Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Pregnancy: A Case Series.

OBJECTIVE: To describe outcomes associated with monoclonal antibody use in pregnant persons with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We present a retrospective case series of pregnant patients who received anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) monoclonal antibody infusions at a single center from April 1, 2021, through October 16, 2021. Pregnant patients who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test result and mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms were eligible for monoclonal antibody infusion. Exclusion criteria for administration included need for supplemental oxygen, hospitalization due to COVID-19, and positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result more than 7 days before screening. All patients received either bamlanivimab plus etesevimab or casirivimab plus imdevimab based on availability and dosing instructions of the product and emerging resistance patterns in the community. RESULTS: During the study period, monoclonal antibody infusions were administered to 450 individuals at our institution, of whom 15 were pregnant. Of the 15 pregnant persons receiving monoclonal antibody, six (40%) had full-vaccination status at the time of infusion. Two individuals (13%, CI 0-31%) experienced systemic reactions during the infusion, both resulting in temporary changes in the fetal heart rate tracing that recovered with maternal and intrauterine resuscitative efforts. One patient delivered after infusion for worsening maternal and fetal status; the remainder of the patients did not require admission for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: In this case series, pregnant persons who received anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody infusions had generally favorable outcomes.

Combination anti-HIV antibodies provide sustained virological suppression.

Antiretroviral therapy is highly effective in suppressing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)1. However, eradication of the virus in individuals with HIV has not been possible to date2. Given that HIV suppression requires life-long antiretroviral therapy, predominantly on a daily basis, there is a need to develop clinically effective alternatives that use long-acting antiviral agents to inhibit viral replication3. Here we report the results of a two-component clinical trial involving the passive transfer of two HIV-specific broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, 3BNC117 and 10-1074. The first component was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled participants who initiated antiretroviral therapy during the acute/early phase of HIV infection. The second component was an open-label single-arm trial that enrolled individuals with viraemic control who were naive to antiretroviral therapy. Up to 8 infusions of 3BNC117 and 10-1074, administered over a period of 24 weeks, were well tolerated without any serious adverse events related to the infusions. Compared with the placebo, the combination broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies maintained complete suppression of plasma viraemia (for up to 43 weeks) after analytical treatment interruption, provided that no antibody-resistant HIV was detected at the baseline in the study participants. Similarly, potent HIV suppression was seen in the antiretroviral-therapy-naive study participants with viraemia carrying sensitive virus at the baseline. Our data demonstrate that combination therapy with broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies can provide long-term virological suppression without antiretroviral therapy in individuals with HIV, and our experience offers guidance for future clinical trials involving next-generation antibodies with long half-lives.

Effectiveness and Safety of Regdanvimab in Patients With Mild-To-Moderate COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Regdanvimab has decreased the time to clinical recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and lowered the rate of oxygen therapy according to the results from phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial. More information is needed about the effects and safety of regdanvimab. METHODS: We analyzed data for patients with high-risk mild or moderate COVID-19 being admitted to Busan Medical Center between December 1, 2020 and April 16, 2021. A propensity score (PS) matched analysis was conducted to compare patients treated with and without regdanvimab. The primary outcome was in-hospital death or disease aggravation which means the need for oxygen therapy (low- or high-flow oxygen therapy and mechanical ventilation) and secondary outcomes comprised the length of hospital stay and adverse reactions. RESULTS: Among 1,617 selected patients, 970 (60.0%) were indicated for regdanvimab. Of these, 377 (38.9%) were administered with regdanvimab. Among a 1:1 PS-matched cohort of 377 patients each treated with and without regdanvimab, 19 (5%) and 81 (21.5%) reached the composite outcome of death, or disease aggravation, respectively (absolute risk difference, -16.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -21.1, -11.7; relative risk difference, 76.5%; P < 0.001). Regdanvimab significantly reduced the composite outcome of death, or disease aggravation in univariate (odds ratio [OR], 0.194; 95% CI, 0.112-0.320; P < 0.001) and multivariable-adjusted analyses (OR, 0.169; 95% CI, 0.095-0.289; P < 0.001). The hospital stay was shorter for the group with than without regdanvimab. Some hematological adverse reactions were more frequent in the group without regdanvimab, but other adverse reactions did not significantly differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Regdanvimab was associated with a significantly lower risk of disease aggravation without increasing adverse reactions.

Responses to a Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 According to Baseline Antibody and Antigen Levels : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, bamlanivimab, a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, given in combination with remdesivir, did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on an early futility assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori hypothesis that bamlanivimab has greater benefit in patients without detectable levels of endogenous neutralizing antibody (nAb) at study entry than in those with antibodies, especially if viral levels are high. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab (7000 mg) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Antibody, antigen, and viral RNA levels were centrally measured on stored specimens collected at baseline. Patients were followed for 90 days for sustained recovery (defined as discharge to home and remaining home for 14 consecutive days) and a composite safety outcome (death, serious adverse events, organ failure, or serious infections). RESULTS: Among 314 participants (163 receiving bamlanivimab and 151 placebo), the median time to sustained recovery was 19 days and did not differ between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.22]; sHR > 1 favors bamlanivimab). At entry, 50% evidenced production of anti-spike nAbs; 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1000 ng/L. Among those without and with nAbs at study entry, the sHRs were 1.24 (CI, 0.90 to 1.70) and 0.74 (CI, 0.54 to 1.00), respectively (nominal P for interaction = 0.018). The sHR (bamlanivimab vs. placebo) was also more than 1 for those with plasma antigen or nasal viral RNA levels above median level at entry and was greatest for those without antibodies and with elevated levels of antigen (sHR, 1.48 [CI, 0.99 to 2.23]) or viral RNA (sHR, 1.89 [CI, 1.23 to 2.91]). Hazard ratios for the composite safety outcome (<1 favors bamlanivimab) also differed by serostatus at entry: 0.67 (CI, 0.37 to 1.20) for those without and 1.79 (CI, 0.92 to 3.48) for those with nAbs. LIMITATION: Subgroup analysis of a trial prematurely stopped because of futility; small sample size; multiple subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab may differ depending on whether an endogenous nAb response has been mounted. The limited sample size of the study does not allow firm conclusions based on these findings, and further independent trials are required that assess other types of passive immune therapies in the same patient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Safety and Tolerability of Monoclonal Antibody Therapies for Treatment of COVID-19 in Pediatric Patients.

There is a little data regarding safety or efficacy of monoclonal antibody treatment for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in pediatric patients despite it being frequently used in adults. This retrospective study of 17 patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who received monoclonal antibody therapy found that the treatment was well tolerated, safe, and may be effective in halting progression to severe disease.

Early Treatment for Covid-19 with SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Sotrovimab.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) disproportionately results in hospitalization or death in older patients and those with underlying conditions. Sotrovimab is a pan-sarbecovirus monoclonal antibody that was designed to prevent progression of Covid-19 in high-risk patients early in the course of disease. METHODS: In this ongoing, multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic Covid-19 (≤5 days after the onset of symptoms) and at least one risk factor for disease progression to receive a single infusion of sotrovimab at a dose of 500 mg or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was hospitalization (for >24 hours) for any cause or death within 29 days after randomization. RESULTS: In this prespecified interim analysis, which included an intention-to-treat population of 583 patients (291 in the sotrovimab group and 292 in the placebo group), 3 patients (1%) in the sotrovimab group, as compared with 21 patients (7%) in the placebo group, had disease progression leading to hospitalization or death (relative risk reduction, 85%; 97.24% confidence interval, 44 to 96; P = 0.002). In the placebo group, 5 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit, including 1 who died by day 29. Safety was assessed in 868 patients (430 in the sotrovimab group and 438 in the placebo group). Adverse events were reported by 17% of the patients in the sotrovimab group and 19% of those in the placebo group; serious adverse events were less common with sotrovimab than with placebo (in 2% and 6% of the patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, sotrovimab reduced the risk of disease progression. No safety signals were identified. (Funded by Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline; COMET-ICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04545060.).

Regdanvimab: First Approval.

Regdanvimab (Regkirona™) is a recombinant human monoclonal antibody targeted against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. It is being developed by Celltrion Inc. for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In September 2021, regdanvimab received full approval in South Korea for the treatment of COVID-19 in elderly patients aged > 50 years with at least one underlying medical condition (obesity, cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, chronic liver disease, and patients on immunosuppressive agents) and mild symptoms of COVID-19 and in adult patients with moderate symptoms of COVID-19. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of regdanvimab leading to this first approval for COVID-19.

Nasal delivery of an IgM offers broad protection from SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Resistance represents a major challenge for antibody-based therapy for COVID-191-4. Here we engineered an immunoglobulin M (IgM) neutralizing antibody (IgM-14) to overcome the resistance encountered by immunoglobulin G (IgG)-based therapeutics. IgM-14 is over 230-fold more potent than its parental IgG-14 in neutralizing SARS-CoV-2. IgM-14 potently neutralizes the resistant virus raised by its corresponding IgG-14, three variants of concern-B.1.1.7 (Alpha, which first emerged in the UK), P.1 (Gamma, which first emerged in Brazil) and B.1.351 (Beta, which first emerged in South Africa)-and 21 other receptor-binding domain mutants, many of which are resistant to the IgG antibodies that have been authorized for emergency use. Although engineering IgG into IgM enhances antibody potency in general, selection of an optimal epitope is critical for identifying the most effective IgM that can overcome resistance. In mice, a single intranasal dose of IgM-14 at 0.044 mg per kg body weight confers prophylactic efficacy and a single dose at 0.4 mg per kg confers therapeutic efficacy against SARS-CoV-2. IgM-14, but not IgG-14, also confers potent therapeutic protection against the P.1 and B.1.351 variants. IgM-14 exhibits desirable pharmacokinetics and safety profiles when administered intranasally in rodents. Our results show that intranasal administration of an engineered IgM can improve efficacy, reduce resistance and simplify the prophylactic and therapeutic treatment of COVID-19.

Effect of Bamlanivimab as Monotherapy or in Combination With Etesevimab on Viral Load in Patients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread rapidly worldwide. Neutralizing antibodies are a potential treatment for COVID-19. Objective: To determine the effect of bamlanivimab monotherapy and combination therapy with bamlanivimab and etesevimab on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load in mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The BLAZE-1 study is a randomized phase 2/3 trial at 49 US centers including ambulatory patients (N = 613) who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and had 1 or more mild to moderate symptoms. Patients who received bamlanivimab monotherapy or placebo were enrolled first (June 17-August 21, 2020) followed by patients who received bamlanivimab and etesevimab or placebo (August 22-September 3). These are the final analyses and represent findings through October 6, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive a single infusion of bamlanivimab (700 mg [n = 101], 2800 mg [n = 107], or 7000 mg [n = 101]), the combination treatment (2800 mg of bamlanivimab and 2800 mg of etesevimab [n = 112]), or placebo (n = 156). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in SARS-CoV-2 log viral load at day 11 (±4 days). Nine prespecified secondary outcome measures were evaluated with comparisons between each treatment group and placebo, and included 3 other measures of viral load, 5 on symptoms, and 1 measure of clinical outcome (the proportion of patients with a COVID-19-related hospitalization, an emergency department [ED] visit, or death at day 29). Results: Among the 577 patients who were randomized and received an infusion (mean age, 44.7 [SD, 15.7] years; 315 [54.6%] women), 533 (92.4%) completed the efficacy evaluation period (day 29). The change in log viral load from baseline at day 11 was -3.72 for 700 mg, -4.08 for 2800 mg, -3.49 for 7000 mg, -4.37 for combination treatment, and -3.80 for placebo. Compared with placebo, the differences in the change in log viral load at day 11 were 0.09 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.52; P = .69) for 700 mg, -0.27 (95% CI, -0.71 to 0.16; P = .21) for 2800 mg, 0.31 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.76; P = .16) for 7000 mg, and -0.57 (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.14; P = .01) for combination treatment. Among the secondary outcome measures, differences between each treatment group vs the placebo group were statistically significant for 10 of 84 end points. The proportion of patients with COVID-19-related hospitalizations or ED visits was 5.8% (9 events) for placebo, 1.0% (1 event) for 700 mg, 1.9% (2 events) for 2800 mg, 2.0% (2 events) for 7000 mg, and 0.9% (1 event) for combination treatment. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions were reported in 9 patients (6 bamlanivimab, 2 combination treatment, and 1 placebo). No deaths occurred during the study treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: Among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness, treatment with bamlanivimab and etesevimab, compared with placebo, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load at day 11; no significant difference in viral load reduction was observed for bamlanivimab monotherapy. Further ongoing clinical trials will focus on assessing the clinical benefit of antispike neutralizing antibodies in patients with COVID-19 as a primary end point. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04427501.

A Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: LY-CoV555, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, has been associated with a decrease in viral load and the frequency of hospitalizations or emergency department visits among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Data are needed on the effect of this antibody in patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this platform trial of therapeutic agents, we randomly assigned hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LY-CoV555 or matching placebo. In addition, all the patients received high-quality supportive care as background therapy, including the antiviral drug remdesivir and, when indicated, supplemental oxygen and glucocorticoids. LY-CoV555 (at a dose of 7000 mg) or placebo was administered as a single intravenous infusion over a 1-hour period. The primary outcome was a sustained recovery during a 90-day period, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. An interim futility assessment was performed on the basis of a seven-category ordinal scale for pulmonary function on day 5. RESULTS: On October 26, 2020, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment for futility after 314 patients (163 in the LY-CoV555 group and 151 in the placebo group) had undergone randomization and infusion. The median interval since the onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 5 to 9). At day 5, a total of 81 patients (50%) in the LY-CoV555 group and 81 (54%) in the placebo group were in one of the two most favorable categories of the pulmonary outcome. Across the seven categories, the odds ratio of being in a more favorable category in the LY-CoV555 group than in the placebo group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.29; P = 0.45). The percentage of patients with the primary safety outcome (a composite of death, serious adverse events, or clinical grade 3 or 4 adverse events through day 5) was similar in the LY-CoV555 group and the placebo group (19% and 14%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.10; P = 0.20). The rate ratio for a sustained recovery was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibody LY-CoV555, when coadministered with remdesivir, did not demonstrate efficacy among hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure. (Funded by Operation Warp Speed and others; TICO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501978.).

REGN-COV2, a Neutralizing Antibody Cocktail, in Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that complications and death from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may be related to high viral loads. METHODS: In this ongoing, double-blind, phase 1-3 trial involving nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19, we investigated two fully human, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein, used in a combined cocktail (REGN-COV2) to reduce the risk of the emergence of treatment-resistant mutant virus. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive placebo, 2.4 g of REGN-COV2, or 8.0 g of REGN-COV2 and were prospectively characterized at baseline for endogenous immune response against SARS-CoV-2 (serum antibody-positive or serum antibody-negative). Key end points included the time-weighted average change in viral load from baseline (day 1) through day 7 and the percentage of patients with at least one Covid-19-related medically attended visit through day 29. Safety was assessed in all patients. RESULTS: Data from 275 patients are reported. The least-squares mean difference (combined REGN-COV2 dose groups vs. placebo group) in the time-weighted average change in viral load from day 1 through day 7 was -0.56 log10 copies per milliliter (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.02 to -0.11) among patients who were serum antibody-negative at baseline and -0.41 log10 copies per milliliter (95% CI, -0.71 to -0.10) in the overall trial population. In the overall trial population, 6% of the patients in the placebo group and 3% of the patients in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups reported at least one medically attended visit; among patients who were serum antibody-negative at baseline, the corresponding percentages were 15% and 6% (difference, -9 percentage points; 95% CI, -29 to 11). The percentages of patients with hypersensitivity reactions, infusion-related reactions, and other adverse events were similar in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups and the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this interim analysis, the REGN-COV2 antibody cocktail reduced viral load, with a greater effect in patients whose immune response had not yet been initiated or who had a high viral load at baseline. Safety outcomes were similar in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups and the placebo group. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and the Biomedical and Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04425629.).

SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody LY-CoV555 in Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), which is most frequently mild yet can be severe and life-threatening. Virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies are predicted to reduce viral load, ameliorate symptoms, and prevent hospitalization. METHODS: In this ongoing phase 2 trial involving outpatients with recently diagnosed mild or moderate Covid-19, we randomly assigned 452 patients to receive a single intravenous infusion of neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 in one of three doses (700 mg, 2800 mg, or 7000 mg) or placebo and evaluated the quantitative virologic end points and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the viral load at day 11. The results of a preplanned interim analysis as of September 5, 2020, are reported here. RESULTS: At the time of the interim analysis, the observed mean decrease from baseline in the log viral load for the entire population was -3.81, for an elimination of more than 99.97% of viral RNA. For patients who received the 2800-mg dose of LY-CoV555, the difference from placebo in the decrease from baseline was -0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.98 to -0.08; P = 0.02), for a viral load that was lower by a factor of 3.4. Smaller differences from placebo in the change from baseline were observed among the patients who received the 700-mg dose (-0.20; 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.25; P = 0.38) or the 7000-mg dose (0.09; 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.55; P = 0.70). On days 2 to 6, the patients who received LY-CoV555 had a slightly lower severity of symptoms than those who received placebo. The percentage of patients who had a Covid-19-related hospitalization or visit to an emergency department was 1.6% in the LY-CoV555 group and 6.3% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this interim analysis of a phase 2 trial, one of three doses of neutralizing antibody LY-CoV555 appeared to accelerate the natural decline in viral load over time, whereas the other doses had not by day 11. (Funded by Eli Lilly; BLAZE-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04427501.).

The role of IgG Fc receptors in antibody-dependent enhancement.

Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) is a mechanism by which the pathogenesis of certain viral infections is enhanced in the presence of sub-neutralizing or cross-reactive non-neutralizing antiviral antibodies. In vitro modelling of ADE has attributed enhanced pathogenesis to Fcγ receptor (FcγR)-mediated viral entry, rather than canonical viral receptor-mediated entry. However, the putative FcγR-dependent mechanisms of ADE overlap with the role of these receptors in mediating antiviral protection in various viral infections, necessitating a detailed understanding of how this diverse family of receptors functions in protection and pathogenesis. Here, we discuss the diversity of immune responses mediated upon FcγR engagement and review the available experimental evidence supporting the role of FcγRs in antiviral protection and pathogenesis through ADE. We explore FcγR engagement in the context of a range of different viral infections, including dengue virus and SARS-CoV, and consider ADE in the context of the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

A perspective on potential antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2.

Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease is a general concern for the development of vaccines and antibody therapies because the mechanisms that underlie antibody protection against any virus have a theoretical potential to amplify the infection or trigger harmful immunopathology. This possibility requires careful consideration at this critical point in the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Here we review observations relevant to the risks of ADE of disease, and their potential implications for SARS-CoV-2 infection. At present, there are no known clinical findings, immunological assays or biomarkers that can differentiate any severe viral infection from immune-enhanced disease, whether by measuring antibodies, T cells or intrinsic host responses. In vitro systems and animal models do not predict the risk of ADE of disease, in part because protective and potentially detrimental antibody-mediated mechanisms are the same and designing animal models depends on understanding how antiviral host responses may become harmful in humans. The implications of our lack of knowledge are twofold. First, comprehensive studies are urgently needed to define clinical correlates of protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Second, because ADE of disease cannot be reliably predicted after either vaccination or treatment with antibodies-regardless of what virus is the causative agent-it will be essential to depend on careful analysis of safety in humans as immune interventions for COVID-19 move forward.

The protective potential of Fc-mediated antibody functions against influenza virus and other viral pathogens.

In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in utilizing antibody fragment crystallizable (Fc) functions to prevent and control viral infections. The protective and therapeutic potential of Fc-mediated antibody functions have been assessed for some clinically important human viruses, including HIV, hemorrhagic fever viruses and influenza virus. There is mounting evidence that influenza-specific antibodies with Fc-mediated functions, such as antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and antibody-dependent phagocytosis, can aid in the clearance of influenza virus infection. Recent influenza challenge studies and intravenous immunoglobulin G therapy studies in humans suggest a protective role for Fc effector functions in vivo. Broadly reactive influenza antibodies with Fc-mediated functions are prevalent in the human population and could inform the development of a universally protective influenza vaccine or therapy. In this review, we explore the utility of antibodies with Fc-mediated effector functions against viral infections with a focus on influenza virus.