The following general principles were adhered to in developing the cost-effectiveness analysis: Methods were consistent with the NICE reference case for interventions with health outcomes in The committee was involved in the design of the model, selection of inputs and interpretation of the results. Model inputs were based on the systematic review of the clinical literature supplemented with other published data sources where possible. When published data were not available committee expert opinion was used to populate the model. Model inputs and assumptions were reported fully and transparently. The results were subject to sensitivity analysis and limitations were discussed. The model was peer-reviewed by another health economist at the NGC. The model methods were also peer-reviewed by Professor Martin Cowie because of his expertise in heart failure, knowledge of the literature and health economic modelling methodologies. Full methods for the cost-effectiveness analysis of natriuretic peptide thresholds are described in appendix O. 4.4.3 Cost-effectiveness criteria NICE s report Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance sets out the principles that committees should consider when judging whether an intervention offers good value In general, an intervention was considered to be cost effective (given that the estimate was considered plausible) if either of the following criteria applied: the intervention dominated other relevant strategies (that is, it was both less costly in terms of resource use and more clinically effective compared with all the other relevant alternative strategies), or the intervention cost less than 20,000 per QALY gained compared with the next best strategy. Chronic Heart Failure Methods NICE 2018. All rights reserved. Subject to Notice of rights. 