC (Scotland) and TLV (Sweden) recommended or restricted etanercept, while AWMSG (Wales) did not recommend it.
On the same population the two systems disagree outright: SMC (Scotland) recorded restricted for “Chronic severe plaque psoriasis in children and adolescents”, while AWMSG (Wales) recorded not recommended for “Treatment of chronic severe plaque psoriasis in children and adolescents from the age of eight years who are inadequatel…”.
The file has been open for more than a decade: 22.2 years separate the first record, 22 May 2003 at PHARMAC (New Zealand), from the most recent, 2025 at PBAC (Australia).
HAS (France) changed its position: not recommended on 22 Jun 2016, recommended by 15 Mar 2023, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from CIPM (Spain) and G-BA (Germany), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Not every gap is a refusal: for etanercept, 2 were withdrawn or terminated before a decision — an outcome set by the company rather than the assessor.
The file is active: 5 of 67 records date from 2023 or later.
The programme is broad: 20 distinct indication wordings are recorded for etanercept by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, PBAC and SMC).
13 of these 67 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
PHARMAC (New Zealand) was first to assess etanercept, on 22 May 2003; AOTMIT (Poland) did not open a file until 18 Oct 2018 — an unusually long tail of 15.4 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 15 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 23 years in total.
7 of the 8 agencies here assessed etanercept more than once, HAS (France) most often at 22 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 etanercept.
The full ledger for etanercept reads 28 recommended, 17 other, 7 not recommended and 5 restricted, with 10 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBAC (Australia) | 2025 | Severe active rheumatoid arthritisSevere psoriatic arthritisAnkylosing spondylitisSevere chronic plaque psoriasisJuvenile idiopathic arthritis | Recommended | source |
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 11 Nov 2020 | juvenile idiopathic arthritis (access widening) | funding application decided · decision reached | source |
| AOTMIT (Poland) | 18 Oct 2018 | Erelzi reimbursement recommendation | recommended | source |
| HAS (France) | 13 Dec 2017 | Listing (Transparency Committee) | ASMR V | source |
| CONITEC (Brazil) | 17 Dec 2013 | Doença Reumatoide do Pulmão e Vasculite Reumatoide | excluded from SUS | source |
62 further decisions for etanercept, across 7 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 35 further source documents.
Related molecules
- 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
- infliximab — same ATC class L04A — Immunosuppressants
Coverage: 67 decisions for etanercept from 8 agencies, 2003 to 2025. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class L04A — Immunosuppressants. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.