Linagliptin: 6 agencies, 2012–2019
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
No agency in this archive has refused linagliptin: all 6 decisive outcomes across 4 agencies were positive or positive with restrictions.
Assessment has run over 7.1 years, from 16 Jan 2012 at SMC (Scotland) to 21 Feb 2019 at PHARMAC (New Zealand).
SMC (Scotland) changed its position: restricted on 16 Jan 2012, recommended by 11 May 2015.
No assessment is on file from HAS (France) and CIPM (Spain), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
Nothing has been added since 2019; on this evidence the file is dormant.
Against its own class, linagliptin is an outlier: 100% of its decisive outcomes were positive, where molecules sharing ATC class A10B average 77%.
4 distinct indication wordings are recorded for linagliptin 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 linagliptin, on 16 Jan 2012; PHARMAC (New Zealand) did not open a file until 21 Feb 2019 — a wide spread of 7.1 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
Restriction is doing real work here: 2 of 6 decisive outcomes narrowed linagliptin to a subgroup rather than accepting or refusing it outright, at SMC (Scotland) and TLV (Sweden).
3 of the 6 agencies here assessed linagliptin more than once, PBAC (Australia) 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 linagliptin.
The full ledger for linagliptin reads 4 recommended, 2 restricted, 2 no benefit and 1 other.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 21 Feb 2019 | Diabetes - type 2 | PTAC advice: No Formal Recommendation · decision reached | source |
| PBAC (Australia) | 2016 | Type 2 diabetes mellitus | The PBAC recommended an Authority Required (Streamlined) listing of linagliptin for treatm… | source |
| TLV (Sweden) | 26 Nov 2014 | Trajenta ingår i högkostnadsskyddet med begränsning | restricted subsidy | source |
| AWMSG (Wales) | 22 May 2013 | Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus to improve glycaemic control in adults: as monotherapy in patients inadequately co… | recommended (full) | source |
| SMC (Scotland) | 16 Jan 2012 | For the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus to improve glycaemic control in adults. | accepted (restricted) | source |
4 further decisions for linagliptin, across 3 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 3 further source documents.
Related molecules
- tirzepatide — divergent outcome (recommended vs not recommended) on a shared indication
- exenatide — divergent outcome (recommended vs not recommended) on a shared indication
- sitagliptin — divergent outcome (recommended vs other) on a shared indication
- insulin glargine / lixisenatide — divergent outcome (recommended vs not recommended) on a shared indication
- empagliflozin — same ATC class A10B — Diabetes
- dapagliflozin — same ATC class A10B — Diabetes
Coverage: 9 decisions for linagliptin from 6 agencies, 2012 to 2019. Data to 7 Sep 2026. ATC class A10B — Diabetes. How this page is produced. Compiled by Altima Partners; queries: sales@altimapartners.co.uk.