Finally, there are two issues in the modelling for CEA. The time horizon used in the CEA of the REHAB-HF trial was lifetime. The time horizon must be long enough that the intended and unintended benefits and harms are captured [
14]. In contrast, using a time horizon that is longer than necessary could add unnecessary cost, and interpreting the cost-effectiveness might become too difficult [
14]. According to the CHEERS 2022 statement, giving reasons for setting a time horizon for a certain period is one of the domains [
6]. In general, it is unlikely that the effects of rehabilitation in the acute phase of HF last throughout life, although the author of the article also mentioned that there is uncertainty in the duration of the effect of intervention [
5]. In that case, using the available evidence from observational studies and expert opinions or referring to trials examining the duration of the effect of a similar intervention may be useful in setting the time horizon in a CEA. Moreover, conducting scenario analyses using some time horizons might help policy makers in making their decision. The second point is that the lifetime cost and QALY were estimated using a model that was developed and validated by trials involving patients with chronic HF who did not undergo acute cardiac rehabilitation [
15]. Thus, modelling using the data of patients who underwent acute cardiac rehabilitation, e.g., data from a clinical trial with long-follow up or real-world data, can lead to a more accurate estimation of the cost-effectiveness.