Cost-effectiveness of Fufang Huangbai fluid versus Suprasorb® A + Ag antimicrobial calcium alginate wound dressing for treating IWGDF/IDSA grade 1–2 diabetic foot ulcers

<sec><strong>Introduction</strong> Diabetic foot infections impose a substantial economic burden globally, particularly in developing countries such as China. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Fufang Huangbai fluid (FHF) compared with Suprasorb® A + Ag antimicrobial calcium alginate wound dressing (SAAAD) for treating grade 1–2 diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) (graded according to the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot/the Infectious Diseases Society of America [IWGDF/IDSA]). </sec><sec><strong>Methods</strong> A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using 2 weeks of randomized controlled trial data (<i>n</i> = 176) using Chinese healthcare system costs and service fees. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) served as the primary health outcome, and costs included drug expenses and dressing services. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. </sec><sec><strong>Results</strong> Compared with the SAAAD group, the FHF group saved CNY 300.64 and gained an incremental 0.0013 QALYs, making it a dominant approach with a net monetary benefit of CNY 325.86. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the unit price of SAAAD had the greatest impact on the results. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of CNY 20 000 per QALY, the probability of FHF being cost-effective was 70.65%. </sec><sec><strong>Conclusion</strong> FHF is economically advantageous compared with SAAAD for the treatment of DFUs of IWGDF/IDSA grade 1–2. </sec>