Within the study's limitations, the use of adjunctive SIS instead of standard care alone improves outcome for less cost and thereby affords a cost-effective use of Medicare-funded resources in the management of neuropathic foot ulcers among adult patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus in the US.

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of using an extensively hydrolyzed casein formula (eHCF) plus the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (eHCF plus LGG; Nutramigen à LGG V R) compared to an eHCF alone as first-line dietary management for Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) in the UK. Methods: Decision modelling was undertaken to estimate the probability of IgE-mediated cow's milk allergic infants being symptom free (i.e. not experiencing urticaria, eczema, asthma or rhinoconjunctivitis) and developing tolerance to cow's milk by 5 years. The model also estimated the cost (at 2016/ 2017 prices) of healthcare resource use funded by the UK's National Health Service (NHS) over 5 years after starting a formula, as well as the relative cost-effectiveness of the two dietary formulae. Results: At 5 years after the start of a formula the probability of being symptom free was estimated to be 0.97 and 0.76 among infants who were originally fed eHCF plus LGG and an eHCF alone, respectively. This encompassed the probability of children being asthma free at 5 years after the start of treatment, which was 0.99 and 0.91 in the eHCF plus LGG and eHCF alone groups, respectively. Additionally, the probability of acquiring tolerance to cow's milk was estimated to be 0.94 and 0.66 among infants who were originally fed eHCF plus LGG and an eHCF alone, respectively. The estimated total healthcare cost over 5 years of initially feeding infants with eHCF plus LGG was less than that of feeding infants with an eHCF alone (£4229 versus £5136 per patient). Conclusions: First-line management of newly diagnosed infants with IgE-mediated CMPA with eHCF plus LGG instead of an eHCF alone improves outcome, releases healthcare resources for alternative use, reduces the NHS cost of patient management and thereby affords a cost-effective dietetic strategy to the NHS.

Within the study's limitations, including a collagen-containing dressing into a standard care protocol compared with standard care potentially affords the NHS a cost-effective (dominant) treatment since it improves outcomes for less cost.

Within the study's limitations, use of a collagen-containing dressing plus standard care instead of standard care alone potentially affords the NHS a cost-effective (dominant) treatment for both non-healing and new DFUs, since it improves outcomes for less cost. Hence, protocols should be established which enable clinicians to effectively introduce collagen-containing dressings into care pathways and monitor response to treatment.

Despite the unwarranted variation in the provision of wound care observed in this study, the use of the EAE device resulted in some improved clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes, for the same or less cost as standard care, by 24 weeks. Clinicians managing VLUs may wish to consider the findings from this study when making treatment decisions.