Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. 10-K

Item 1. Business ​ Overview ​ We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel drug candidates for immuno-inflammatory diseases. In addition to developing our novel drug candidates, we are pursuing strategic alternatives, including identifying and consummating transactions with third-party partners, to further develop, obtain marketing approval for and/or commercialize our novel drug candidates. ​ In 2017, we acquired Confluence Life Sciences, Inc. (now known as Aclaris Life Sciences, Inc.), or Confluence. The acquisition of Confluence added small molecule drug discovery and preclinical development capabilities, including KINect, a proprietary drug discovery platform. This allowed us to bring early-stage research and development activities in-house that we previously outsourced to third parties. We leverage these capabilities and KINect to identify potential drug candidates that we may develop independently or in collaboration with third parties. As part of the Confluence acquisition we also acquired our investigational drug candidates zunsemetinib, an inhibitor of the mitogen-activated protein kinase-activated protein kinase 2, or MK2, signaling pathway, ATI-1777, a topical “soft” Janus kinase, or JAK, inhibitor, and ATI-2138, an inhibitor of interleukin-2-inducible T cell kinase, or ITK. We also earn revenue from Confluence’s provision of contract research services to third parties. ​ Our Drug Candidates ​ Our pipeline of drug candidates that we are currently developing is summarized in the table below. These investigational drugs were developed internally utilizing our proprietary KINect drug discovery platform. ​ Drug Candidate / Program Target Route of Administration Indication Development Phase Immuno-Inflammatory Zunsemetinib MK2 inhibitor Oral ​ Rheumatoid arthritis (moderate to severe) Phase 2 Psoriatic arthritis (moderate to severe) Phase 2* Hidradenitis suppurativa (moderate to severe) Phase 2 ATI- 1 777 “Soft” JAK 1/3 inhibitor Topical Atopic dermatitis (moderate to severe) Phase 2 ATI-2138 ITK/TXK/JAK3 inhibitor Oral T cell-mediated autoimmune diseases Phase 1 Gut-Biased Program JAK inhibitor Oral Inflammatory bowel disease Discovery Oncology ATI-2231 MK2 inhibitor Oral Metastatic breast cancer Preclinical ​ ​ ​ Pancreatic cancer ​ * We plan to progress this indication directly into Phase 2. 4 Table of Contents Clinical Programs ​ Zunsemetinib, an Investigational Oral MK2 Inhibitor ​ We submitted an Investigational New Drug Application, or IND, in April 2019 for zunsemetinib, an investigational oral, novel, small molecule selective MK2 inhibitor compound, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, which was allowed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, in May 2019. MK2 is a key regulator of pro-inflammatory mediators including TNFα, IL1β, IL6, IL8, IL17 and other essential pathogenic signals in chronic immuno-inflammatory diseases, as well as in oncology. As an oral drug candidate, we are developing zunsemetinib as a potential alternative to injectable anti-TNF/IL1/IL6 biologics and JAK inhibitors for treating certain immuno-inflammatory diseases. Zunsemetinib has been adopted as the nonproprietary name for ATI-450. ​ We initiated a Phase 1 single (at 10 mg, 30 mg, 50 mg and 100 mg doses) and multiple ascending (at 10 mg, 30 mg and 50 mg doses) dose clinical trial evaluating zunsemetinib in 77 healthy subjects in August 2019 (ATI-450-PKPD-101). Final data from this trial demonstrated that zunsemetinib resulted in marked inhibition of TNFα, IL1β, IL8 and IL6. We also observed that zunsemetinib had dose-proportional pharmacokinetics with a terminal half-life of 9-12 hours in the multiple ascending dose cohort, and had no meaningful food effect or drug-drug interaction with methotrexate. Zunsemetinib was generally well-tolerated at all doses tested in the trial. The most common adverse events (reported by 2 or more subjects who received zunsemetinib) were dizziness, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, constipation, abdominal pain and nausea. ​ Zunsemetinib was also evaluated at 80 mg and 120 mg doses twice daily in a second Phase 1 clinical trial in healthy subjects (ATI-450-PKPD-102). Final data from this trial showed that no dose-limiting toxicity was observed. Ex vivo analysis of blood samples from this Phase 1 trial showed that increased cytokine inhibition was achieved with these higher doses of zunsemetinib relative to doses tested in the first Phase 1 trial. No serious adverse events were reported and all adverse events were mild to moderate. The most common adverse events (reported by 2 or more subjects who received zunsemetinib) were headache, dizziness, nausea, parasthesia and, in the post-dosing follow-up period of the trial, dry skin. These adverse events were all mild in severity. ​ Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis ​ Following the completion of the first Phase 1 clinical trial, in March 2020 we initiated a 12-week, Phase 2a, multicenter, randomized, investigator and patient-blind, sponsor-unblinded, parallel group, placebo-controlled clinical trial to investigate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of zunsemetinib in subjects with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (ATI-450-RA-201). In the trial, which consisted of a 12-week treatment period and a 4-week follow-up period, 19 subjects were randomized in a 3:1 ratio and received either zunsemetinib at 50 mg twice daily or placebo, in combination with methotrexate, for 12 weeks. ​ The final per-protocol analysis, which consisted of the 17 subjects who completed the treatment period (15 in the treatment arm and two in the placebo arm), showed that zunsemetinib demonstrated durable clinical activity, as defined by a marked and sustained reduction in DAS28-CRP and improvement of ACR20/50/70 responses over 12 weeks. Zunsemetinib was generally well tolerated. All adverse events were mild to moderate. The most common adverse events (each reported in 2 subjects) were urinary tract infection, or UTI, and ventricular extrasystoles, all of which were determined to be unrelated to treatment except for one UTI. Two subjects withdrew from the trial during the treatment period, one in the treatment arm and one in the placebo arm. The subject in the treatment arm withdrew due to an elevated creatine phosphokinase, or CPK, level, which was determined by the site investigator to be treatment-related; this subject also had palpitations and ventricular extrasystoles, which were unrelated to the trial medication. The subject in the placebo arm withdrew as a result of prohibited medication needed to treat muscle strain. There was also one non-treatment-related serious adverse event (COVID-19) reported in the 4-week follow-up period of the trial in a subject who was no longer receiving treatment; the subject withdrew during the 4-week follow-up period of the trial. ​ A final analysis, which consisted of the 17 subjects, of ex vivo stimulated cytokines from blood samples taken from the treatment arm showed a marked and durable inhibition of TNFα, IL1β, IL6, and IL8 over the 12-week treatment period. Similarly, analysis of endogenous inflammation biomarkers also demonstrated a marked and sustained inhibition of median concentrations of hsCRP, TNFα, IL6, IL8 and MIP1β in the treatment arm over the 12-week period. ​ 5 Table of Contents In December 2021, we initiated study activities in a Phase 2b randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, dose ranging trial to investigate the efficacy, safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of multiple doses (20 mg and 50 mg twice daily) of zunsemetinib in combination with methotrexate in subjects with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (ATI-450-RA-202). This trial will consist of a 12-week treatment period and a 30-day follow-up period, and currently seeks to enroll approximately 195 subjects in the United States and in multiple countries in Europe. The primary endpoint is the proportion of subjects achieving ACR20 at week 12. We anticipate increasing the size of the patient population to approximately 240 subjects and expect topline data in 2023. ​ Moderate to Severe Hidradenitis Suppurativa ​ In December 2021, we initiated study activities in a Phase 2a, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the efficacy, safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of zunsemetinib (50 mg twice daily) in subjects with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (ATI-450-HS-201). This trial will consist of a 12-week treatment period and a 30-day follow-up period, and will seek to enroll approximately 70 subjects in the United States. The primary endpoint is the change in inflammatory nodule and abscess count at week 12. We expect topline data in the first half of 2023. ​ Moderate to Severe Psoriatic Arthritis ​ We plan to progress zunsemetinib (50 mg twice daily) into a Phase 2a trial in subjects with moderate to severe psoriatic arthritis in the first half of 2022, with topline data expected in the first half of 2023 (ATI-450-PsA-201). ​ ATI-1777, an Investigational Topical “Soft” JAK 1/3 Inhibitor ​ In June 2020, we submitted an IND for ATI-1777, an investigational topical “soft” JAK 1/3 inhibitor compound, for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. “Soft” JAK inhibitors are designed to be topically applied and active in the skin, but rapidly metabolized and inactivated when they enter the bloodstream, which may result in low systemic exposure. ​ In October 2020, we initiated a Phase 2a, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial to determine the efficacy, safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of ATI-1777 in subjects with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (ATI-1777-AD-201). In the trial, which consisted of a 4-week treatment period and a 2-week follow-up period during which no treatment was given, 50 subjects with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into one of two arms: ATI-1777 topical solution 2.0% w/w or vehicle applied twice daily. In June 2021, we announced that the trial achieved its primary endpoint, which was the percent change from baseline in the modified Eczema Area and Severity Index, or mEASI, score at week 4, with a high degree of statistical significance (p<0.001) (one-sided p-value), which corresponded to a 74.4% reduction in mEASI score from baseline at week 4 in subjects applying ATI-1777 compared to a 41.4% reduction in subjects applying vehicle. The final data was based on the full analysis set, or FAS, which was comprised of 48 subjects randomized and documented to have received at least one dose of trial medication. Positive trends in favor of ATI-1777 were observed in key secondary efficacy endpoints, such as improvement in itch, percent of mEASI-50 responders, investigator’s global assessment responder analysis, and reduction in body surface area impacted by disease. In addition, the FAS analysis also showed positive trends in favor of ATI-1777 in percent of mEASI-75 responders (65.2% for ATI-1777 compared to 24.0% for vehicle) and mEASI-90 responders (30.4% for ATI-1777 compared to 20.0% for vehicle). These secondary efficacy endpoints were not powered for statistical significance. Based on an analysis of pharmacokinetic plasma samples in the ATI-1777 arm at multiple timepoints, minimal systemic exposure was observed which supports a “soft” topical JAK inhibitor approach. ​ ATI-1777 was generally well tolerated. No serious adverse events were reported. The most common adverse events (reported in at least 2 subjects in the trial) were increased blood CPK levels and headache in subjects in the ATI-1777 arm and urinary tract infection (one in each of the ATI-1777 and the vehicle arm); none of these adverse events in the ATI-1777 arm were determined by the clinical trial investigators to be related to ATI-1777. One treatment-related adverse event, application site pruritus, was reported in one subject in the ATI-1777 arm. ​ Based on the results observed in the Phase 2a trial, we intend to progress ATI-1777 into a Phase 2b trial in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in the first half of 2022. In this trial, we plan to explore multiple concentrations of twice daily treatment with ATI-1777 and a single concentration of once daily treatment with ATI-1777, in patients 12 years and older. We expect topline data in the first half of 2023. 6 Table of Contents ​ ATI-2138, an Investigational Oral ITJ Inhibitor ​ We are developing ATI-2138, an investigational oral ITK/TXK/JAK3, or ITJ, inhibitor compound, as a potential treatment for T cell-mediated autoimmune diseases. The ITJ compound interrupts T cell signaling through the combined inhibition of ITK/TXK/JAK3 pathways in lymphocytes. We submitted an IND for ATI-2138 for the treatment of psoriasis in October 2021, which was allowed by the FDA in November 2021. ​ In December 2021, we initiated a Phase 1 randomized, observer-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose trial to investigate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ATI-2138 in healthy subjects (ATI-2138-PKPD-101). We expect topline data in 2022. ​ If the Phase 1 SAD trial is successful, we currently plan to initiate a two-week Phase 1 multiple ascending dose trial of ATI-2138 in subjects with psoriasis in 2022, with topline data expected in the first half of 2023. We are also currently exploring alternative indications to the planned indication that are relevant to the mechanism of action which may impact the trial design and require the submission of additional INDs to different reviewing divisions of the FDA. ​ Preclinical Programs ​ ATI-2231, an Investigational Oral MK2 Inhibitor ​ We are exploring the use of ATI-2231, an investigational oral MK2 inhibitor compound designed to have a long half-life, as a potential treatment for pancreatic cancer and metastatic breast cancer as well as in preventing bone loss in patients with metastatic breast cancer. IND-enabling studies are currently underway. We expect to submit an IND for ATI-2231 by the end of 2022. If allowed, we expect to progress ATI-2231 into the clinic in 2023. We are currently evaluating the clinical development program for this asset, which may include a collaboration with a third party. ​ Discovery Programs ​ We are developing oral gut-biased JAK inhibitors with limited systemic exposure as potential treatments for inflammatory bowel disease. In addition, we are engaged in research to identify brain penetrant kinase inhibitor candidates as potential treatments for neurodegenerative diseases. ​ Manufacturing and Supply ​ We do not have any manufacturing facilities. We rely on third parties for the manufacture of preclinical and clinical supplies for our drug candidates. ​ Competition ​ The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary drugs. While we believe that our knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Our drug candidates, if approved, will compete with existing treatments and new treatments that may become available in the future. ​ With respect to zunsemetinib as a potential treatment for immuno-inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and hidradenitis suppurativa, there are several different types of therapies in the market. Medications for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis currently fall into two categories: drugs that ease symptoms such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and drugs that slow disease activity. Drugs that slow disease activity include corticosteroids and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, or DMARDs. DMARDs include (i) conventional synthetic DMARDs, such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide and hydroxychloroquine , (ii) biologic DMARDs (monoclonal antibodies which inhibit targets such as TNF α , IL1β, IL6, IL17 and costimulatory signaling mechanisms) , and (iii) targeted synthetic DMARDs such as JAK inhibitors. Hidradenitis suppurativa is currently treated with antibiotics, corticosteroids and surgery, as well as anti-TNF therapy. Drugs for the treatment of immuno-inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and hidradenitis suppurativa are produced and sold, or are approved 7 Table of Contents for marketing, by large pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Novartis and Roche. In addition, we are aware of a number of companies developing and conducting clinical trials for investigational drug candidates, including biosimilars, that, if approved, could compete with zunsemetinib, if approved, for the treatment of immuno-inflammatory diseases. ​ With respect to ATI-1777 as a potential treatment for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, there are several different types of therapies in the atopic dermatitis market, such as biologics, oral and topical corticosteroids, injectable and oral methotrexate products, oral and topical calcineurin inhibitors, oral mycophenolate products, other JAK inhibitors, other oral antibiotics and antihistamines and phototherapy. There are also several prescription, non-prescription and over-the-counter, or OTC, topical products, including PDE4 inhibitors, utilized to treat atopic dermatitis. These types of drugs are produced and sold, or are approved for marketing, by large pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Incyte, LEO Pharma A/S, Pfizer, and Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In addition, we are aware of a number of companies including large pharmaceutical companies, such as Eli Lilly, Novartis, LEO Pharma A/S, Pfizer and Dermavant Sciences developing and conducting clinical trials for investigational drug candidates, that, if approved, could compete with ATI-1777, if approved, for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. ​ The commercial opportunity for our drug candidates, if approved, could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize drugs that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any drug we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their drug candidates more rapidly than our potential third-party partners may obtain approval for our drug candidates, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before our drug candidates are able to enter the market. ​ Many of the companies against which we are competing, or against which we may compete in the future, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, and preclinical and clinical development than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and subject registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or that may be necessary for, our development programs. ​ Intellectual Property ​ Our success depends in large part upon our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our drug candidates and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others. We seek to avoid the latter by monitoring patents and publications that may affect our business, and to the extent we identify such developments, evaluating and taking appropriate courses of action. Our policy is to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing patent applications on inventions that are important to the development and conduct of our business with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and its foreign counterparts. ​ With respect to our MK2 signaling pathway inhibitor development program, we own numerous issued patents and pending applications to novel MK2 pathway inhibitors, including our lead candidate zunsemetinib, and various methods of use that expire, or would expire, between 2031 and 2041, subject to any applicable patent term adjustment or extension that may be available in a particular country. For example, we own two issued U.S. patents and issued patents and pending applications in the European Union and other foreign countries directed to zunsemetinib and analogs thereof and certain methods of using the same. The U.S. patents expire in 2034 and any claims that may issue from the pending applications expire in 2034, subject to any applicable adjustment or extension. Further, we own numerous Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, applications directed to certain methods of using zunsemetinib, methods of manufacturing zunsemetinib and crystal forms of zunsemetinib, which, if issued, would each expire in 2041, subject to any applicable adjustment or extension. We also own a PCT application directed to second generation MK2 inhibitors, such as ATI-2231, and methods of use, which, if issued, would expire in 2040, subject to any applicable adjustment or extension. ​ With respect to our “soft” JAK inhibitor development program, we own one issued U.S. patent and numerous pending applications in the U.S. and foreign countries to novel “soft” JAK inhibitors and various methods of use that expire, or would expire, between 2038 and 2042, subject to any applicable patent term adjustment or extension that may be available in a particular country. For example, we own one U.S. patent and pending applications in the U.S., European 8 Table of Contents Union and other foreign countries directed to various novel inhibitors of JAK1 and/or JAK3, including ATI-1777, and methods of using the same, which, if issued, would expire in 2038, subject to any applicable adjustment or extension. We also own a PCT application directed to crystal forms of ATI-1777 and provisional applications directed to methods of using ATI-1777 and topical formulations, which, if issued, would expire in 2041 and 2042, respectively, subject to any applicable adjustment or extension. ​ With respect to our ITK inhibitor development program, we own numerous issued U.S. patents and pending applications in the U.S. and foreign countries directed to novel inhibitors of ITK and methods of use that expire, or would expire, between 2035 and 2039, subject to any applicable patent term adjustment or extension that may be available in a particular country. For example, we own one U.S. patent and pending U.S., European Union and other foreign country applications directed to ATI-2138 and analogs thereof and methods of using the same, which, if issued, would expire in 2039, subject to any applicable adjustment or extension. ​ Patents extend for varying periods according to the date of patent filing or grant and the legal term of patents in various countries where patent protection is obtained. The actual protection afforded by a patent, which can vary from country to country, depends on the type of patent, the scope of its coverage and the availability of legal remedies in the country. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent term may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over another patent or as a result of delays in patent prosecution by the patentee, and a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO in granting a patent or by patent term extension, which compensates a patentee for delays at the FDA. The patent term of a European patent is 20 years from its filing date; however, unlike in the United States, the European patent does not grant patent term adjustments. The European Union does have a compensation program similar to patent term extension called supplementary patent certificate that would effectively extend patent protection for up to five years. ​ We also use other forms of protection, such as trademark, copyright, and/or trade secret protection, to protect our intellectual property, particularly where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. We aim to take advantage of all of the intellectual property rights that are available to us and believe that this comprehensive approach will provide us with proprietary positions for our drug candidates, where available. ​ We also protect our proprietary information by requiring our employees, consultants, contractors and other advisors to execute nondisclosure and assignment of invention agreements upon commencement of their respective employment or engagement. Agreements with our employees also prevent them from bringing the proprietary rights of third parties to us. In addition, we also require confidentiality or service agreements from third parties that receive our confidential information or materials. ​ Acquisition and License Agreements ​ Agreement and Plan of Merger with Confluence ​ In August 2017, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, or the Confluence Agreement, with Confluence, Aclaris Life Sciences, Inc., our wholly-owned subsidiary, or Merger Sub, and Fortis Advisors LLC, as representative of the former equity holders of Confluence. Pursuant to the terms of the Confluence Agreement, the Merger Sub merged with and into Confluence, with Confluence surviving as our wholly-owned subsidiary, resulting in our acquisition of 100% of the outstanding shares of Confluence. ​ Under the Confluence Agreement, we agreed to pay the former Confluence equity holders aggregate remaining contingent consideration of up to $75.0 million based upon the achievement of specified regulatory and commercial milestones set forth in the Confluence Agreement. In addition, we have agreed to pay the former Confluence equity holders future royalty payments calculated as a low single-digit percentage of annual net sales, subject to specified reductions, limitations and other adjustments, until the date that all of the patent rights for that product have expired, as determined on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis or, in specified circumstances, ten years from the first commercial sale of such product. In addition to the payments described above, if we sell, license or transfer any of the intellectual property acquired from Confluence pursuant to the Confluence Agreement to a third party, we will be obligated to pay the former Confluence equity holders a portion of any consideration received from such sale, license or transfer in specified circumstances. ​ 9 Table of Contents Government Regulation and Product Approval ​ Governmental authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and analogous authorities in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, safety surveillance, efficacy, quality control, labeling, packaging, distribution, record keeping, promotion, storage, advertising, distribution, marketing, sale, export and import, and the reporting of safety and other post-market information of products such as the ones we are developing. A drug candidate must be approved by the FDA before it may be legally promoted in the United States and by comparable foreign regulatory authorities before marketing in other jurisdictions. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant and/or sponsor to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, including refusal by regulatory authorities to approve applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, import/export delays, issuance of warning letters and untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by FDA and the Department of Justice or other governmental entities. ​ United States Government Regulation ​ NDA Approval Processes ​ In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and its implementing regulations. The FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research has primary jurisdiction over the premarket development, review and approval of our drug candidates. Accordingly, we are investigating our drug candidates pursuant to IND applications and would expect to seek approval through the New Drug Application, or NDA, pathway. ​ An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug product in the United States must typically undertake the following: ​ ● completion of preclinical laboratory tests, animal studies and formulation studies in compliance with the FDA’s good laboratory practice regulations; ● submission to the FDA of an IND which must take effect before clinical trials may begin; ● approval by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, representing each clinical site before clinical testing may be initiated at the clinical site; ● performance of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials in accordance with good clinical practice, or GCP, regulations to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug product for each indication; ● preparation and submission to the FDA of an NDA; ● review of the NDA by an FDA advisory committee, if applicable; ● satisfactory completion of one or more FDA inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product or its components are produced to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, and regulations to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity; ● payment of user fees and securing FDA approval of the NDA; and ● compliance with any post-approval requirements, including potential requirements for a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy and post-approval studies required by the FDA. ​ Once a drug candidate is identified for development, it enters the preclinical or nonclinical testing stage. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, pharmacology, toxicity and formulation. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical studies may continue even after the IND is submitted. In addition to including the results of the preclinical studies, the IND will also include a protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated if the first phase lends itself to an efficacy determination. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, places the IND on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the 10 Table of Contents FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin. A clinical hold may occur at any time during the life of an IND, and may affect one or more specific clinical trials or all clinical trials conducted under the IND. ​ All clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators in accordance with current GCP regulations. They must be conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, dosing procedures, research subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and progress reports detailing the status of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA annually, as well as safety reporting. An IRB for each site participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the protocol before the clinical trial commences at that institution and must also approve the information regarding the trial and the consent form that must be provided to each research subject or the subject’s legal representative, monitor the study until completed and otherwise comply with IRB regulations. ​ Clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined: ​ ● Phase 1. The drug is initially introduced into healthy human subjects and tested for safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and elimination. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, and especially when the product may be inherently too toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients who already have the condition. ● Phase 2. Clinical trials are performed on a limited patient population intended to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage. ● Phase 3. If a drug candidate is found to be potentially effective and to have an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 clinical trials, the clinical trial program will be expanded to Phase 3 clinical trials to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. These trials are intended to establish the overall risk-benefit ratio of the product and provide an adequate basis for product approval and labeling claims. ​ Phase 4 clinical trials are conducted after approval to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and to document a clinical benefit in the case of drugs approved under accelerated approval regulations, or when otherwise requested by the FDA in the form of post-market requirements or commitments. Failure to promptly conduct any required Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval. ​ Clinical trials are inherently uncertain, and Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 testing may not be successfully completed. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time for a variety of reasons, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. In some cases, clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, which is called the clinical monitoring board or data safety monitoring board. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points. These decisions are based on the limited access to data from the ongoing trial. ​ During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to the submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2 and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date and for the FDA to provide advice on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meeting at the end of Phase 2 to discuss their Phase 2 clinical trial results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial or trials that they believe will support the approval of the new drug. ​ Concurrent with clinical trials, sponsors usually complete additional animal safety studies and also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing commercial quantities of the product in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug and the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the quality, purity and potency of the drug. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its proposed shelf-life. ​ The results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests and other control mechanisms, proposed labeling and other relevant information 11 Table of Contents are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of user fees, but a waiver of such fees may be obtained under specified circumstances. The FDA reviews all NDAs submitted for a period of 60 days to ensure that they are sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts them for filing. It may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. ​ During the approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS, and the FDA will not approve the application without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS can substantially increase the costs of obtaining approval. The FDA could also require a special warning, known as a boxed warning, to be included in the product label in order to highlight a particular safety risk. ​ Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant. The FDA may refer the NDA to an advisory committee for review and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. NDAs receive either standard or priority review. A drug representing a significant improvement in treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease may receive priority review. A priority review designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on the NDA from ten months to six months from filing of the NDA. After the FDA evaluates the NDA and conducts inspections of manufacturing facilities where the drug product and/or its active pharmaceutical ingredient will be produced, it may issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application is not ready for approval. A Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data and/or an additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s), and/or other significant, expensive and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. ​ Post-approval Requirements ​ Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA and other governmental agencies, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion, and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval. There are also continuing annual user fee requirements for products, as well as new application fees for certain supplemental applications. In addition, the FDA may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the effect of approved products that have been commercialized, and the FDA has the power to prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of these post-marketing programs. ​ Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and some state agencies for compliance with GMP regulations and other laws. The FDA has promulgated specific requirements for drug cGMPs. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP requirements and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the sponsor and any third-party manufacturers that the sponsor may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. ​ 12 Table of Contents Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process or approval process, or after approval, may subject us to administrative or judicial sanctions, any of which could have a material adverse effect on us. These sanctions could include: ​ ● refusal to approve pending applications; ● withdrawal of an approval; ● imposition of a clinical hold; ● warning letters; ● product seizures or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; ● restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product; ● total or partial suspension of production or distribution or product recalls; or ● injunctions, fines, disgorgement, or civil or criminal penalties. ​ The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products that are placed on the market. Drugs may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with the product’s FDA approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. However, physicians may, in their independent medical judgment, prescribe legally available products for off-label uses. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments but the FDA does restrict sponsor communications on the subject of off-label use. ​ From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often issued revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our drug candidates. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be issued or changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. ​ Non-patent Exclusivity ​ The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity, or NCE. A drug is an NCE if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. If market exclusivity is granted for an NCE, during the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review or approve an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder. ​ The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages, dosage forms or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions associated with the new clinical investigations and prohibits the FDA from approving an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company with overlapping conditions associated with the new clinical investigations for the three-year period. Clinical investigation exclusivity does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of an NDA for the same drug. However, an applicant submitting an NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. ​ Regulation Outside of the United States ​ Even if we obtain FDA approval for a drug candidate, we must obtain approval by the comparable regulatory authorities of countries outside of the United States before we can commence clinical trials in such countries, and our potential third-party partners must obtain approval of the regulators of such countries or economic areas, such as the 13 Table of Contents European Union, before they may market any of our drug candidates in those countries or areas. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing and promotion, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly by geographic region, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. ​ In the European Economic Area, or EEA, which is composed of the Member States of the European Union plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization, or MA. ​ There are two types of MAs: ​ ● The Community MA, which is issued by the European Commission through the Centralized Procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, of the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and which is valid throughout the entire territory of the EEA. The Centralized Procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, and medicinal products indicated for the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and viral diseases. The Centralized Procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health in the European Union. Under the Centralized Procedure, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application is 210 days (excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP). Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when the authorization of a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. Under the accelerated procedure, the standard 210 days review period is reduced to 150 days. ● National MAs, which are issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA and only cover their respective territory, are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the Centralized Procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a Member State of the EEA, this National MA can be recognized in another Member State through the Mutual Recognition Procedure. If the product has not received a National MA in any Member State at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various Member States through the Decentralized Procedure. ​ In the EEA, upon receiving marketing authorization, NCEs generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the EEA from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EEA’s regulatory authorities to be an NCE, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. ​ Other Health Care Laws ​ Health care providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any of our drug candidates for which marketing approval is obtained. Our potential third-party partners’ arrangements with third-party payors, health care professionals and customers may expose them to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other health care laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal civil False Claims Act, that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which they sell, market and distribute any drug candidates for which marketing approval is obtained. In addition, we and our potential third-party partners may be subject to transparency laws and patient privacy regulation by the federal government and by the U.S. states and foreign jurisdictions in which we or they conduct business. ​ The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person or entity, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf) to knowingly and willfully, directly or indirectly, solicit, receive, offer, or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order, or lease of any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made under a federal health care program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and 14 Table of Contents regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal health care covered business, the Anti-Kickback Statute has been violated. Violations of this law are punishable by up to ten years in prison, and can also result in criminal fines, civil monetary penalties, administrative penalties and exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. ​ Additionally, the intent standard under the Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the Affordable Care Act, to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the Affordable Care Act codified case law that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. ​ Federal false claims and false statement laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to, or approval by, federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent or not provided as claimed. Entities can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers, promoting a product off-label, or for providing medically unnecessary services or items. In addition, activities relating to the sale and marketing of products are subject to scrutiny under this law. Penalties for federal civil False Claims Act violations may include up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal health care programs, and, although the federal civil False Claims Act is a civil statute, False Claims Act violations may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. ​ The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, prohibits among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a health care benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a health care offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items or services. Like the Anti-Kickback Statute, the Affordable Care Act amended the intent standard for the health care fraud statute under HIPAA such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. ​ The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent. ​ Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. Additionally, to the extent that a product is sold in a foreign country, the seller may be subject to similar foreign laws. ​ In addition, legislation imposing marketing restrictions and transparency requirements on pharmaceutical manufacturers has been enacted at the state and federal levels. For example, the Affordable Care Act imposed, among other things, annual reporting requirements to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, for covered manufacturers for certain payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other health care professionals (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners) and teaching hospitals, as well as information regarding ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to submit timely, accurately and completely the required information for all payments, transfers of value and ownership or investment interests may result in civil monetary penalties for “knowing failures.” Certain states also mandate implementation of compliance programs, impose restrictions on drug manufacturer marketing practices, require registration of certain employees engaged in marketing activities in the 15 Table of Contents location, and/or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to health care professionals, including physicians. ​ We have developed a comprehensive compliance program that establishes internal controls to facilitate adherence to the rules and program requirements to which we are subject. Although the development and implementation of compliance programs designed to establish internal controls and facilitate compliance can mitigate the risk of investigation, prosecution, and penalties assessed for violations of these laws, or any other laws that may apply to us, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated. If our operations are found to be in violation of any such laws or any other governmental regulations, we may be subject to significant penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and individual imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. ​ We may also be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their implementing regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, mandates, among other things, the adoption of uniform standards for the electronic exchange of information in common health care transactions, as well as standards relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information, which require the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect such information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to “business associates”, namely independent contractors or agents of HIPAA covered entities that create, receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity and their subcontractors that use, disclose, access, or otherwise process protected health information. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities and business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties. ​ Health Care Reform ​ In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of significant legislative initiatives to contain health care costs. For example, in March 2010, the Affordable Care Act was passed, which has had, and is expected to continue to have, a significant impact on the health care industry. The Affordable Care Act was designed to expand coverage for the uninsured and at the same time contain overall health care costs. With regard to pharmaceutical products, among other things, the Affordable Care Act expanded and increased industry rebates for drugs covered under Medicaid programs; addressed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs; made changes to the coverage requirements under the Medicare prescription drug benefit; and established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers, as a condition for their outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D, must agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period. Moreover, the Affordable Care Act provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research and implemented payment system reforms including a national pilot program on payment bundling meant to encourage hospitals, physicians and other providers to improve the coordination, quality and efficiency of certain health care services. ​ There have been executive branch, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, several bills affecting the implementation of certain taxes under the Affordable Care Act have been signed into law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the 2017 Tax Act, includes a provision repealing, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate”. In addition, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the Affordable Care Act-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored 16 Table of Contents health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminated the health insurer tax. Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amended the Affordable Care Act, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole”. On June 17, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Thus, the Affordable Care Act will remain in effect in its current form. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act. It is possible that the Affordable Care Act will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how such challenges and the health care reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the Affordable Care Act and our business. ​ In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, in August 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals in spending reductions. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for fiscal years 2012 through 2021, triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions in Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect beginning on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the BBA and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, will stay in effect through 2031 with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Under current legislation the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 3% in the final fiscal year of this sequester. Additionally, in January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, cancer treatment centers and imaging centers. Moreover, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act imposes new obligations on manufacturers of pharmaceutical products related to product tracking and tracing. Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. ​ There has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, President Trump announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that seek to implement several of the administration’s proposals. As a result, the FDA concurrently released a final rule and guidance in September 2020 providing pathways for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The implementation of the rule has been delayed by the Biden administration from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023 in response to ongoing litigation. The rule also created a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, the implementation of which have also been delayed until January 1, 2023. On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing the President Trump’s Most Favored Nation executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. As a result of litigation challenging the Most Favored Nation model, on December 27, 2021, CMS published a final rule that rescinds the Most Favored Nation model interim final rule. In July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. No legislation or administrative actions have been finalized to implement these principles. It is unclear whether these or similar policy initiatives will be implemented in the future. At the state level, legislatures have become increasingly active in passing 17 Table of Contents legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. ​ The Affordable Care Act, as well as other federal and state health care reform measures that have been and may be adopted in the future, could harm our future revenue. Additional legislative actions may be taken in the future which may change current regulations, guidance and interpretations. Further, it is also possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of such actions on our business, if any, cannot presently be determined. ​ The Hatch Waxman Amendments to the FDCA ​ Orange Book Listing ​ In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product or a method of using the product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential competitors in support of approval of an ANDA or an application covered by Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients, generally in the same strengths and dosage form, as the listed drug and has been shown through pharmacokinetic, or PK, testing to be bioequivalent to the listed drug. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug, and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are generally not required to conduct, or submit results of, preclinical studies or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Section 505(b)(2) applications provide for marketing of a drug product that may have the same active ingredients as the listed drug and contains full safety and effectiveness data as an NDA, but at least some of this information comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant. This alternate regulatory pathway enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s findings of safety and efficacy for an existing product, or published literature, in support of its application. The FDA may then approve the new drug candidate for all or some of the labeled indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the 505(b)(2) applicant. ​ The ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) applicant may also elect to submit a statement certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain, or carves out, any language regarding a patented method of use rather than certify to such listed method of use patent. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents by filing a certification that the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product, the ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. ​ A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) application until the earliest of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, and a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) applicant. This prohibition is generally referred to as the 30-month stay. Thus, approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA could be delayed for a significant period of time depending on the patent certification the applicant makes and the reference drug sponsor’s decision to initiate patent litigation. ​ The ANDA or Section 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired. ​ 18 Table of Contents Patent Term Extension ​ In the United States, after NDA approval, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five year patent extension, which provides patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process for the first permitted commercial marketing of a drug product. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase, which is the time between the IND submission becoming effective and the NDA submission, and all of the review phase, which is the time between NDA submission and approval, up to a maximum extension of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. Patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. ​ Similar provisions are available in the European Union and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. For example, in Japan, it may be possible to extend the patent term for up to five years and in the European Union, it may be possible to obtain a supplementary patent certificate that would effectively extend patent protection for up to five years. ​ Coverage and Reimbursement ​ We believe the success of our drug candidates, if approved, will depend on obtaining and maintaining coverage and adequate reimbursement as a prescription treatment or in the absence of coverage and adequate reimbursement, on the extent to which patients will be willing to pay out of pocket for our prescription drug products. ​ Third-party payors determine which prescription drug products they will cover and establish reimbursement levels. Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including: the third-party payor’s determination that a product is safe, effective, and medically necessary; appropriate for the specific patient; cost-effective; supported by peer-reviewed medical journals or current clinical practice guidelines; and whether there are competitive products, either branded or generic, and the pricing of those products. Many private third-party payors, such as managed care plans, manage access to drug products’ coverage partly to control costs for their plans, and may use drug formularies and medical policies to limit their exposure. Obtaining and maintaining favorable reimbursement can be a time-consuming and expensive process, and our potential third-party partners may not be able to negotiate or continue to negotiate reimbursement or pricing terms for our drug candidates, if approved, with third-party payors at levels that are profitable to us, or at all. Further coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products which receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. ​ In addition to uncertainties surrounding coverage policies, there are periodic changes to reimbursement. Third-party payors regularly update reimbursement amounts and also from time to time revise the methodologies used to determine reimbursement amounts. Accordingly, these updates could impact the demand for our drug candidates, if approved. Our drug candidates, if approved, may not be considered cost effective, and government and third-party private health insurance coverage and reimbursement may not be available to patients or sufficient to allow our potential third-party partners to sell our drug candidates, if approved, on a competitive and profitable basis. Our results of operations could be adversely affected by the Affordable Care Act and by other health care reforms that may be enacted or adopted in the future. In addition, increasing emphasis on managed care in the United States will continue to put pressure on the pricing of pharmaceutical products. Cost control initiatives could decrease the price that our potential third-party partners could receive for any of our drug candidates, if approved, and could adversely affect our profitability. We cannot predict how pending and future health care legislation will impact our business, and any changes in coverage and reimbursement that further restricts coverage of our drug candidates could harm our business. ​ Foreign governments also have their own health care reimbursement systems, which vary significantly by country and region, and we cannot be sure that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be made available with respect to our drug candidates, if approved, under any foreign reimbursement system. In some foreign countries, including major markets in the European Union and Japan, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take up to 12 months or longer after the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a pharmacoeconomic study that compares the cost-effectiveness of our drug candidate to other available therapies. Such pharmacoeconomic studies can be costly and the results uncertain. Our business could be 19 Table of Contents harmed if reimbursement of our drug candidates, if approved, is unavailable or limited in scope or amount or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels. ​ Employees and Human Capital Resources ​ As of December 31, 2021, we had 77 total employees, of which 72 were full-time employees. All of our employees are located in the United States. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good. ​ Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. The principal purposes of our equity incentive plans are to attract, retain and reward personnel through the granting of stock-based compensation awards in order to increase stockholder value and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives. ​ Corporate Information ​ We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in July 2012. Our principal executive offices are located at 640 Lee Road, Suite 200, Wayne, PA 19087. Our telephone number is (484) 324-7933. Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “ACRS.” ​ Available Information ​ Our internet website address is www.aclaristx.com. In addition to the information contained in this Annual Report, information about us can be found on our website. Our website and information included in or linked to our website are not part of this Annual Report. ​ Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act are available free of charge through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. The SEC also maintains a website that contains our reports, proxy and information statements and other information. The address of the SEC’s website is www.sec.gov. ​ 20 Table of Contents