OBJECTIVES: A comparisons of economic methods across all NICE submissions for SGLT-2is (dapagliflozin, canagliflozin and empagliflozin) and exploring potential opportunities for optimising the appraisals of treatment classes. METHODS: The NICE website was searched for: manufacturer submissions, clarification letters, evidence review group (ERG) reports and NICE guidance relating to the SGLT-2is. Data extracted included the sources of inputs and key assumptions to the economic analysis in particular the evidence synthesis, modelling approach and key cost-effectiveness results. Comparisons were then made across appraisals in reference to the ERG and NICE comments to identify any areas of uncertainty. RESULTS: The results of the review indicated the following similarities between submissions: The lines of therapies explored; the use of United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study equations to link surrogate to clinically relevant outcomes; use of Bayesian network meta-analyses to derive clinical inputs which were all based on the same studies, outcomes and time period; the sources of cost and utility inputs were mainly derived from UKPDS studies; and the relative differences in costs and QALYS. The main differences identified included: the economic models used (pre-existing versus de Novo); treatments included in decision space; the modelling of weight gain; definitions of adverse effects included;and the total costs and QALYs between appraisals. CONCLUSIONS: The NICE appraisals for SGLT-2is were broadly similar in their overall design. This is apparent from the similar results of the appraisals in terms of relative outcomes. Given this, it is arguable whether the resources required to develop these separate submissions was essential. It would be of value for HTA organisations to develop reference cases including standard inputs for the modelling of significant conditions such as diabetes especially where there is such consistency. This would improve the comparability of analyses and reduce the costs to manufacturers and ERGs in developing and reviewing submissions respectively.