Decision to update the access criteria for infliximab, etanercept, secukinumab, and rituximab

Medicines Decision

What we’re doing

We're pleased to announce that, from 1 March 2026, we are making changes to the access criteria (Special Authority and Hospital Restrictions) for infliximab, etanercept, secukinumab, and rituximab. These changes simplify and align the criteria where possible. Most changes are to the wording of the criteria; the intent of the criteria remains the same. However, in some instances, we have made more substantive changes by:

  • increasing approval durations,
  • widening the number of prescribers who can make funding applications and,
  • in some cases, allowing approvals to be valid without further renewal unless notified.

Any changes to the original proposal?

This decision was subject to a consultation letter dated 6 November 2025. The following changes have been made as a result of this consultation. Details on why we made these changes can be found below in the ‘our response to what you told us’ section:

Treatments for plaque psoriasis

We received feedback that a reduction in a patient’s Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 75% is a good treatment target for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. However, this may not be achieved within the 4-month initial funding approval period for etanercept, infliximab and secukinumab for plaque psoriasis. We have amended the proposal to extend the initial funding approval for etanercept, infliximab and secukinumab for plaque psoriasis to 6 months.

Steroid responsive nephrotic syndrome and steroid resistant nephrotic syndrome

We had proposed that approvals for steroid dependent nephrotic syndrome (SDNS) or frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome (FRNS) and steroid resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS) be extended from their current 8-week approval to valid without further renewal unless notified. However, we have decided to not progress this. Pharmac staff plan to seek updated clinical advice on this issue before progressing this further. More information is available below in the 'our response to what you told us' section.

Membranous nephropathy

Initially we had proposed that each treatment cycle be at least 6 weeks apart. However, we received consultation feedback that this inclusion is unnecessary. As such we have amended the proposal and removed the requirement that each treatment cycle be at least 6 weeks apart.

Changes in terminology used

We received feedback highlighting that the proposed changes for the funding criteria for etanercept for psoriatic arthritis didn’t reflect current terminology. Following this feedback, we have amended the relevant funding criteria.

Who we think will be most interested

  • People currently using infliximab, etanercept, secukinumab, and rituximab and their family, whānau, and caregivers
  • Consumer support groups for people living with conditions that are treated with infliximab, etanercept, secukinumab, and rituximab
  • Clinicians and multidisciplinary teams who treat people with conditions that are treated with infliximab, etanercept, secukinumab, and rituximab. This includes:
    • dermatologists,
    • gastroenterologists,
    • haematologists,
    • nephrologists/renal physicians,
    • neurologists,
    • nurse specialists
    • ophthalmologists,
    • rheumatologists,
    • specialist general practitioners,
    • nurse specialists
  • Health New Zealand | Te Whatu Ora
  • Community and Hospital pharmacies

Detail about this decision

The following changes will occur in Section B and Part II of Section H of the Pharmaceutical Schedule from 1 March 2026.

Where applicable, clinical references and notes have been removed from the funding criteria and the language has been aligned. The primary changes to the access criteria for each agent are as follows:

Etanercept

In summary, from 1 March 2026:

Ankylosing spondylitis - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Renewal applications are valid for a 2-year period (was 6 months).

Arthritis - polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Renewal applications are valid for a 2-year period (was 6 months).

Arthritis - oligoarticular course juvenile idiopathic - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Renewal applications are valid for a 2-year period (was 6 months).

Arthritis - psoriatic - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Renewal applications are valid for a 2-year period (was 6 months).

Arthritis - rheumatoid - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding.

Plaque psoriasis - severe chronic - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Renewal applications are valid for a 2-year period (was 6 months).

Pyoderma gangrenosum - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Applications are valid without further renewal unless notified (was 4 months).

Still disease - adult onset (AOSD) - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Applications are valid without further renewal unless notified (was 6 months).

Undifferentiated spondyloarthritis - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Renewal applications are valid for a 2-year period (was 6 months).

These changes have been made to both Section B and Section H of the Pharmaceutical Schedule.

Infliximab

In summary, from 1 March 2026:

Ankylosing spondylitis – ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Initial applications are valid for a 6-month period (was 3 months). Renewal applications are valid for a 2-year period (was 6 months).

Arthritis - psoriatic - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Initial applications are valid for a 6-month period (was 4 months). Renewal applications are valid for a 2-year period (currently 6 months).

Arthritis - rheumatoid - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Initial applications are valid for a 6-month period (was 4 months). Renewal applications are valid for a 2-year period (was 6 months).

Behçet’s disease – Applications are valid without further renewal unless notified (was 4 months).

Ocular inflammation - severe - Renewal applications are valid for a 2-year period (was 12 months).

Ocular inflammation - chronic - Renewal applications are valid for a 2-year period (was 12 months).

Plaque psoriasis - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Initial applications are valid for a 6-month period (was 4 months). This was amended following consultation feedback. Renewal applications are valid for a 2-year period (was 6 months).  

Pyoderma gangrenosum - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Applications are valid without further renewal unless notified (was 4 months).

These changes have been made to both Section B and Section H of the Pharmaceutical Schedule.

Rituximab

In summary, from 1 March 2026:

Riximyo brand rituximab changes

Anti-NMDA receptor autoimmune encephalitis - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Applications are valid without further renewal unless notified (was 6 months).

Membranous nephropathy - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Applications are valid without further renewal unless notified (was 6 weeks).

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Applications are valid without further renewal unless notified (was 6 months).

Severe refractory myasthenia gravis - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding.

Steroid dependent nephrotic syndrome (SDNS) or frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome (FRNS) - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding.

Steroid resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS) - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding.

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) - Applications are valid without further renewal unless notified (was 8 weeks).

Treatment refractory systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) - Applications are valid without further renewal unless notified (was 7 months).

Severe antisynthetase syndrome - Applications are valid without further renewal unless notified (was12 months).

Severe chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIPD) - Applications are valid without further renewal unless notified (was 6 months).

Mabthera brand rituximab changes

Arthritis - rheumatoid - TNF inhibitors contraindicated - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding.

Arthritis - rheumatoid – prior TNF inhibitor use - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding.

Arthritis - rheumatoid - Renewal - retreatment for people who experienced a partial response to rituximab - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Renewal applications are valid for a 12-month period (was 4 months).

Arthritis - rheumatoid - Renewal - re-treatment for people whose condition responds to rituximab - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding. Renewal applications are valid for a 12-month period (was 4 months).

These changes have been made to both Section B and Section H of the Pharmaceutical Schedule.

Secukinumab

In summary from 1 March 2026:

Ankylosing spondylitis - second line - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding.

Arthritis - psoriatic - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding.

Plaque psoriasis - severe chronic - both first line and second line - ‘Any relevant practitioner’ can apply for funding.

The eligibility criteria for plaque psoriasis for secukinumab existed as two separate initial criteria – one for access as a first line treatment and one for access as a second line treatment. These have been simplified and replaced by one set of overarching initial criteria for secukinumab for plaque psoriasis criteria that allows access for both first line and second line treatment.

These changes have been made to both Section B and Section H of the Pharmaceutical Schedule.

Our response to what you told us

Thank you to those who took the time to give feedback. A summary of the main themes raised, and our responses are below.

Theme

Pharmac comment

General feedback

Supportive of the proposal

We received feedback indicating strong support for the proposal indicating that the proposal would:

  • Improve timely access to life-changing treatments for patients with long-term conditions
  • Allow clinicians to focus on patient care
  • Reduce unnecessary administrative burden for health professionals
  • Reduce costs and delays associated with specialist referral
  • Improve equity of access, particularly for patients in rural and underserved communities, and reduce barriers caused by limited specialist availability
  • Be highly beneficial for some patients
  • Better reflect current clinical practice

Thank you for this feedback. We are pleased that this decision will have a positive impact for patients, clinicians and others involved in the care of people with these conditions. 

Requests for further changes

Requests to align the duration of initial and renewal approvals across all advanced therapies for immune mediated disease including vedolizumab, ustekinumab and Humira brand adalimumab.

Also received requests to make further changes to those proposed for secukinumab and Mabthera brand rituximab. This involved further aligning the access criteria of these medicines, for example extending the duration of initial and renewal approvals. 

Thank you for this feedback. This proposal focused on changes to etanercept, infliximab, rituximab and secukinumab. It also focused on simplifying and aligning the criteria while reducing administrative burden where possible.

We appreciate there is interest is making similar changes for other biologic medicines.  However, changes that may result in widened access to, or increased usage of a medicine are out of scope of this proposal. These would need to be assessed before any changes are proposed.

We will consider this feedback in our future work for these medicines.

Rheumatology indications

Supportive of the proposal to change terminology from swollen joints to ‘active disease’, however the respondent noted that the proposed changes for the funding criteria for etanercept for psoriatic arthritis didn’t reflect this updated terminology. 

Thank you for this feedback reflecting a move to updated terminology. The term ’swollen joints’ will be replaced by the term ‘active joint’ in the etanercept for psoriatic arthritis funding criteria

We received several requests for widening of access to these medicines including:

  • Reducing the number of active joints required for approval for a rituximab approval for rheumatoid arthritis.
  • The removal of C-reactive protein (CRP) thresholds in the funding criteria for rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis.
  • Lowering the glucocorticosteroid requirement before access to funded treatment can be considered for Stills disease.
  • Standardising infliximab dosing to up to 5 mg/kg every 6–8 weeks for all rheumatology indications.
  •  Access to rituximab as a maintenance therapy for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Thank you for this feedback.  We acknowledge there may be an unmet health need where increased access to biologic medicine could be beneficial. 

Changes to the intent of funding criteria are out of scope of this proposal. However, we will continue to engage with clinicians and seek expert advice on these points.

We have not received a funding application for the use of rituximab as maintenance therapy in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We would welcome a funding application for this treatment and indication.

Make a funding application

Request to review the funding criteria for psoriatic arthritis noting that they are not in line with clinical practice.

Thank you for this feedback. We have received a funding application for the removal of the CRP requirements in the applications for adalimumab, etanercept and secukinumab for psoriatic arthritis. This application has been ranked on our Options for Investment list, which means we would like to fund it when we have available budget.

Application Tracker | Adalimumab, etanercept and secukinumab for psoriatic arthritis, remove SA criteria relating to CRP(external link)

Do not support any relevant practitioner prescriber type for this class of medicines. A request was made to restrict funded access to rheumatologists or on the recommendation of a rheumatologist due to the complexity of the conditions and prescribing.

We consider that allowing any relevant practitioner to apply for access criteria will likely reduce administration burden.

We note that prescribers are required to comply with their regulatory body’s standards for clinical practice. For example, the Medical Council of New Zealand requires medical practitioners to only prescribe medicines when they have adequately assessed the patient’s condition and/ or have adequate knowledge of the patient’s condition.

Dermatology indications

Requested that the initial approval for etanercept for pyoderma gangrenosum be extended to 6 months (from 4 months).

We have proposed that applications for etanercept for pyoderma gangrenosum would be valid without further renewal. This means that, once a valid approval had been issued, this would be valid without expiry – the patient will have access to funded etanercept for pyoderma gangrenosum that is valid without further renewal (unless notified) and no further funding applications will be necessary. 

Considered that a reduction in a patients PASI of 75% is a good treatment target for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. However, noted that this may not be achieved within the 4-month initial funding approval period for etanercept, infliximab and secukinumab for plaque psoriasis. Suggested that a 6-month initial approval may be more appropriate. Noted that this would also support dermatology services.

We appreciate this feedback; we have amended the initial approval period for these treatments to 6-months for plaque psoriasis based on this feedback and the advice we have received.

Supportive of the proposal to allow any relevant practitioner prescriber to apply for funding for this class of medicines. However, questioned whether this would result in increased expenditure which may be better used to funding an alternative treatment for psoriasis such as anti IL-23.

Thank you for the feedback regarding the move to allow any relevant practitioner to apply for funded access to these medicines.

We consider that allowing any relevant practitioner to apply for access criteria will reduce administrative burden.

While we expect this easier access within the already funded group to result in a small amount of increased usage. We do not expect this increased usage to be comparable to the increased usage associated with funding an anti IL-23 biologic. 

We have received funding applications for access to risankizumab and guselkumab for psoriasis.  More information about the status of these applications is available on our website.

Risankizumab - Moderate to severe plaque psoriasis - first line biologic(external link)

Risankizumab - Moderate to severe plaque psoriasis - second line biologic(external link)

Guselkumab - Plaque psoriasis, moderate to severe, 1st line biologic(external link)

Guselkumab - Plaque psoriasis, moderate to severe, 2nd line biologic(external link)

Noted that when using patient reported outcomes such as DLQI in severe skin disease, there may be a disconnect between clinical improvement, as measured by the PASI score, and improvement in the patient reported outcome, as measured by the DLQI, with the clinical improvement being seen before the patient reported improvement.

Thank you for this feedback. We note that the renewal funding criteria for plaque psoriasis, when both measures are included, requires the improvement score to be met in either the clinical improvement measure using the PASI score, or the patient reported outcome using the DLQI score. It does not have to be met in both measures.

If a person's clinical circumstances meet the spirit or intent of a Special Authority criteria but not the exact technical requirement, the relevant prescriber can request Pharmac to waive the criteria.

Gastroenterology feedback

Noted that in some regions patients in the private sector are having difficulty accessing intravenous infusions for IBD. Ustekinumab, vedolizumab and infliximab are only available on the hospital medicines list (HML), therefore these infusions cannot be given in the private sector, where there are suitable facilities to provide these. Noted the pressure that this places on hospital infusion services.

Requests for access to intravenous medicines to be reviewed noting that some private hospitals are having difficulty accessing these medicines.

We appreciate this feedback and acknowledge the issues and pressures that are faced by hospital infusion services. We also acknowledge the recent changes to consider access to newly funded cancer treatments in private hospitals which allows some cancer treatments to be publicly funded in private facilities. These changes relate to the Government’s policy which has provided transitional access to new funded cancer medicines for patients receiving treatment in private facilities (Ministry of Health)(external link).

Private clinics can access funded community medicines. However, ustekinumab, vedolizumab and infliximab are infusions and not considered to be community medicines. Therefore, they are listed on the Hospital Medicines List (HML).  We acknowledge the points raised in the feedback and will continue to work with private facilities, Health NZ and clinicians to better understand the issues faced and consider what options may be available to address the issues raised.

Requested a review of the funding restrictions for medicines used for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. They considered that some criteria may be out of line with clinical guidelines.

We appreciate this feedback. Changes to the intent of funding criteria are out of scope of this proposal. However, we will continue to engage with clinicians and seek expert advice on these points.

We have received a funding application for infliximab for use in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis for widening access (dose escalation).

Application Tracker | Infliximab for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis(external link)

This application has been ranked on our Options for Investment list, which means we would like to fund it when we have available budget.

Haematology feedback

Requested widened access to rituximab for pre-emptive use in TTP management when monitored ADAMTS13 levels are dropping and first line use for TTP. 

We appreciate this feedback. We have not received a funding application for rituximab for use in this situation. Pharmac staff plan to seek further information on rituximab for TTP management to determine the best way to consider funding for this group. 

Nephrology feedback

Requested clarification whether rituximab use be extended to adult patients with steroid responsive and steroid resistant nephrotic syndrome (SDNS and SRNS).

Thank you for raising the issue of the lack of clarity around the intent of the funding criteria.

We had proposed that approvals for steroid dependent nephrotic syndrome (SDNS) or frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome (FRNS) and steroid resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS) be extended from their current 8-week approval to valid without further renewal unless notified.  We note that our most recent clinical advice on the use of rituximab for SDNS and SRNS (PTAC Record August 2015 [PDF, 378 KB]) recommends that “The Committee noted that access for rituximab in nephrotic syndrome (NS) should be restricted to children. The Committee considered there was insufficient evidence to support the use of rituximab in adult with NS.” (13.16).

This consultation feedback has prompted questions on whether this approach remains appropriate. Pharmac staff plan to seek updated clinical advice on this issue before making any changes to the approval duration. Because of this, we are no longer progressing the proposal to allow lifetime approval for rituximab for steroid responsive and steroid resistant nephrotic syndrome at this time. Approvals will remain at their current duration.

Several suggestions relating to the proposed funding criteria for rituximab for membranous nephropathy. Raised questions around the use of treatment in initial and subsequent cycles of rituximab use.

Thank you for this feedback. We note that we have proposed to move the funding criteria for rituximab for membranous nephropathy to be valid without further renewal (i.e. an approval would result in no further renewal applications being needed). The criteria therefore need to outline the conditions of rituximab use for both the initial use and subsequent uses.

All criteria would be required to be agreed with and met before initial funding could be approved to ensure the patient is part of the group that has been identified for funding.

This feedback highlighted that the proposed requirement that each treatment cycle be at least 6 weeks apart is unnecessary. As such we have removed this criterion.

If you have any questions about this decision, you can email us at enquiry@pharmac.govt.nz; or call our toll free number (9 am to 5 pm, Monday to Friday) on 0800 660 050