Human challenge trials in vaccine development, Rockville, MD, USA, September 28-30, 2017

Should Children Be Included in Human Challenge Studies?

Human challenge studies, in which human research subjects are intentionally exposed to pathogens to contribute to scientific knowledge, raise many ethical complexities. One controversial question is whether it is ethically permissible to include children as participants. Commentary of the past decades endorses the exclusion of children, while new guidance suggests that pediatric human challenge studies can be ethically permissible. This paper argues that neither children's exclusion nor their inclusion are well justified. I examine and reject three arguments for exclusion, but suggest that these arguments establish pediatric human challenge studies as a complex ethical category of research that requires caution. I then argue for a strong presumption against children's inclusion, by drawing on an analogy to children's inclusion in phase I trials, emphasizing a requirement of necessity, and suggesting that accommodating children's vulnerability promotes an age de-escalation approach for pediatric human challenge studies research. In the final section, I suggest a procedure for ethics review.

Reverse development of vaccines against antimicrobial-resistant pathogens

Vaccine R&D is typically a lengthy process taking >10 years. However, vaccines still fail in clinical development because of unreliable animal models or absent immunological correlates of protection. Without a correlate of protection, phase-1 and -2 studies of safety and immunogenicity can fail to predict phase-3 efficacy. Indeed, the history of vaccine development is replete with promising phase-1 and -2 results and failed phase-3 efficacy trials. To avoid this misfortune, we present Reverse Vaccine Development for vaccines against antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) pathogens. In this approach, instead of evaluating efficacy in phase 3, proof-of-principle efficacy is evaluated as early as possible in a population with a high incidence of disease, which may differ from the population intended for registration, and can be a controlled human infection population. To identify a correlate of protection in these populations, the vaccine-elicited immune response is compared between protected and unprotected subjects. If a correlate is identified, it can help to refine the vaccine dosage, schedule, and formulation, and facilitate the assessment of vaccine efficacy in other populations with different attack rates, subject characteristics, and disease manifestations. This may be the only way to provide life-saving vaccines to populations affected by AMR-pathogen diseases at incidences that are typically low and unsuited to phase-3 efficacy trials. The availability of a correlate of protection early in clinical development can potentially prevent failures of large phase-3 trials and unnecessary exposures of populations to inefficacious vaccines that have resulted in disinvestment in the development of vaccines against AMR pathogens.

Fourth Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) meeting, CHIM regulatory issues, May 24, 2023

Many aspects of Controlled Human Infection Models (CHIMs, also known as human challenge studies and human infection studies) have been discussed extensively, including Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) production of the challenge agent, CHIM ethics, environmental safety in CHIM, recruitment, community engagement, advertising and incentives, pre-existing immunity, and clinical, immunological, and microbiological endpoints. The fourth CHIM meeting focused on regulation of CHIM studies, bringing together scientists and regulators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries, to discuss barriers and hurdles in CHIM regulation. Valuable initiatives for regulation of CHIMs have already been undertaken but further capacity building remains essential. The Wellcome Considerations document is a good starting point for further discussions.

Human Challenge Studies for Vaccine Development : Regulatory Aspects of Human Challenge Studies

The traditional regulatory pathway for the evaluation of new vaccine candidates generally proceeds from preclinical through three successive phases of human trials, and the demonstration of efficacy is usually done through randomized-controlled clinical trials. However, human challenge trials or controlled human infection models have been used in vaccine clinical development to generate supportive data for establishment of correlates of protection, supportive data for licensure, as well as licensure in the case of Vaxchora® by the US FDA. Despite this, there are no codified regulations from national regulatory authorities (NRAs) that specifically address HCTs, nor guidance related to standardization of approaches to HCTs among regulators. NRAs may agree that HCTs are innovative, promising tools to accelerate vaccine development; however, a strong benefit/risk assessment is needed to ensure the safety of study participants. Lastly, it is important to consider the regulatory framework in which the human challenge trial may be conducted.

Shigella-Controlled Human Infection Models: Current and Future Perspectives

Shigella-controlled human infection models (CHIMs) are an invaluable tool utilized by the vaccine community to combat one of the leading global causes of infectious diarrhea, which affects infants, children and adults regardless of socioeconomic status. The impact of shigellosis disproportionately affects children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) resulting in cognitive and physical stunting, perpetuating a cycle that must be halted. Shigella-CHIMs not only facilitate the early evaluation of enteric countermeasures and up-selection of the most promising products but also provide insight into mechanisms of infection and immunity that are not possible utilizing animal models or in vitro systems. The greater understanding of shigellosis obtained in CHIMs builds and empowers the development of new generation solutions to global health issues which are unattainable in the conventional laboratory and clinical settings. Therefore, refining, mining and expansion of safe and reproducible infection models hold the potential to create effective means to end diarrheal disease and associated co-morbidities associated with Shigella infection.

Ethical Requirements for Human Challenge Studies: A Systematic Review of Reasons

Human challenge studies (HCS) are controlled clinical trials in which participants are deliberately infected with a pathogen. Such trials are being developed for an increasing number of diseases. Partly as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there has been a recent ethical debate about the reasons for and against HCS in general, or rather, about the requirements that individual HCS must fulfill to be ethically acceptable. A systematic review was conducted to categorize and summarize such requirements and the reasons given for them. Ethics literature was searched in PubMed, Google Scholar, BELIT, and PhilPapers; eligibility criteria were articles published in a scientific/scholarly journal (original research, reviews, editorials, opinion pieces, and conference/meeting reports). Of 1,322 records identified, 161 publications were included, with 183 requirements (with associated reasons) in 10 thematic categories extracted via qualitative content analysis. In synthesizing and interpreting the requirements and their reasons, three issues emerge as particularly sensitive in the case of HCS: the meaning of the right to withdraw from research procedures, communication of researchers with the public and various stakeholders, and the conditions of informed consent. However, four other issues, not specific to HCS, stand out as the most controversial: the acceptable level of risk to participants, payment of participants, protection of vulnerable groups, and standards for international collaborations. Controversies in these areas indicate that further debate is warranted, possibly leading to more specific instructions in ethics guidance documents.

Perceptions and acceptability of the controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) model in The Gambia: a qualitative study

Controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) studies, i.e. the deliberate infection of healthy volunteers with malaria parasites to study immune response and/or test drug or vaccine efficacy, are increasingly being conducted in malaria endemic countries, including in sub-Saharan Africa. However, there have been few studies on the perceptions and acceptability of CHMI by the local communities. This qualitative study assessed the perception and acceptability of such studies in The Gambia following the first CHMI study conducted in the country in March-May 2018. Data were collected through non-participant observation, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions and analyzed using NVivo 12 software with an inductive-deductive approach. Sixty-seven participants were involved, including volunteers enrolled in the CHMI, community stakeholders and members of the Gambian Ethics Committee. Respondents expressed a positive view about CHMI. Key motivating factors for participation were the financial compensation, comprehensive health checks, and willingness to support malaria research. Risks associated with participation were considered low. Concerns raised included the frequency of bleeding and the blood volume collected.

Controlled Human Infection Models To Accelerate Vaccine Development

The timelines for developing vaccines against infectious diseases are lengthy, and often vaccines that reach the stage of large phase 3 field trials fail to provide the desired level of protective efficacy. The application of controlled human challenge models of infection and disease at the appropriate stages of development could accelerate development of candidate vaccines and, in fact, has done so successfully in some limited cases. Human challenge models could potentially be used to gather critical information on pathogenesis, inform strain selection for vaccines, explore cross-protective immunity, identify immune correlates of protection and mechanisms of protection induced by infection or evoked by candidate vaccines, guide decisions on appropriate trial endpoints, and evaluate vaccine efficacy. We prepared this report to motivate fellow scientists to exploit the potential capacity of controlled human challenge experiments to advance vaccine development. In this review, we considered available challenge models for 17 infectious diseases in the context of the public health importance of each disease, the diversity and pathogenesis of the causative organisms, the vaccine candidates under development, and each model's capacity to evaluate them and identify correlates of protective immunity. Our broad assessment indicated that human challenge models have not yet reached their full potential to support the development of vaccines against infectious diseases. On the basis of our review, however, we believe that describing an ideal challenge model is possible, as is further developing existing and future challenge models.

Engagement of ethics and regulatory authorities on human infection studies: Proceedings of an engagement workshop in Zambia

Human infection studies (HIS) have generally been used as a tool in the pathway for vaccine development in high income settings. Over the last decade, this model has been implemented in LMICs with the aim of accelerating development of next generation vaccines that would perform better in these settings. However, in most LMICs, the ethics and regulatory framework for the conduct of these studies are not in place. In Zambia, these studies are yet to be conducted and thus we conducted a stakeholder engagement workshop in October 2019. We engaged with bioethicists, regulatory authority officials, and scientists from within Zambia and other African countries to anticipate and address foreseeable ethical and regulatory issues when conducting HIS in Zambia for the first time. The workshop largely focused on sensitizing the stakeholders on the benefits of these studies with the following main points for consideration on the implementation of these studies in Zambia: need for in-country legal framework and guidelines; need for adequate informed consent based on comprehensive understanding of the concept of HIS and study requirements; and requirements for heightened vigilance to assure participant safety including good ethical and clinical practice with regulatory, ethical, data safety, and community oversight. Additionally, the workshop emphasized the need for rigorous health screening prior to enrolment; suitable infrastructure for containment; and personnel to provide appropriate treatment including emergency resuscitation and evacuation if indicated. Specific recommendations included compensation for burden of participation; access to care and provision for study related injury (e.g. no-fault insurance); and withdrawal and exit procedures to preserve individual and community safety. Finally, the meeting concluded that researchers should actively engage key gate keepers including civic leaders such as parliamentarians, universities, researchers, potential participants and laypersons to avoid circulation of misinformation.

Understanding the benefits and burdens associated with a malaria human infection study in Kenya: experiences of study volunteers and other stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Human infection studies (HIS) that involve deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with a pathogen raise important ethical issues, including the need to ensure that benefits and burdens are understood and appropriately accounted for. Building on earlier work, we embedded social science research within an ongoing malaria human infection study in coastal Kenya to understand the study benefits and burdens experienced by study stakeholders in this low-resource setting and assess the wider implications for future research planning and policy.

METHODS

Data were collected using qualitative research methods, including in-depth interviews (44), focus group discussions (10) and non-participation observation. Study participants were purposively selected (key informant or maximal diversity sampling), including volunteers in the human infection study, study staff, community representatives and local administrative authorities. Data were collected during and up to 18 months following study residency, from sites in Coastal and Western Kenya. Voice recordings of interviews and discussions were transcribed, translated, and analysed using framework analysis, combining data- and theory-driven perspectives.

FINDINGS

Physical, psychological, economic and social forms of benefits and burdens were experienced across study stages. Important benefits for volunteers included the study compensation, access to health checks, good residential living conditions, new learning opportunities, developing friendships and satisfaction at contributing towards a new malaria vaccine. Burdens primarily affected study volunteers, including experiences of discomfort and ill health; fear and anxiety around aspects of the trial process, particularly deliberate infection and the implications of prolonged residency; anxieties about early residency exit; and interpersonal conflict. These issues had important implications for volunteers' families, study staff and the research institution's reputation more widely.

CONCLUSION

Developing ethically and scientifically strong HIS relies on grounded accounts of volunteers, study staff and the wider community, understood in the socioeconomic, political and cultural context where studies are implemented. Recognition of the diverse, and sometimes perverse, nature of potential benefits and burdens in a given context, and who this might implicate, is critical to this process. Prior and ongoing stakeholder engagement is core to developing these insights.

Understanding the benefits and burdens associated with a malaria human infection study in Kenya: experiences of study volunteers and other stakeholders

Background

Human infection studies (HIS) that involve deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with a pathogen raise important ethical issues, including the need to ensure that benefits and burdens are understood and appropriately accounted for. Building on earlier work, we embedded social science research within an ongoing malaria human infection study in coastal Kenya to understand the study benefits and burdens experienced by study stakeholders in this low-resource setting and assess the wider implications for future research planning and policy.

Methods

Data were collected using qualitative research methods, including in-depth interviews (44), focus group discussions (10) and non-participation observation. Study participants were purposively selected (key informant or maximal diversity sampling), including volunteers in the human infection study, study staff, community representatives and local administrative authorities. Data were collected during and up to 18 months following study residency, from sites in Coastal and Western Kenya. Voice recordings of interviews and discussions were transcribed, translated, and analysed using framework analysis, combining data- and theory-driven perspectives.

Findings

Physical, psychological, economic and social forms of benefits and burdens were experienced across study stages. Important benefits for volunteers included the study compensation, access to health checks, good residential living conditions, new learning opportunities, developing friendships and satisfaction at contributing towards a new malaria vaccine. Burdens primarily affected study volunteers, including experiences of discomfort and ill health; fear and anxiety around aspects of the trial process, particularly deliberate infection and the implications of prolonged residency; anxieties about early residency exit; and interpersonal conflict. These issues had important implications for volunteers’ families, study staff and the research institution’s reputation more widely.

Conclusion

Developing ethically and scientifically strong HIS relies on grounded accounts of volunteers, study staff and the wider community, understood in the socioeconomic, political and cultural context where studies are implemented. Recognition of the diverse, and sometimes perverse, nature of potential benefits and burdens in a given context, and who this might implicate, is critical to this process. Prior and ongoing stakeholder engagement is core to developing these insights.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05455-7.

Back to WHAT? The role of research ethics in pandemic times

The Covid-19 pandemic creates an unprecedented threatening situation worldwide with an urgent need for critical reflection and new knowledge production, but also a need for imminent action despite prevailing knowledge gaps and multilevel uncertainty. With regard to the role of research ethics in these pandemic times some argue in favor of exceptionalism, others, including the authors of this paper, emphasize the urgent need to remain committed to core ethical principles and fundamental human rights obligations all reflected in research regulations and guidelines carefully crafted over time. In this paper we disentangle some of the arguments put forward in the ongoing debate about Covid-19 human challenge studies (CHIs) and the concomitant role of health-related research ethics in pandemic times. We suggest it might be helpful to think through a lens differentiating between risk, strict uncertainty and ignorance. We provide some examples of lessons learned by harm done in the name of research in the past and discuss the relevance of this legacy in the current situation.

Engagement of ethics and regulatory authorities on human infection studies: Proceedings of an engagement workshop in Zambia

Human infection studies (HIS) have generally been used as a tool in the pathway for vaccine development in high income settings. Over the last decade, this model has been implemented in LMICs with the aim of accelerating development of next generation vaccines that would perform better in these settings. However, in most LMICs, the ethics and regulatory framework for the conduct of these studies are not in place. In Zambia, these studies are yet to be conducted and thus we conducted a stakeholder engagement workshop in October 2019. We engaged with bioethicists, regulatory authority, and scientists from within Zambia and other African countries to anticipate and address foreseeable ethical and regulatory issues when conducting HIS in Zambia for the first time. The workshop largely focused on sensitizing the stakeholders on the benefits of these studies with the following main points for consideration on the implementation of these studies in Zambia: need for in-country legal framework and guidelines; need for adequate informed consent based on comprehensive understanding of the concept of HIS and study requirements; and requirements for heightened vigilance to assure participant safety including good ethical and clinical practice with regulatory, ethical, data safety, and community oversight. Additionally, the workshop emphasized the need for rigorous health screening prior to enrolment; suitable infrastructure for containment; and personnel to provide appropriate treatment including emergency resuscitation and evacuation if indicated. Specific recommendations included compensation for burden of participation; access to care and provision for study related injury (e.g. no-fault insurance); and withdrawal and exit procedures to preserve individual and community safety. Finally, the meeting concluded that researchers should actively engage key gate keepers including civic leaders such as parliamentarians, universities, researchers, potential participants and laypersons to avoid circulation of misinformation.

History of Human Challenge Studies

The intentional infection of human beings with pathogens with the aim of achieving benefits (chiefly, the prevention of more severe disease) has occurred for centuries; the (semi-)systematic testing and recording of such methods dates to the 18th Century in England.

Antibody-guided structure-based vaccines

The vaccine field is pursuing diverse approaches to translate the molecular insights from analyses of effective antibodies and their targeted epitopes into immunogens capable of eliciting protective immune responses. Here we review current antibody-guided strategies including conformation-based, epitope-based, and lineage-based vaccine approaches, which are yielding promising vaccine candidates now being evaluated in clinical trials. We summarize directions being employed by the field, including the use of sequencing technologies to monitor and track developing immune responses for understanding and improving antibody-based immunity. We review opportunities and challenges to transform powerful new discoveries into safe and effective vaccines, which are encapsulated by vaccine efforts against a variety of pathogens including HIV-1, influenza A virus, malaria parasites, respiratory syncytial virus, and SARS-CoV-2. Overall, this review summarizes the extensive progress that has been made to realize antibody-guided structure-based vaccines, the considerable challenges faced, and the opportunities afforded by recently developed molecular approaches to vaccine development.

How can controlled human infection models accelerate clinical development and policy pathways for vaccines against Shigella?

Controlled Human Infection Models (CHIMs) now exist for several infectious diseases. CHIMs offer significant insight into disease pathogenesis, as well the potential to rapidly test clinical proof-of-concept of vaccine candidates. The application of CHIMs to identify a correlate of protection that may reduce the sample size of, or obviate the need for clinical efficacy studies to achieve licensure is of considerable interest to vaccine developers and public health stakeholders. This topic was the subject of a workshop at the 2018 Vaccines Against Shigella and ETEC (VASE) conference, in the context of O-antigen-based Shigella vaccines.

Human infection challenge studies in endemic settings and/or low-income and middle-income countries: key points of ethical consensus and controversy

Human infection challenge studies (HCS) involve intentionally infecting research participants with pathogens (or other micro-organisms). There have been recent calls for more HCS to be conducted in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where many relevant diseases are endemic. HCS in general, and HCS in LMICs in particular, raise numerous ethical issues. This paper summarises the findings of a project that explored ethical and regulatory issues related to LMIC HCS via (i) a review of relevant literature and (ii) 45 qualitative interviews with scientists and ethicists. Among other areas of consensus, we found that there was widespread agreement that LMIC HCS can be ethically acceptable, provided that they have a sound scientific rationale, are accepted by local communities and meet usual research ethics requirements. Unresolved issues include those related to (i) acceptable approaches to trade-offs between the scientific aim to produce generalisable results and the protection of participants, (iii) the sharing of benefits with LMIC populations, (iii) the acceptable limits to risks and burdens for participants, (iv) the potential for third-party risk and whether the degree of acceptable third-party risk is different in endemic settings, (v) the conditions under which (if any) it would be appropriate to recruit children for disease-causing HCS, (v) appropriate levels of payment to participants and (vi) appropriate governance of (LMIC) HCS. This paper provides preliminary analyses of these ethical considerations in order to (i) inform scientists and policymakers involved in the planning, conduct and/or governance of LMIC HCS and (ii) highlight areas warranting future research. Insofar as this article focuses on HCS in (endemic) settings where diseases are present and/or widespread, much of the analysis provided is relevant to HCS (in HICs or LMICs) involving pandemic diseases including COVID19.

Human challenge trials in vaccine development

The increasing recent interest in human challenge studies or controlled human infection model studies for accelerating vaccine development has been driven by the recognition of the unique ability of these studies to contribute to the understanding of response to infection and the performance of vaccines. With streamlining of ethical processes, conduct and supervision and the availability of new investigative tools from immunophenotyping to glycobiology, the potential to derive valuable data to inform vaccine testing and development has never been greater. However, issues of availability and standardization of challenge strains, conduct of studies in disease endemic locations and the iteration between clinical and laboratory studies still need to be addressed to gain maximal value for vaccine development.

SARS-CoV-2: Virology, epidemiology, immunology and vaccine development

This first International Alliance for Biological Standardization Covid-19 webinar brought together a broad range of international stakeholders, including academia, regulators, funders and industry, with a considerable delegation from low- and middle-income countries, to discuss the virology, epidemiology and immunology of, and the vaccine development for SARS-CoV-2.

Third human challenge trial conference, Oxford, United Kingdom, February 6-7, 2020, a meeting report

The third Human Challenge Trial Meeting brought together a broad range of international stakeholders, including academia, regulators, funders and industry, with a considerable delegation from Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Controlled human infection models (CHIMs) can be helpful to study pathogenesis and for the development of vaccines. As challenge agents are used to infect healthy volunteers, ethical considerations include that the challenge studies need to be safe and results should be meaningful. The meeting provided a state-of-the-art overview on a wide range of CHIMs, including viral, bacterial and parasitic challenge agents. Recommendations included globally aligned guidance documents for CHIM studies; further definition of a CHIM, based on the challenge agent used; standardization of methodology and study endpoints; capacity building in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, in performance as well as regulation of CHIM studies; guidance on compensation for participation in CHIM studies; and preparation of CHIM studies, with strong engagement with stakeholders.

Human challenge trial workshop: Focus on quality requirements for challenge agents, Langen, Germany, October 22, 2019

Controlled human infection models can be helpful to study pathogenesis and immune responses as a basis for the development of vaccines. In controlled human infection models, human challenge agents are used to infect healthy volunteers, therefore, ethical considerations include that the exposure studies need to be safe and results should be meaningful, e.g. contribute to a better cure. Both in the US and in Europe, the level of Good Manufacturing Practice required is related to the phase of the study ('sliding scale Good Manufacturing Practice'), and, hence, is much more open to speedy drug development than anticipated. Recommendations included: the development of guidelines for human challenge agents; a focus on strain selection, in particular with regard to strain infectivity, stability and purity; the use of whole genome sequencing; a reference repository of challenge agents, the need for early exchange with regulators to ensure acceptability of strain selection and manufacturing for later drug development; sharing of models and challenge agents.

Stakeholder views on the acceptability of human infection studies in Malawi

BACKGROUND

Human infection studies (HIS) are valuable in vaccine development. Deliberate infection, however, creates challenging questions, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) where HIS are new and ethical challenges may be heightened. Consultation with stakeholders is needed to support contextually appropriate and acceptable study design. We examined stakeholder perceptions about the acceptability and ethics of HIS in Malawi, to inform decisions about planned pneumococcal challenge research and wider understanding of HIS ethics in LMICs.

METHODS

We conducted 6 deliberative focus groups and 15 follow-up interviews with research staff, medical students, and community representatives from rural and urban Blantyre. We also conducted 5 key informant interviews with clinicians, ethics committee members, and district health government officials.

RESULTS

Stakeholders perceived HIS research to have potential population health benefits, but they also had concerns, particularly related to the safety of volunteers and negative community reactions. Acceptability depended on a range of conditions related to procedures for voluntary and informed consent, inclusion criteria, medical care or support, compensation, regulation, and robust community engagement. These conditions largely mirror those in existing guidelines for HIS and biomedical research in LMICs. Stakeholder perceptions pointed to potential tensions, for example, balancing equity, safety, and relevance in inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest HIS research could be acceptable in Malawi, provided certain conditions are in place. Ongoing assessment of participant experiences and stakeholder perceptions will be required to strengthen HIS research during development and roll-out.

Exploring Ethical Concerns About Human Challenge Studies: A Qualitative Study of Controlled Human Malaria Infection Study Participants' Motivations and Attitudes

Controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) studies deliberately infect healthy participants with malaria to test interventions faster and more efficiently. Some argue the study design and high payments offered raise ethical concerns about participants' understanding of risks and undue inducement. We conducted baseline and exit interviews with 16 CHMI study participants to explore these concerns. Participants described themes including decision-making tension with friends and family, mixed motivations for participating, low study risks but high burdens, fair compensation, sacrificing values, deceiving researchers, and perceived benefits. Our findings do not support concerns that high payments limit understanding of study risks, but suggest participants may lack appreciation of study burdens, withhold information or engage in deception, and experience conflict with others regarding study participation.

Systems approaches to correlates of protection and progression to TB disease

Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading cause of death due to a single infectious disease and an effective vaccine would substantially accelerate global efforts to control TB. An immune correlate of protection (CoP) from TB disease could aid vaccine optimization and licensure. This paper summarises opportunities for identifying CoP and highlights results from correlates of risk studies. Although we don't have CoP, there are ongoing efficacy trials with both disease and infection endpoints which provide opportunities for such an analysis. Transcriptomics has successfully identified robust CoR, with transcripts found in the Type I IFN pathway. Correlates of lower risk include BCG antigen specific IFN-γ and natural killer cells. Collating evidence from multiple studies using a range of systems approaches supports a role for IFN-γ in protection from TB disease. In addition, the cells that express the IFN-γ receptor are also important in protective immunity. Protection is a culmination not only of the amount of IFN-γ produced by T cells and NK cells but by the ability of IFN-γ receptor expressing monocytes to respond to IFN-γ. To better understand IFN-γ as a correlate we need to understand host-factors such as age, sex, co-infection, nutritional status and stress which may alter or impair the ability of cells to respond to IFN-γ. These studies highlight recent advances in our understanding of the immune mechanisms of TB disease risk and show the importance of whole systems approaches to correlates of risk analysis. CoP may be useful tools for specific vaccine products in specific populations, but a well-designed CoR analysis can identify novel immune mechanisms and provide insights critical for the development of new and better TB vaccines.