Effects of candidate vaccines against Zika virus infection: A systematic review of the clinical trials
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Participants in Phase 1 clinical trials for Zika virus vaccines |
| I — Intervention | Zika virus vaccine candidates across four platforms: inactivated virus, DNA, mRNA, and viral vector vaccines |
| C — Comparator | Placebo or control groups in clinical trials |
| O — Outcomes | Safety profiles, immunogenicity (neutralizing antibody responses), seroconversion rates, and immune persistence |
Bottom Line
This systematic review of 10 Phase 1 clinical trials demonstrates that Zika virus vaccine candidates across four different platforms (inactivated, DNA, mRNA, and viral vector) show promising safety and immunogenicity profiles. All candidates produced acceptable safety profiles with predominantly mild adverse events and no serious vaccine-related events. Immunogenicity was robust across platforms, with the viral vector vaccine achieving 100% seroconversion with a single dose, and some candidates showing immune persistence up to two years. While these early-phase results are encouraging for vaccine development, Phase 2/3 efficacy trials are essential before clinical implementation. For Australian clinicians, these findings support continued vaccine development efforts and may eventually inform travel medicine recommendations for patients visiting Zika-endemic areas.
Key Findings
P Value: Not reported in abstract
Effect Size: 100% seroconversion rate with Ad26.ZIKV.001 single dose
Primary Outcome: All vaccine candidates demonstrated acceptable safety profiles with mild-to-moderate, transient adverse events
Nnt Or Sensitivity: TAK-426 showed immune persistence up to 2 years; mRNA-1893 maintained responses for 13 months
Confidence Interval: Not specified in abstract
Clinical Application
Multiple platform approaches increase likelihood of successful vaccine development, though Phase 2/3 trials needed Relevant for Australian travellers to Zika-endemic regions; TGA would require Phase 3 efficacy data for registration; potential inclusion in travel medicine recommendations Individuals at risk of Zika virus exposure, particularly travellers to endemic regions and populations in areas with Aedes aegypti vectors
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The 2015-2016 Zika virus (ZIKV) pandemic revealed a pathogenic potential, including Guillain-Barré syndrome and Congenital Zika Syndrome (CZS). Despite the decline in incidence, the potential for future circulation and the absence of specific antivirals underscore continued scientific interest in prophylactic vaccine development. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize evidence from clinical trials regarding the safety and preliminary immunogenicity of current ZIKV vaccine candidates. METHODS: This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines (CRD420251056463). Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, SciELO, and LILACS for clinical trials published between 2015 and 2025. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. RESULTS: Ten Phase 1 clinical trials were included, evaluating four platforms: inactivated virus (ZPIV, TAK-426, VLA1601), DNA (GLS-5700, VRC5283), mRNA (mRNA-1325, mRNA-1893), and viral vector (Ad26.ZIKV.001). All candidates demonstrated acceptable safety profiles, with predominantly mild-to-moderate and transient adverse events (e.g., injection site pain, fatigue, and headache); no vaccine-related serious adverse events were reported. Most platforms induced robust neutralizing antibody responses. Specifically, TAK-426 showed immune persistence for up to two years, while mRNA-1893 maintained responses for 13 months. The viral vector vaccine (Ad26.ZIKV.001) achieved 100% seroconversion with a single dose. Previous orthoflavivirus exposure did not significantly hinder vaccine-induced immunogenicity. Most studies presented a low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: ZIKV vaccine candidates across diverse technological platforms are safe and highly immunogenic. The evidence of long-term durability and the success of single-dose or mRNA regimens support the progression of the most promising candidates to Phase 2/3 trials.
References
- 1.de Aguiar, G. B., da Costa, M. G., Garcia, J. H., Jacobs, G. B., Bolzan, J. A., & Pereira, L. O. (2026). Effects of candidate vaccines against Zika virus infection: A systematic review of the clinical trials. Vaccine, 128562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2026.128562
Related Research
Journal of medical Internet research
Advancing Human-Centered AI in Clinical Decision Support: Sociocognitive Human-in-the-Loop Study in HIV Care
2 Aug 2026
JBJS reviews
One-Stage or Two-Stage Revision for Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Head-to-Head Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies
30 July 2026
Signal transduction and targeted therapy
Mucosal immunity and vaccine development
27 July 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service