[Pharmacoeconomic analysis of @entity497 treatment with XXXX or @entity4581 ].

@entity1 @entity4581 @entity497 @entity23315 @entity7634
A pharmacoeconomic analysis was carried out comparing the efficacy of two treatment options for @entity497 ( @entity497 ): @entity23315 and @entity4581 . It was a retrospective analysis using a decision tree model. The efficacy of the two treatment options was estimated from a randomized, double-blind clinical trial, in which 800 mg/day oral @entity23315 for 10 days was compared to 1000 mg/day oral @entity4581 for 10 days in @entity1 with @entity497 (162 and 156 respectively). The use of resources was estimated based on the clinical trial and Spanish sources, and the unit costs from a Spanish health costs database. Costs were evaluated for the acquisition of antibiotic treatments, change of antibiotic due to therapeutic failure, hospital admissions, adverse reactions to treatment, primary care visits, tests and indirect costs (working days lost). The model was validated by a panel of Spanish clinical experts. As the clinical trial was designed to show equivalence, there were no significant differences in efficacy between the treatment options (clinical cure rate 88.3% and 88.5%, respectively), and a cost minimization analysis was performed. In the base case, the average cost of the disease per @entity1 was 308.29 @entity7634 with @entity23315 and 331.5 @entity7634 with @entity4581 (a difference of 23.21 @entity7634 ). The results were stable in the susceptibility analysis, with differences favorable to @entity23315 ranging between 5.50 and 45.45 @entity7634 . @entity23315 results in a cost savings of up to 45.45 @entity7634 per @entity497 @entity1 compared to @entity4581 .
