Recent studies have established that dysregulation of the human immune system and the reactivation of latent herpesviruses persists for the duration of a 6-month orbital spaceflight. It appears certain aspects of adaptive immunity are dysregulated during flight, yet some aspects of innate immunity are heightened. Interaction between adaptive and innate immunity also seems to be altered. Some crews experience persistent hypersensitivity reactions during flight. This phenomenon may, in synergy with extended duration and galactic radiation exposure, increase specific crew clinical risks during deep space exploration missions. The clinical challenge is based upon both the frequency of these phenomena in multiple crewmembers during low earth orbit missions and the inability to predict which specific individual crewmembers will experience these changes. Thus, a general countermeasure approach that offers the broadest possible coverage is needed. The vehicles, architecture, and mission profiles to enable such voyages are now under development. These include deployment and use of a cis-Lunar station (mid 2020s) with possible Moon surface operations, to be followed by multiple Mars flyby missions, and eventual human Mars surface exploration. Current ISS studies will continue to characterize physiological dysregulation associated with prolonged orbital spaceflight. However, sufficient information exists to begin consideration of both the need for, and nature of, specific immune countermeasures to ensure astronaut health. This article will review relevant in-place operational countermeasures onboard ISS and discuss a myriad of potential immune countermeasures for exploration missions. Discussion points include nutritional supplementation and functional foods, exercise and immunity, pharmacological options, the relationship between bone and immune countermeasures, and vaccination to mitigate herpes (and possibly other) virus risks. As the immune system has sentinel connectivity within every other physiological system, translational effects must be considered for all potential immune countermeasures. Finally, we shall discuss immune countermeasures in the context of their individualized implementation or precision medicine, based on crewmember specific immunological biases.

The notion that prolonged, intense exercise causes an “open window” of immunodepression during recovery after exercise is well accepted. Repeated exercise bouts or intensified training without sufficient recovery may increase the risk of illness. However, except for salivary IgA, clear and consistent markers of this immunodepression remain elusive. Exercise increases circulating neutrophil and monocyte counts and reduces circulating lymphocyte count during recovery. This lymphopenia results from preferential egress of lymphocyte subtypes with potent effector functions [e.g., natural killer (NK) cells, γδ T cells, and CD8⁺T cells]. These lymphocytes most likely translocate to peripheral sites of potential antigen encounter (e.g., lungs and gut). This redeployment of effector lymphocytes is an integral part of the physiological stress response to exercise. Current knowledge about changes in immune function during recovery from exercise is derived from assessment at the cell population level of isolated cells ex vivo or in blood. This assessment can be biased by large changes in the distribution of immune cells between blood and peripheral tissues during and after exercise. Some evidence suggests that reduced immune cell function in vitro may coincide with changes in vivo and rates of illness after exercise, but more work is required to substantiate this notion. Among the various nutritional strategies and physical therapies that athletes use to recover from exercise, carbohydrate supplementation is the most effective for minimizing immune disturbances during exercise recovery. Sleep is an important aspect of recovery, but more research is needed to determine how sleep disruption influences the immune system of athletes.