Marc Elia’s Post

“Monoclonal antibodies: The next frontier in disease prevention.” That headline says it all. And Aditya (Adi) Natu is right—and the frontier is here. The question now is whether we are able to cross it and move into a better future. Let’s be clear: protection from infectious disease is about optimizing human immunity, not just mindlessly adding to vaccine schedules irrespective of underling vaccine medical quality. At Invivyd we’ve spent years creating best-in-class monoclonal antibodies to protect people from serious viral diseases. Why? Because Americans deserve best in class, high technology options that can protect them from viruses, especially in situations in which a vaccine can’t get the entire job done. The science behind mAbs is as strong as any general principle in medicine or pharmaceuticals. There is inarguable natural precedent here: all human beings are born immunocompromised as infants, loaded up with monoclonal antibodies from their mother. The more recent biotech revolution has allowed technologists to take that principle and make great novel medicines that work the same way. Beyfortus for RSV is a great example, and a wonderful antibody medicine that shows what’s possible when innovative medicines are supported with the right public health strategies. There are many benefits to supplementing human access to extra antibody support across a variety of viral diseases: speed of onset, equity of protection, ultimate level of protection, safety, etc. But this kind of innovation without access is just theory. We need clear approval pathways for mAbs used for prevention and treatment of infectious diseases. That means shaping the frameworks that allow for scalability and access. It means accelerating review pathways. And it means acknowledging that mAbs are not a last resort—they should be a first-line tool for the right populations. Because I don’t want to have to choose between an infection I don't want and a vaccine that may not work for me.