In a cost-effectiveness analysis, the treatments being compared are:

In a cost-effectiveness analysis, the treatments being compared are not necessarily therapeutically equivalent. This means that even if two treatments may have different mechanisms of action or may work in different ways, the analysis can still evaluate which treatment provides the best balance of effectiveness and cost for a specific condition or outcome.

Cost-effectiveness analysis allows for the comparison of different types of interventions that may not be directly interchangeable in their pharmacological effects but can still be assessed on how well they achieve a desired therapeutic outcome relative to their costs. For instance, one treatment may target a disease while another may address symptoms, but both could be valuable in a comprehensive treatment plan.

Considering other choices, the implication of therapeutic equivalence (as suggested in another option) would limit the scope of treatments that could be included in an analysis and would not account for the broader perspective of healthcare interventions that are designed for different but potentially complementary purposes. Similarly, the requirement that treatments must be of the same cost or specifically used for chronic diseases would unnecessarily restrict the analysis and fail to provide a comprehensive comparison across various treatment options available in clinical practice.