OBJECTIVES: Diabetes is becoming more popular in China, with prevalence of 9.7% increased to 11.6% in 2010. Type 2 diabetes accounted for at least 90% of these cases. Saxagliptin, administrated with metformin in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin, has been gaining more attention in recent years. However, there is few cost effectiveness studies of saxagliptin in China. This review aims to be the gap analysis. METHODS: We searched for Chinese literatures in CNKI. Search pattern was “saxagliptin” AND “cost or economic or expense” in abstract. Publication deadline was Mar 5th, 2016. Cost analysis (CA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA), cost-benefit analysis and disease burden study related to saxagliptin were included.  RESULTS: We retrieved 183 abstracts. After abstract and full-text analysis, 5 studies were finally included. Two are the reviews of foreign researches. Both show saxagliptin+metformin was associated with improvement in QALYs and medical expenses, compared with sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones and NPH insulin. One study uses a Cardiff Model to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin+metformin vs glimepiride+metformin. It finds saxagliptin dominates glimepiride with an ICER of ￥-43,883/QALY. One study is a CEA of saxagliptin+metformin and pioglitazone+metformin based on 96 outpatient in China and concludes that saxagliptin enjoys significantly higher effective rates in 2hPG and HbA1c (89.58% vs 60.42%, 89.58% vs 58.33%), and lower cost effectiveness ratios (￥15.57 vs ￥16.63, ￥15.57 vs ￥17.22) than pioglitazone. One study studies the direct medical cost when saxagliptin take the place of sulfonylureas based on 4628 inpatients all over China, and shows drug expenditure of over 50 million Yuan would be saved by saxagliptin annually. CONCLUSIONS: Based on available evidences, our review demonstrates that saxagliptin + metformin is a cost-effective choice. More research is needed for decision making in Type 2 diabetes second line treatment, especially local real world cost-effective study.