OBJECTIVES: In China, the prevalence of DM is as high as 10.9% of adults in 2013. Dapagliflozin(DAPA), an SGLT2i, is the newest drug introduced to China. This study aimed to systematically evaluate cost effectiveness of DAPA.

METHODS: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of DAPA was conducted. Databases of “CNKI”, “Wanfang data”, “VIP.com”, and “PubMed” were searched. Search pattern was “cost” and “Dapagliflozin” (both Chinese and English) in title/abstract. Cost effectiveness analysis of DAPA with publication of full text were included. NoteExpress 2.7 was used.

RESULTS: We retrieved 5,19,6 and 39 abstracts from CNKI, Wanfang,VIP and PubMed, respectively. Then 51 abstracts were selected to abstract analysis after deleting duplications. At last, 10 studies were included into final analysis. What we found are as follows: 1) China: as Monotherapy, DAPA is dominant comparing to Glimepiride with ICER ¥ -48585/QALY and Acarbose with ICER ¥ -33,786/QALY. 2) UK: As dual therapy, DAPA is cost effective comparing to sulfonylurea with ICER £2671/QALY and a DPP4i with ICER £6,761/QALY. DAPA is not cost effective comparing to Liraglutide as dual/triple therapy. 3) US: As dual therapy, DAPA was cost-saving vs GLP-1RAs and DPP-4is and cost-effective vs SU and TZD with ICER $19,005/QALY and $25,835/QALY, respectively. DAPA is not cost effective comparing to Canagliflozin. 4) EU: As dual therapy, DAPA is cost effective compared to SU with ICER €7944 /QALY in Denmark, €5424 in Finland, €4769 in Norway, and €6093 in Sweden. As dual therapy with insulin, DAPA is cost-effective comparing to mono insulin with ICER €5,502/QALY in Netherlands. As dual therapy, DAPA is cost-effective comparing to SU and DPP4i with ICERs €10,623 and €17,695 per QALY gained respectively in Greece.

CONCLUSIONS: DAPA is most likely to be a cost-effective option comparing to AGI/SU/TZD/DPP4i. Especially, DAPA is shown to be cost saving comparing to Glimepiride and Acarbose in China.