Abstract: Objective： By comparing the clinical efficacy of two different oral medication regimens in the treatment of the type 2 diabetes mellitus and carrying on the relevant cost-effectiveness analysis， to provide suggestions and basis for choosing the reasonable and economic drug treatment programs for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Methods： A retrospective survey was conducted to analyze the relevant data of 136 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated from January 2014 to January 2017 at the endocrinology department of a First-class Hospital at Grade 3 in Beijing. According to the different treatment regimens， the patients were divided into group A (77 cases) and group B (59 cases). The group A is Metformin hydrochloride and Acarbose； the group B is Metformin hydrochloride and Repaglinide. The Fasting plasma glucose (FBG)， the postprandial 2h blood glucose (2h PBG)， the glycosylated hemoglobin(HbA1c) of the patients were measured before and after treatment. The clinical efficacy and the adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Cost-effectiveness analysis was used to analyze the cost-effectiveness ratio， the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and sensitivity analysis of the two groups.Results：The cost-effectiveness ratio (C/E) of the two groups was 8.48 and 2.53 respectively，and the FBG， 2h PBG， HbA1c of the patients were a downward trend than before in varying degrees.The group B was significantly lower than that of the group A (P<0.05). From the incremental cost-effect ratio， to get a unit of effect， group A needs to spend more cost than group B.In the sensitivity analysis，if the drug costs reduce ten percent，the cost-effect ratio of the two groups was still consistent.Conclusion： The clinical efficacy of the two treatment programs are obvious，the overall effective rate of group B was higher than that of group A. The medication costs of Group B is lower than the group A. In the overall cost-effectiveness analysis，the Group B (Metformin hydrochloride + repaglinide) is more economically ideal.