I usually use QALY nevertheless it is connected with the therapeutic indication.

The WHO and GBD project have chosen DALYs over QALYs as the standard measure. Their reasons are given in the document Global Comparative Assessments in the Health Sector (ed Murray and Lopez) WHO 1994.

Basically,DALYs are thought to better measure the duration of the disability and are less dependent on subjective utility weights.

In my work QALYs are by far more important than DALYs.

You mention "clinical trial economic evaluation" which made we want to comment that economic evaluation of a clinical trial usually doesn't make a lot of sense but the trial can be used an an important basis of the evaluation, therefore e.g. ISPOR talks about "cost-effectiveness alongside clinical trials" https://www.ispor.org/heor-resources/good-practices/article/cost-effectiveness-analysis-alongside-clinical-trials-ii

DALYs were developed for evaluation of global disease burdens (instead of specific interventions) and that is where they are generally used. (see e.g. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates)

In the case of comparative interventions, QALY's are ideal for evaluating utility outcomes over a specific period per individual. Taking into account defined endpoints for economic decisions. Daly's accounts for disability weights surveyed from the general population due to health losses and injuries from the disease burden.