Evidence Hub

Effectiveness of bivalent respiratory syncytial virus prefusion F protein-based vaccine in individuals with or without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: the DAN-RSV trial

Pareek M, Lassen MCH, Johansen ND, Christensen SH, Aliabadi N, Skaarup KG, Modin D, Claggett BL et al.

European heart journal, 2025

117 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Background and aims: It is not known whether the bivalent respiratory syncytial virus prefusion F protein-based (RSVpreF) vaccine reduces outcomes in individuals with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The aim was to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of an RSVpreF vaccine vs no vaccine on respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes in persons with or without pre-existing ASCVD.

Methods: We conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of the DAN-RSV trial. Adults aged ≥60 years were randomized 1:1 to RSVpreF vaccine or no vaccine. Baseline and outcome data were collected through nationwide registries. The primary outcome was respiratory syncytial virus-related respiratory tract disease hospitalization. The principal major adverse cardiovascular event outcome was a composite of hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure. Heterogeneity in VE was assessed among participants with and without ASCVD.

Results: The incidence rate of almost all outcomes was higher in participants with pre-existing ASCVD (n = 14 241) vs those without (n = 117 035). Vaccine effectiveness was generally consistent by ASCVD status (Pinteraction ≥ .05 for all but one interaction). Among persons without and with ASCVD, VE for the primary outcome was 80.0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 29.3-96.3] vs 100.0% (95% CI, -141.3 to 100.0), respectively (Pinteraction > .99). Vaccine effectiveness for major adverse cardiovascular events was 9.3% (95% CI, -15.1 to 28.6) in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 117 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free