Ocrelizumab: 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), G-BA (Germany) and HAS (France), among others, recommended or restricted ocrelizumab, while CONITEC (Brazil) did not recommend it.
Assessment has run over 8 years, from 2017 at PBAC (Australia) to 2025 at PBAC (Australia).
DMC (Denmark) changed its position: not recommended on 30 May 2018, recommended by 15 Dec 2021, after a resubmission.
No assessment is on file from TLV (Sweden) and CIPM (Spain), each among the eight highest-volume agencies here.
The file is active: 5 of 28 records date from 2023 or later.
The programme is broad: 8 distinct indication wordings are recorded for ocrelizumab by the agencies that label one in English (AWMSG, NICE, PBAC and SMC).
4 of these 28 records carry a year of decision but no day, so any interval quoted here is approximate to within a year.
PBAC (Australia) was first to assess ocrelizumab, in 2017; HIRA (South Korea) did not open a file until 7 Nov 2024 — a wide spread of 7.3 years between the earliest and latest system to look at it.
The record arrives in waves: 6 separate years each carry two or more decisions, spread across 8 years in total.
Restriction is doing real work here: 6 of 24 decisive outcomes narrowed ocrelizumab to a subgroup rather than accepting or refusing it outright, at AOTMIT (Poland), HIRA (South Korea) and NICE (England) among others.
8 of the 12 agencies here assessed ocrelizumab more than once, HAS (France) most often at 4 entries — repeat review is the norm for this molecule rather than the exception.
ocrelizumab has been through 12 of the 18 agencies in this archive — among the most widely assessed molecules on file.
The full ledger for ocrelizumab reads 13 recommended, 6 restricted, 5 not recommended and 2 other, with 2 in other categories.
Decisions on file
| Agency | Date | Indication as recorded | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PBAC (Australia) | 2025 | Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) | Recommended | source |
| HAS (France) | 14 May 2025 | Listing (Transparency Committee) | SMR substantial · ASMR V | source |
| HIRA (South Korea) | 7 Nov 2024 | 재발형 다발성 경화증 (RMS) | reimbursable only at the evaluated price | source |
| PHARMAC (New Zealand) | 11 Feb 2022 | Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis | PTAC advice: No Formal Recommendation · decision reached | source |
| DMC (Denmark) | 30 May 2018 | Primær progressiv multipel sklerose | Ikke anbefalet | source |
23 further decisions for ocrelizumab, across 11 agencies, are not shown here. They link to 16 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: 28 decisions for ocrelizumab from 12 agencies, 2017 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.